"Gun Free" Courthouse

In a story the other day the Oak Ridger revisits the "gun free" debate concerning our local Courthouse security.

Recent events have caused a lot of people to review and question standard practices across the country when it comes to security in places once thought safe. One question being debated is should we arm the professor's at college campuses? Eugene Volokh has a thought provoking post on that very thing and this might also apply on our own little debate about courthouse security. Instapundit seems to cut to the heart of the mater -

"Gun-free zones" are premised on a fantasy: That murderers will follow rules, and that people like my student, or Bradford Wiles, are a greater danger to those around them than crazed killers like Cho Seung-hui. That's an insult. Sometimes, it's a deadly one. "

It would seem that some leadership here in town believe wholeheartedly in that fantasy and continue to ignore history. I've often heard it said that to continue to do the same things over and over and expect a different outcome is the definition of "crazy." One common denominator in these kinds of crimes is the fact that they have all taken place in a legal "gun free, no weapons" zone. Haven't heard of something like this happening down at the local police or sheriff's office. Do you think the fact that almost everyone there has a weapon and might shoot back could have something to do with why more deranged people don't pick those places as the places for their infamy?

Our Commission Chairman is in favor of keeping guns out of the courthouse pointing to this case as even more reason to keep them out. He does not think "more guns in public … will not prevent a deranged person who obviously does not care for his own or anyone elses welfare from carrying out an awful attack."

Well I must admit he is correct more guns will not prevent a deranged person from carrying out an awful attack but the resulting carnage and slaughter of innocence people might be mitigated considerably if this deranged person ran into an armed citizen somewhere along the line.

"In fact, some mass shootings have been stopped by armed citizens. Though press accounts downplayed it, the 2002 shooting at Appalachian Law School was stopped when a student retrieved a gun from his car and confronted the shooter. Likewise, Pearl, Miss., school shooter Luke Woodham was stopped when the school's vice principal took a .45 from his truck and ran to the scene. In February's Utah mall shooting, it was an off-duty police officer who happened to be on the scene and carrying a gun."

In typical old school thinking of abdicating one's personal responsibility for their safety to someone else the Chairman goes on to state that -

"We need trained law enforcement officers to respond to cases like this. We do not need more weapons carrying citizens who might have had a few hours of firearm safety training and could make a bad situation even worse."

The Commissioner suggests that only a response from law enforcement authorities is the proper response thereby making us all potential victims to some deranged person intent on mass killing. Just as a side note, I believe that in every case trained law enforcement officers have responded as fast and efficiently as possible to these type things in the past. They responded to evacuate the wounded, count the dead and bag the criminal who usually has committed suicide by this time, because those bent on doing something like this usually don't do it in front of someone with a gun. Get it? Someone with a gun.

The Commissioner in an appeal to most people's fear of guns insinuates that citizens with guns are under-trained in their use. His opinion notwithstanding he offers no support for this statement and I would hazard to say that a lot of those that feel comfortable carrying a weapon have spent as much time at a firing range as your average law enforcement officer. It is illogical to hold that limited training is less than no training and yet the law allows judges who aren't required to have any training at all carry a weapon at all times. I guess in typical politician fashion it's one of those "the rules are for you but not for me" deals.

I'm not suggesting that citizens should be allowed to carry arms around any courtroom nor am I suggesting that citizens should be allowed to carry guns onto school ( k-12) property. But the fact is that laws are made for the law abiding not the crazies that have a deathwish agenda. It should also be obvious that if more places allowed legally permitted citizens the right to carry then the carnage in these instances may have been stopped sooner. But obviously with leadership stuck in old school mentality trying to address changing dynamics it won't be long before something like this happens again because some people are still stuck on stupid.

Reading 101

Surfing around the net I ran across this interesting list of recommended reading for freshmen and sophmore college students, by way of Hugh Hewitt. How many have you read on the list? Me ? Not many unfortunately. I guess it is never too late to begin. I think I've found my list of reading for the next year or two or three.

Ethical Government?

According to the Oak Ridger in the wake of the Tennessee Waltz fiasco every local government must have an ethics policy in place by June 30th 2007 and the county commission should get their draft proposal before the next meeting.

"Under the guidelines any official or employee with the responsibility to vote on a matter in which he or she could financially gain from the action, or if another person could infer that the official or employee could stand to financially gain, he or she should disclose this before action is taken and should abstain from voting on a matter. This also pertains to people who are not voting on a matter but whose job or position would cause them to "exercise discretion" in the matter - such as awarding a contract, managing or supervising another person. In that case the official or employee should fill out a disclosure form. "

This should really be interesting during budget votes. Especially if they include not only immediately family but extended family.

Delving deeper we see under this policy a 16 member Ethics Commission would be established and all complaints must be filed in writing and submitted to this commission where they will investigate in a timely manner. Ok lets see who is on this commission charged with ensuring ethical government.

"The 16 would include the county mayor or his designee; the County Commission Chairman or his designee; the county clerk, the circuit court clerk, clerk and master, director of schools, highway superintendent or their designees; a judge, property assessor, register of deeds, sheriff, trustee or their designee; another member of the commission and a member of Anderson County Board of Education or their designees; and someone appointed by the county mayor and another appointed by the county commisison and the ombudsman, which is the law director."

Now does anyone really believe that a 16 member ethics commission will have any impact on local government ethics let alone the fact that is it filled with politicians and cronies of politicians. Realistically they won't be able to establish a meeting date and have a quorum most times with the number of members this commission comprises.

What I found to be hilariously funny is that the members of this committee are the ones most likely to have ethical complaints files against them. So I am to believe that politicians or their cronies will honestly, and without partiality investigate ethical complaints files against other politicians or their employees. Oh yeah this is a plan; let's put politicians in charge of policing politician's ethics, what could be better. What is surprising is that there hasn't been an uproar from our media about this but I guess they are too busy pushing other agendas.

Schools First

Governor Breseden brave walk into the lion’s den at Jefferson Middle School in Oak Ridge to promote his "modest" 40 cents a pack cigarette tax increase for the children. Oops I mean "critical but currently unmet needs in public education." To a packed crowd of partisan stakeholders the Governor received applause and affirmations for his support of increasing taxes in support of “Schools First.”

"The revenue generated will be invested directly into classrooms statewide."

And at the end of the meeting his banter with a politician was to raise it a dollar or two a pack. Nothing like politicians loving them some free money, especially when you can raise it on the backs of evil tobacco users. But a funny thing happened on the way to the state houses the bill being presented doesn't say that the money is dedicated to schools only that it will be directed to the general fund. Yeah I know minor point.

"We all know how important a quality education is to our children, and everything I'm hearing from local officials is that we need these funds. Educating our children and putting schools first is important work. As long as I'm governor, it will be Tennessee's No. 1 priority."

He wants to put a couple hundred million into education and an increase in the tax is how he wants to pay for it. Funny how we need these funds and the only way to pay for these needed funds is with a tax increase. I think there maybe other ways to funded this need.

Here is something interesting.

"Since 2002, tax revenues have grown by a tremendous 39%. With such revenue growth, it shouldn’t be difficult to put “schools first” if schools are truly the Governor’s priority. In fact, the Republican proposal to put "schools first" by funding the education budget before all other expenditures would truly do just that.

Tennessee’s low cigarette tax attracts purchasers from six of the eight states that border her. If enacted, Tennessee’s cigarette tax will be higher than all eight. "

With Tennessee's borders all within a short driving distance of most can anyone say "tax leakage?" I mean everyone in Oak Ridge and Anderson County should be familiar with that particular phase. Assuming that our cigarette costs are lower than the other eight states now how much of a tax loss will we see as those who have been buying here now buy at home and those from Tennessee start buying out of state? Is this a way for the Governor to institute a program and then when the funding dries up start calling for a state income tax?

"We know the cigarette tax is an unreliable and declining source of revenue. If the Governor truly wants to put "schools first", why is he putting them last by hinging their future on a tax increase instead of using the natural revenue growth that we have been experiencing? Why does he seek to put "schools first" by depending on an unreliable, declining and undedicated source of revenue like the cigarette tax? Why not support the Republican proposal to put "schools first" by establishing the education budget first before funding other needs? Why should our children’s future depend on the continued poor health habits of others?

As the administration’s own figures show, this year’s tax growth at over $439 million in recurring funds, and an additional $500 million in non-recurring funds, is more than enough money to put "schools first". These figures are expected to increase after the funding board meets on May "

I can't really blame all those people that showed up for the Governor's townhall meeting in Oak Ridge for their kneejerk reaction of support but you would think that with all those educated souls someone would raise a question as to why we are funding it with a declining source of revenue and ask why we aren't funding those critical education needs now with existing growth in tax revenue coming to the state. I think those are legitimate questions that need to be answered before we start increasing taxes on a declining source of revenue.

Gotta Have Some Smarts

Sometimes you just have to wonder what our elected officials do in Nashville. Once again some inane elected official is trying to push a bill at the state that requires a high school education before you can be elected to any city or county office, which is really a more stringent qualification than for governor or state elected official.

"I think people want to know that their elective officials have some education. This is a way to assure that they do," said Rep. William Baird, R- Jacksboro, sponsor of the measure, HB 666. "We should have a better-quality field of candidates."

It should be obvious from the above statement that educational level attained by an individual is no indicator of intelligence. Obviously the voters in your district should have a better choice preferably someone that spends time on issues that are important rather than wasting time and effort on the inane. I would think that a man's character is far more important than his highest level of educational attainment. Sadly most of our elected officials have a high level of educational attainment but lack the character level necessary to be leaders and it shows daily.

It seems some have a different take on it - Department-of-un-education

No Brains?

In today's Oak Ridger we see another clueless leader jumping on any proposal that might fulfill their thrist for cash.

"Bredesen, a Democrat, wants to raise the cigarette tax from 20 cents to 60 cents per pack and use the bulk of the projected $219 million in new revenue on education programs.

Oak Ridge Schools Superintendent Thomas Bailey endorsed Bredesen's plan as a "no brainer," and questioned why the cigarette tax proposal hasn't gained more bipartisan support.

Well gee I think I can come with a number of reasons why there isn't more bipartisan support. One reason could be that most people don't think raising taxes is the answer to every problem that comes along. I would hazard another reason it hasn't gained more bipartisan support is the fact the money generated by this new tax is already available in the surplus tax revenue the state has every year. It could also be the fact that this money that Mr. Bailey is so anxious to get his hands on isn't even earmarked for education as it goes in the general fund where it might be spent on education this year but next year who knows.

Members of the Bartlett-Cordova Rotary Club told Gov. Phil Bredesen they'd support his proposed cigarette-tax hike -- as long as the money it generates goes specifically for education.
They claimed that without an assurance that the projected $219 million will actually go into classrooms, the funds could end up in the wrong hands.

Bredesen, who spoke to the group in Cordova Thursday, says he's open to compromise.
"I don't think earmarking is necessarily the right answer, but if that's what it takes to get this, then I'm certainly fine with it," Bredesen said following the luncheon at the Colonial Country Club.

Another reason that this may not be gaining so much bipartisan support is the fact that not all of the new revenue is even considered for education just the bulk of this new tax revenue stream. What other priorities does Mr. Bredesen have for this extra money? If Mr. Bredesen has such a high priority for education one would think that he would use all new revenue from this three fold tax increase for education but evidently Mr. Bredesen has other priorities. According to this commentary Mr. Bredesen has a lot more priorities than education.

The Administration’s budget spends money on frivolities like building a planetarium, subsidizing state-owned golf courses, promoting organic farming and footing the bill for TennCare recipients to enroll in Weight Watchers. There’s even $123 million in corporate welfare giveaways for well-connected businesses and a $61 million pork project to research prairie grass.

Not only is Mr. Bredesen looking at raising cigarette taxes three fold his wife is touring the state trying to limit smoking in all public buildings and work places, wanting people to quit smoking. So if she succeeds and people do stop smoking what happens when the tax money dries up? Has the governor considered the cigarette tax leakage that will occur when taxes rise too high?

Our governor loves his taxes as he is also pushing an increase in the gas tax with the threats of Tennesseans facing toll roads if he doesn't get his money, while at the same time his administration is diverting gas tax moneys that they already receive to other priorities in state government.

We won't mention last year's tax surplus of $411 million dollars that has been spent or wasted on pet projects by the governor and legislators nor will we mention that this year's surplus is projected to be even greater. How will it be spent? On more pork barrel projects for select friends and businesses? Makes you wonder don't it.

I guess this would be a good time to also remind the governor and our legislators that a tax surplus isn't really a surplus to be spent on pet projects to maintain power or reward friends and associates, it's over taxation of the citizens. That is right, what it comes down too is that we are over paying the government for services received, giving them too much money and you know what happens when government has too much money, they find ways to spend it. I have a novel idea… GIVE IT BACK.

In typical fashion our leaders jump to support any plan that holds out the hope for more money because it's easy to demand more money through taxation especially when it's a twofer: a sin tax and "for the children." Hopefully not all the sheepel are as easily mislead as Mr. Bailey's "no brainer."

I suggest that unless this tax increase is coupled with a same size reduction in the sales tax on food I am against it. Especially when one realizes that too keep the sales tax on food while increasing the cigarette tax is a double whammy on those that can least afford it.

Target Acquisition -

Personally I'm ambivalent about this whole retail project but watching from the sidelines trying to sort through the name calling I've become more than a little confused. At first it was absolutely necessary that this thing get done I believe by April the first. No ifs ands or buts about it. Had to have a contract signed, city had to borrow 10.5 million dollars and it all had to be done NOW. Don't have time for discussion or review we've done all that and you should just trust us cause this is not only the best deal but only deal we have on the table and if you're against this deal then what deal are you presenting.

Then when a ground swell of disapproval arises and petition gathers begin filling the city streets, this drop dead date vanishes and a new drop dead date magically appears for sometime after the vote. Curious.

So I believe one can rightly question that if it was that easy to extend the date it would seem that council, staff, IDB and Chamber did themselves and the citizens no favors attempting to rush this project through with little discussion. The fact that the date was so easily moved after the fact is troubling on it's face when every leader stated this had to be done in a short time frame or it wouldn't get done. I don't want to hear about how generous the developer is to extend the date either as he could have been just as generous in the beginning. In my opinion the call for a referendum is just a typical reaction to insufficient explanations and too many questions left unanswered and the insistent need to rush. Regardless if the project has merit or not, it is obvious that the rush to do something was non existent and it now seems that council, chamber, IDB and other leaders were using a non existing drop dead date to bum rush a decision through before the citizens really had time to comprehend the cost vs benefits or raise questions about the deal. The blame if there is any lies at the doorstep of these supposed leaders and most certainly council, city manager, IDB and Chamber for attempting to rush this through to a vote.

Speaking of rushing, at first the city's portion was 10.5 million dollars and maybe less if the county kicks in on the deal. Then it was reported in the paper that maybe 6 million dollars will be the magic number. Now 3 million dollars is being tossed out as the magic do all number. Gees at this rate by the time a June vote is taken they will be paying Oak Ridger's just for voting. Which come to think of it sounds pretty good.

It would seem that if nothing else those (insert your own derogatory name if your on the pro side or complimentary name if your on the referendum side) call for a referendum has had the positive effect of reducing the city and county's capital investment in this project from 10.5 million to around 3 million now, if I can believe any of the numbers being tossed around. I still don't understand why those numbers keep falling or changing or how this deal is structured and I'm not sure I would trust either side's information at this point, but it does make one question the rational of rushing to do a deal, when in just a few weeks alone the cost has been reduced by 7.5 million dollars. That kind of money funds a lot of other things including wish lists of schools, city employees and many others.

Honestly the more each side fills the air with numbers, scenarios and name calling the more I see are hardening of positions where there is little attempt in persuading the other side. Yes there will be a vote but I fear the harm has already been done for years to come regardless of which side prevails in the end.

Let's go a Waltzing

Are you aware of this desire to widen Safety Lane using taxpayers money? The County Mayor wants to spend taxpayer’s money to widen Safety Lane which just happens to end at a church’s parking lot.

I remember when he and the previous property owner came before commission asking for an easement across county property spinning a tale of possible commercial development on this land because the owner had a buyer knocking on the door.

Commission in its unquenchable thirst for tax dollars was only too happy to grant said easement when they were told about possible commercial development and the increase in property taxes and sales taxes that could be coming. Oh wow, free money, sure here is an easement, glad to do business hurry and get that commercial retail up so we can start collecting.

No sooner had the paperwork been completed on the easement and the buyer took possession of the property the truth came out. The new owners immediately took the property off the tax rolls and no new sales taxes would be forth coming as churches don't pay property or sales taxes. Any guesses as to who is a member in good standing of said church? Yeah didn't think it would be too hard for you. So now his minions are pushing to widen Safety Drive at tax payer expense. I guess with only two lanes it causes the preacher, deacons and him to miss the first seating at the restaurant.

Oh and speaking of ethical actions wasn't there this entire hullabaloo about ethics at the state level when the FBI stung a few of our Senators and Representatives. Didn’t this cause all kinds of calls for more open government and transparent actions? Wasn’t there new laws passed and rules about opening government to great oversight? Now it comes to light that that County and City of Oak Ridge are pushing for a private act “for more closed door power”. For those that have been asleep like me for a while let's review for a minute. A few months ago there was a big to do about a local contractor not receiving the bid because of poor bid specs from the county purchasing agent. The county mayor and purchasing agent went to commission to get them to approve awarding the bid to the higher bidder in a transparent attempt to shift responsibility to commission for a decision that was certainly unethical if not illegal. Unsurprisingly some of our commissioner’s voice support for the idea of giving the bid to the higher local bidder regardless of the consequences. They would have done so too if not for the fact the county attorney told them in no uncertain terms that if they did award the bid to the higher bidder they could expect to be sued by the lower bidder and that bidder would prevail in court.

Now we find that the county purchasing agent along with the purchasing agent from Oak Ridge have come before commission pushing a private bill at the state legislature that "would keep particular bid proposals from the public eyes until the purchasing agents deem otherwise." Now does anyone besides me see how this could lead to corruption and malfeasance of our public officials?

This is a bad idea and commission should squash it immediately. The excuses given in support of this measure fails the smell test. This is just another example of our county mayor’s ethical lapses. Don’t you think he would love nothing more than to close the door to the public and award bids to cronies and supporters. Let’s not forget that the county mayor, school board member and this purchasing agent gave a bid to higher bidder against the rules and almost the cost the county school system half a million dollars in federal funds and we are expected to trust them behind closed doors awarding bids? I don’t think so Scooter.

No Fear?

Was there some earth shattering news or happenings recently that I missed that caused the county judges to wake up one morning and all become afraid of the boogeyman? Gees I don’t guess these four will be wearing any “No Fear” t shirts and they sure aren’t in line for the ”AIn’t Scared” ones either. The only proposal for almost a half a million dollars doesn't make anyone any safer in the courthouse. With each passing day I am reminded that if not for the short memories of the voters we could have real leaders.

Here's a novel idea, forget trying to make the court house secure as every idea presented only frustrates the citizens and offers no real protection or solution to the problem, including the stupid gun ban pushed by some commissioners this year. Stop screwing around and build a justice center next to the jail for all the courts and be done with all this nonsense. It is now costing the taxpayers an additional $60,000 a year just to hold court in Oak Ridge. I'm not convinced that security was or is a problem in that court as much as there was a desire for new digs to keep up with the downtown "Jones".

On Target

IMMM backkkkkk. Don’t know for how long but there are a couple of things going on that beg for comment.

First up is this "Target" super duper shopping center proposal in Oak Ridge. Does anyone else enjoy the food fight going on in Oak Ridge between the sides? Whether you're for or against you've got to admit that it is fun watching the debate to decide if Oak Ridge should gamble with city monies one more time in the hopes of hitting the big one. Really someone should charge for the entertainment value of watching Oak Ridger’s call each other names and trade insults.

Does it come as a surprise that the leadership and the newspaper have come down in support of this "sure thing," of a money maker? Call me a cynic but why does that sound familiar? Aren't these the same players making the same promises as in the past? Remind again, how did that work out for us?