I read Terry’s editorial yesterday regarding the proposal to make adoption laws more restrictive. I found her piece very sound and convincing in its focus on the children’s best interest.
The good folks at the Tennessean have put together a spread with varying opinions on the issue of adoption in the state of Tennessee. The debate centers on legislation offered by Sen. Paul Stanley and Rep. John DeBerry.
You can read my piece here and if you look to the right, you’ll see links to opposing views as well as reader views that were published as part of the debate.
Forsaking the best interest of children, not only have we culturally caved to the desires of adults but we’ve enshrined such narcissism in law.
Sen. Paul Stanley and Rep. John DeBerry seek to undo damaging policies by wisely offering to restrict adoption to married couples.
Again, you can read the rest here.
Limiting me to 500 words was a challenge! Thanks to the Tennessean for the opportunity to express my opinion! I encourage you to thank them as well for including a host of perspectives.
Senator Stanley’s website is here.
If you agree with Senator Stanley and Rep. DeBerry’s legislation as I do, be sure to write or call your them or your own State Rep. or Senator.
Barack Obama’s supporters voted for change. I just don’t think the change they got was the change they had in mind.
In another area of stark contrast with the predecessor administration, we are now witnessing one of the sloppiest cabinet filling efforts in recent memory. One has to go all the way back to Bill Clinton’s tax-evading cadre of attorney general nominees to get remotely close, and that was a sublimely professional effort compared to what we are seeing out of the nubile Obama administration.
Count ‘em. We are now up to four in the illustrious category of nominees to Obama’s cabinet who have had tax problems. Labor secretary nominee Hilda Solis is now on ice
A Senate committee today abruptly canceled a session to consider President Obama’s nomination of Rep. Hilda Solis to be labor secretary in the wake of a report saying that her husband yesterday paid about $6,400 to settle tax liens against his business — liens that had been outstanding for as long as 16 years.
The problem here, at least in my view, is not so much that Solis’ husband had some rather antique tax liens hanging around, but that the Obama administration’s vetting process has revealed itself to be decidedly incompetent. Or, more accurately, arrogant, which really is just a subform of incompetence.
Tom Daschle chaueferred himself out of the running for Health and Human Services, but that was only after the new Treasury secretary Timothy Geither, who also owed back taxes, had been confirmed. Nancy Killefer, the nominee for Chief Compliance Officer (whatever that is), also withdrew her nomination after it was revealed that she had not paid District of Columbia payroll taxes.
So what’s the deal? Why are so many of Obama’s nominees having tax issues? And why was Barack Obama initially ignoring questions about why so many of his nominees have a hobby of tax evasion?
In an interview with Brian Williams, Obama did address the latter question, but in a most troubling fashion
President Barack Obama acknowledged Tuesday that he had “made a mistake” in trying to exempt some candidates for positions in his administration from strict ethics standards and accepted the withdrawal of two top nominees, including former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, the first major setback of his young presidency.
It is clear the Obama administration knew about the tax issues of Obama’s nominees, but just didn’t care. The back taxes owed by Daschle came to light on Friday, but the administration stood silent, content to let the process continue, just as it did with Geither. It was Daschle himself who chose to withdraw his nomination from consideration. In short, the Obama administration has willfully and systematically dismissed back tax issues for its nominees as inconsequential. They not only chose nominees with known tax debts, but then didn’t show an ounce of leadership when those tax problems became public.
The message is clear, no matter how earnestly the president employs Newspeak rhetoric in a vain attempt to muddle it – there are two sets of rules, one for us, and one for them. If they truly believed there was one set of rules, the administration would have taken it upon itself to weed out the tax-encumbered nominees from the process, but they didn’t – and that speaks volumes.
Nathan Moore is a Nashville criminal defense and civil rights attorney and co-author of the blog MooreThoughts.com with his wife, Sarah.
Promoted from Bear Creek Ledger.
When is the price of power too high? When does it take over the soul? These questions were answered Tuesday, January 13th in the Tennessee House of Representatives.
The name of Kent Williams is now well known. The East Tennessean, one term Republican, rose to fame by deceiving his fellow colleagues and then pulling a fast one. He made a deal with the opposition and voted for himself for Speaker of the House thus depriving his party of the majority.
We are not really surprised by the Democrats. This behavior is now in the DNA of their party. The party of Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd, William Jefferson, and ACORN. Lest we say that there is no difference between the political parties, that all politicians are the same. Remember Mark Foley, the Florida Congressman who wrote inappropriate e-mails to a young aide? He was gone by week’s end. Ousted by the Republican party. Republicans purge. Democrats promote.
The practices of the national Democrat party has filtered down to Tennessee. They found a weak link in Kent Williams and the carrot ( or was it an apple) was just too appealing. He is now Speaker of the House. Does he have the respect of the Republicans? Do the Democrats trust him? Character does matter. It shows the measure of the man and Mr. Williams has come up short.
We Republicans will recover and if we hold fast to our basic convictions, a true majority will be achieved. The Democrat’s power is slipping and they know it. Deceit is now synonymous with the name Democrat. The party that so many good and responsible Democrats are holding to, is gone. Until they recognize this, their party will continue down this destructive path taking the country and state closer to socialism.
Is the price of power too high yet?
Well, Teddy Bart joins the blogsphere, bringing his experience IN and ON the media, world affairs, and the Nashville politic.
He is a trusted source that I have depended on as a young and now aging adult seeking to find the deeper reasons why to the current happenings from Nashville to the Middle East.
Please give his site a look and you, like me, will become hooked.
An e-mail received this morning….
I am joining the billions of bloggers on the internet. Each Monday I will post a new blog on the home page of my web site, www.teddybart.com.My blogs will be my point of view on contemporary issues. Your feedback and suggestions are welcome.I have just posted my remarks offered at the funeral of Nashville broadcasting legend, Jud Collins.
Sincerely, Teddy
a word from Teddy…
In response to several requests, I am posting below the remarks I made at the funeral of veteren broadcaster, Jud Collins, on January 2, 2009.
There was a Broadway show in the ‘50’s called “Mr. Wonderful.” It was about a performer and his mentor. There is a song in that show titled “Without You I’m Nothing.” The opening lines of that song goes like this: “How does one man say to another, things he’d tall his dad or his brother. I can think of one way not any other: I love you. Honest I do.”
I loved Jud Collins. I never would have made it without him. In 1970, when he retired from Channel 4, he lobbied hard for me to replace him as host of the Noon Show. Some people at the top thought the job should go to someone else. Jud wouldn’t give in. Eventually Jud won, and I took over the show—and all good things came to me from that.
I’ll never for get the day ten years earlier when he hired me. A friend set up an audition for me as a singer on the Noon Show. My wife Jana came with me to the studio. She was eight months very much pregnant. When I finished singing my song, Jud came out of the control room laughing his head off. I thought I had failed. He put his hand on my shoulder and said, “Son, anyone who would pick that song with his wife sitting there as pregnant as she is deserves a break. The song I had sung was called, “It Could Happen to You.”
Continue…
I state the obvious in today’s post regarding the Tennessean’s claim of news neutrality.
This falls under the category…Uh Huh…I can believe that….Not!
It is all too clear, through their use of article selection, content, tone, headlines, and even story placement, that the Tennessean editorializes throughout their entire product AND NOT JUST IN THE EDITORIAL SECTION.
Editorial board offers only its opinion
Those of you who maintain that The Tennessean’s editorial page positions influence news coverage might consider recent pieces on the bailout for the U.S. auto industry.
In a strongly worded opinion piece, the editorial board made clear its position that the nation — and our government — cannot afford to let General Motors and Chrysler fail. The message was don’t make scapegoats out of American workers and the overall economy for a situation largely beyond their control.
Three days later, columnist Gail Kerr took the United Auto Workers union to task for rejecting a compromise proposed by U.S. Sen. Bob Corker that sought some concessions from the union. Her suggestion to the workers: Give something back to save jobs.
Those were two different takes on the same story — and another clear example that our editorial board offers opinions and suggestions on its own; its views in no way influence news coverage or the opinions of news columnists.
Standing apart from the editorial board and Kerr is Chambers Williams, our reporter who covers the auto industry and other manufacturing issues.
Williams has covered the auto industry for 20 years and his work is nationally known.
Since he works out of Nashville and not Detroit or Washington, his reporting on the bailout has focused largely on the reaction to the debate from local autoworkers and other industry figures. It matters not to Williams whether the editorial board approves or disapproves of the bailout or whether our signature news columnist agrees or disagrees with the UAW’s position. Chambers has reported on the possible impact of various scenarios on workers’ lives and on the future business of both foreign and domestic automakers in our part of the country.
Each has a role
The editorial board, Williams and his editors, and Kerr and her editor typically don’t know what the others are planning to write. They have their own roles.
That’s why you have seen many different takes on the issue in The Tennessean.
Williams has some interesting insights into the mess. He maintains strong sources in the U.S. companies and is well aware of the background. My eight years in Detroit exposed me to some of those same sources, and Williams and I were comparing notes.
What’s ironic, Williams said, is that General Motors had been making progress toward producing vehicles that truly meet drivers’ needs in recent years. From the Chevy Malibu to the Cadillac CTS, a number of the company’s cars are clearly on a par with imports in similar segments.
But GM’s big problems are that it has too many brands, too many models and too many factories. It still suffers from an image of poor quality that it has largely outgrown. And its labor contracts have placed it at a competitive disadvantage with the imports for years.
And yes, all of those issues should have been addressed by the GM management long ago.
And yes, the national recession that has destroyed profits and killed jobs in almost all areas of our economy has killed any progress that GM and Chrysler might have made.
But as you make up your mind on the bailout, consider this:
In addition to the GM and Chrysler workers who stand to lose, the imports might feel some pain as well.
Here’s one example: The companies use many of the same parts suppliers as do Nissan, Toyota and other imports. If the suppliers are seriously hurt by a failed or bankrupt GM and Chrysler, some of that pain may be felt by the Nissans of the world as well.
Finally, consider the tangential impact of a GM or Chrysler bankruptcy. What happens to the people who work in the industry but not directly for the companies — such as employees at auto dealerships? What happens to those who work for uniform companies and restaurants near plants? What happens to the tax revenue that the companies, their plants and their suppliers produce — revenue that helps to pay for education, police protection and other vital services?
My point here is not to defend or to criticize the auto bailout.
It is to suggest that this is a complicated story with no simple solutions.
And that’s why focusing on news reporting is as important as keeping track of divergent opinion pieces.
They all bring clarity to the situation — and we need them all
Promoted from Terry Frank’s Frankly Speaking.
Tom Humphrey reports today (and he was first on it yesterday, too) that our Republican leaders in the House are all about promoting unity.
NASHVILLE – In their only contested race for a top House leadership position, Republicans on Monday chose the candidate who stressed party unity over one who stressed conservative credentials.
Party unity? My arse.
Unity behind what? Policy? Principle? Or Jason Mumpower living out a Tennessee edition of Machiavelli?
The “no deal” deal that was worked out and hammered home by Mumpower and Glen Casada no doubt ensured Mumpower was the official Speaker nominee. These leaders twisted arms and pressured Republicans to stick with the self-serving McDaniels over State Representative Frank Nicely.
Nicely offered himself as a candidate for the Speaker Pro-Tempore position and bless him for doing so.
McDaniel symbolizes all that went wrong with Republicans at the national level. Pro tax increases–you name ‘em, he was for ‘em. Sales tax, gas tax, cigarette tax, income tax? He was for raising them all.
Right around this time in 1998 I remember getting together with some of our local elected officials, Chip Saltsman, and Steve McDaniel. We all met for breakfast to talk politics and roads here in Anderson County. As we were heading in to the restaurant, I begged Representative McDaniel not to go forward with plans for a state income tax. Sundquist had quickly gone back on his word and talk of the tax had already spread across the state before session had even begun.
Very, very pregnant with my third son, I looked like a tick. I begged, “please, please don’t push an income tax.” I lobbied that it was the wrong policy. It would kill our party. And more.
McDaniel put his arm around me as we walked in and said something to the effect of, ”Sweetheart, we’ve just got to. We’ve got an economic crisis and there’s really no other way.”
And so with Steve McDaniel as the bearer and believer of failing ideas and a horrible and checkered history of supporting Democrats, our GOP leader to be Rep. Mumpower rewards such incompetence and character with the 2nd most powerful position.
Of course, all that depends on officially holding together the votes come the big voting day.
Now, your naive GOP reps will tell you, “we had to vote for McDaniel to keep the squishies from bailing on us.”
Well allow me to correct them. Tennessee Chairman Robin Smith made it very clear that if you are Republican and you abandon the party on crucial votes such as leadership votes, then adios amigo. The Party Structure stands ready and willing to do the heavy lifting. The enforcing. (Example: like the Democrat Party with Kurita!)
Jason Mumpower believes no one cares if the 2nd in command actually sponsored the income tax legislation. But we do care, Rep. Mumpower. We do.
But Jason Mumpower wants to be Speaker NOW!!! He won’t call McDaniel’s bluff and isn’t willing to wait for party action!!
Maybe it will all work out. Maybe not. But I’m a Winston Churchill kind of gal. You stick with what you know is right even if it may not be popular or viewed as correct at the moment.
Shunning the leadership of someone like Frank Nicely who has consistently represented the values and policies of the grassroots Republican in favor of a big government, big taxing, wheeling-dealing Republican like McDaniel is definitely a step in our new Republican majority, but a step forward? I can’t make that claim.
As a friend of mine said yesterday, “a prostitute only loves you for the hour for which you’ve paid.” Ayep. If the fear that McDaniel would sell you out led you to twist arms and pressure votes for his role as Speaker Pro Temp, how on earth can you ever afford to keep him faithful?
It’s going to be an interesting session.
And who knows if someone will flip. Jimmy Naifeh is still alive and kicking. And he plays hardball. He drinks the hard stuff, not O’Douls.
Republicans made a pledge that they would all vote for a Republican. Is there one Republican who would run as Speaker and garner all the Democrat votes and maybe one fellow Republican? I mean come on. John Wilder put together a coalition in the Senate.
Or is there a Republican willing to flip and vote for a Democrat Speaker for risk of his wife getting the infamous manilla envelope?
Oh politics on the Hill isn’t just as easy as getting there and arguing for your legislation. It’s often nasty and brutish and unfortunately, our Republicans often bring knives to gunfights.
Here’s hoping for the best, for I’m really looking forward to seeing some actual CONSERVATIVE legislation finally get a fair hearing.
But the first steps have already begun from a position of weakness, that is, principles have already been compromised.
Promoted from John Norris’ Appalachian Scribe.
Lots of debate lately about the role of intellectuals in the conservative movement. Anyone who’s been paying attention has surely noted the movement’s swing in a more populist direction. Notably, we have Rush Limbaugh calling out intellectuals for daring criticize Sarah Palin and Tennessee GOP Chair Robin Smith bashing “intellectual snobs”.
Now, nothing I am about to say should be construed as an endorsement of everything intellectual. As Thomas Sowell points out, intellectuals have been wrong countless times over the years. But to imply that intellectuals have no place in the GOP is not the way to success.
It is ironic that conservatism has become so populist. This is a new phenomena. If you read the writings of conservative leaders of the past (William F. Buckley and Russell Kirk, for instance), you will find constant warnings about the dangers of excess democracy. Such concerns should not be surprising. Conservatism is at least partially rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition which teaches us that we live in a fallen world and that human nature is essentially bad. Believing this, why then should we believe in the infallibility of the masses?
If you are more secular, then you should also appreciate that conservatism is rooted in our founding documents and in the political ideals of our Founding Fathers. Our Founders did not give us a democracy; they gave us a republic (something most seem to have forgotten). If you read their writings, you again you will find warnings about the dangers of too much democracy. The conservative populist cannot find much support here either.
Still, if one wants to win elections, one must appeal to the common man. Albert Jay Nock and Russell Kirk are great, but it’s hard to build a winning campaign on pessimism. So some comprises must be made, and intellectual ideas must be made practical. We can debate about political philosophy until the cows come home, but, unless we win an election, we can do little about it. The Barry Goldwaters and Ronald Reagans of the world were able to put ideas into action, and helped move America rightward. Both conservative intellectuals and populists should be able to agree that this is a great thing.
So if the GOP is to win again, it must keep both its intellectuals and its populists. Yes, intellectuals can be snobbish and yes they are sometimes wrong, but ideas can only spring from thoughts. If a movement is to succeed, it must have new ideas.
