« Love to Debate | Main | Farmer Pulls Up Roots for More Fertile Ground »
December 31, 2005
Digesting Paper
We've been lucky. {Knocks on hard rock maple} The boy hasn't been prone to putting things into his mouth. It's a silver lining to the whole eating struggle, so I'll take it. Lately, though, he's found one substance too tempting for even his finicky texture palate: paper. I've tried explaining all about the bleaches, dyes, fetid wood pulp and so on, but he just shrugs and chirps merrily along with the full intention of ingesting the next scrap that happens to fall below the childproofing threshold.
Along those lines, get your bowl and your spork, and let's dive into today's Chattanooga Times Free Press. It's the last one of the year, you know.
The blogworthy editorial is (on the) right at the top. Titled "Bullish on Chattanooga," it points to recent construction numbers as positive indicators for a great 2006 here. I thank the Free Press editor for toasting progress and forecasting growth. Let's grow responsibly.
Councilwoman Sally "Free Speech Zone" Robinson's district covers much of the North Shore, but I think Moccasin Bend is in Linda Bennett's area. Regardless, Ms. Robinson predicted development at the National Park to be a "catalyst for the kind of visitor-based economy we've developed." (B5) In the same article, Enterprise South is called a top issue for local officials in 2006. (Metro) I'd say "yeah."
An announcement I figured was coming when Election Commissioner Mike Walden got his name dropped from the Sheriff race buzz finally got pre-announced today: Sheriff Cupp is expected to run for re-election. (Metro) His Republican primary mates will likely not budge an inch. There seems to be a history of former chief deputies vying for the top job; and it makes sense, as Sheriff is a very alpha-male type of position. (Apologies to the couple dozen or so female sheriffs.)
Make sure you read Mike Weber's front-page story on lobbyists' campaign contributions. That's one area of disclosure that Tennessee law already covers; but if you'll remember, a 2005 CTFP story noted the huge differences in what lobbyists have reported contributing and what legislators have reported receiving. Less of the former, more of the latter, in case you forgot. Then again, it's probably confusion's fault. Who is supposed to know, really, that when you take money from a bagman, when that money is a campaign contribution (Ulysses Jones, Jeff Miller); an intake of cash for to gamble (Lois DeBerry); or, uh, whatever else (Kathryn Bowers, William Cotton, Ward Crutchfield, Roscoe Dixon, John Ford, Michael Hooks, Charles Love, Barry Myers, Chris Newton)?
Speaking of disclosure, I'm going to take this last opportunity in 2005 to pout about not getting an elected public disclosure commission out of this whole ethics schmadoodle. Instead, we have an "independent" ethics commission (as independent as powerful politicians' hand-picked toadies can be) that will try to enforce more regulation (as opposed to a simplified full disclosure mandate) that still has loopholes. (And some of which could come close to violating the First Amendment.) Why don't we just audit the process and let it work, and audit the auditors as well, through the ballot? For the last time (this year), people must be informed participants in a democratic republic, else the result is a sullied shadow, and a mockery.
Whew. That feels better. I'm glad I read the paper. Time to feed the boy.
Political News | By joe lance | 12:17 PM