Category: Touchy Subjects

The things that should never be discussed much less published by non-professionals.

Posted on by — 13 Comments

Knox County Charter Amendments in Plain English

Upon examining the sample ballot from the General Election in Knox County, TN November 4, 2008, I found the questions of the Charter Amendments confusing. So I emailed the Election Commission and learned that they are not allowed to comment on the ballots. However, the County Law Director’s Office writes the questions so I called and spoke to a very kind and informative lawyer at the County Law Director’s Office. He also pointed me to today’s Knoxnews Editorial (which says vote yes to 3 and 4. I disagree.). The following is my interpretation of the Chart Amendment questions based upon his answers to my questions. Please see this earlier post or the sample ballot for the actual questions.

LIQUOR REFERENDUM

First we discussed the Liquor Referendum. There are not overreaching implications of this question. Either we want to be able to have liquor by the drink served in bars and restaurants in the county, just like we do in the city, or we don’t. It’s a very straight forward question.

COUNTY CHARTER AMENDMENT QUESTION 1

This is a housekeeping amendment to bring our county into conformance with state law. In short, the amendment says, "Amendments can be added to the ballot."

COUNTY CHARTER AMENDMENT QUESTION 2

This is also a housekeeping amendment. Apparently the current charter does not explicitly state how the composition of a Charter Review Committee (that is, who makes up the committee). I looked for the actual wording in the current charter but Google is failing me at the moment. So, as a matter of housekeeping, this question adds to the charter language that says:

a Charter Review Committee is "composed of 27 members with 1 member of the County Commission from each commission district to be nominated by the Commission, 9 non-commission members who are registered Knox County voters nominated by the Commission and 9 noncommission members who are registered Knox County voters nominated by the Knox County Mayor."

There is no hidden agenda or far overreaching implication.

COUNTY CHARTER AMENDMENT QUESTION 3

This question is actually two unrelated questions in one. The first half of the question is asking do we reduce the number of county commissioners from 19 to 11. Each commission district would be reduced from 2 representatives to 1. And 2 at-large commissioners who would serve county wide and not be bound to district. This is similar to the way the city government works. So if you feel the city’s representation of the people is effective, then that part of the question is a YES vote. If you feel the city’s government is ineffective, then that half of the question is a NO vote.

The second half of the question regards a nepotism policy which obviously prohibits family from supervising or influencing employment of a relative. It also says that no person drawing a paycheck from Knox County would be able to serve as a commissioner. For example, a Knox County school teacher could not also be a Knox County Commissioner.

This is a tough question simply because the first half has to weigh between less overhead in our county government versus less representation. And the second half has to do with eliminating the good ol’ boy network in our county government (again, my interpretation, not the County Law Director’s Office). However, you cannot vote NO to half and YES to the other half. Your vote is either FOR or AGAINST.

COUNTY CHARTER AMENDMENT QUESTION 4

Right now, the positions of County Trustee, County Clerk, Register of Deeds and County Law Director are all elected positions. If you live in the county, you get to vote for the people who hold those positions. This question proposes that those four positions will no longer be elected. Instead the Mayor will appoint those positions.

That’s it. To review and my recommendations:

  1. (YES) Housekeeping
  2. (YES) Housekeeping
  3. (NO) Two unrelated questions: a) reduce the number of commissioners b) Instate a nepotism policy
  4. (NO) Change 4 elected positions to positions appointed by the Mayor
Posted on by — 3 Comments

Looking forward to November 5

I’ve wondered in this political season how many people who enjoyed a particular blog quit reading because of that person’s support for a particular candidate. I feel this election is very important and as such I have been very outspoken in support of Barack Obama. I hope that has not driven people away who have enjoyed Reality Me in the past. Recently, Cathy and I upset, and ran off, one reader that we assumed was passing through and making brief comments on blogs supporting Obama. We forgot that the 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon taught us that all people are closely connected. In this case, our "passing" Republican was not a troll but a quiet reader of both our blogs who delurked for a political statement. I know this because it turns out she is a friend of my brother.

So, I’m looking forward to November 5, 2008, to cut back on some of the political posts and get back to the humor in life, some tech, pictures of my children, and news of the odd.

Blogging, at least mine, is an opinionated form of publishing that may be biased and at times without objectiveness. With its world-wide reach, the potential audience for a blog is huge. As such, the odds are someone is going to be disturbed, or offended. I can only hope that spurs some interesting conversations in comments and perhaps an opportunity to meet for coffee and discuss our differences. So if the Pro-Obamaness of Reality Me has driven you nuts, let’s have some coffee together and talk something other than politics. In the meantime, check out this great video from Obama!

And this transcription of his remarks in Canton, Ohio.

Posted on by — 2 Comments

Wassup!

Alright Youtube, I’m giving you another chance because this video is just plain funny and has a great end.

Its been eight long years since the boys said wassup to each other. Even with the effects of a down economy and imminent change in the White House, the boys are still able to come together and stay true to what really matters.

For reference, here is the original wassup commerical:

Posted on by — 5 Comments

Instead of Stacey Campfield…

Since we don’t want to vote for Stacey Campfield, and he is running unopposed, who should we write-in? I always do myself but wouldn’t it be cool to actually see a write-in candidate show up in the numbers? For that to happen, we would all have to write the same name. Feel free to write-in "Doug McCaughan" but I think maybe it should be an easier name and better qualified like "Randy Neal" (maybe we ask Randy first)

Posted on by — 5 Comments

County Charter Amendments in Plain English?

Update Oct 29, 2008: My interpretation is now posted. Click THIS LINK to read the explanation of the Charter Amendments as explained by the County Law Director’s Office. If you are looking for a quick answer and want to vote my decision, vote (1) Yes, (2) Yes, (3) No, and (4) No.

I was just looking over the Sample Ballot for the General Election in Knox County, TN November 4, 2008. There are 5 potentially confusing choices that may leave many voters guessing. Has anyone put the Charter Amendment questions and the Liquor Referendum into plain English?

The questions are:

COUNTY CHARTER AMENDMENT QUESTION 1
Question 1: Shall the Knox County Charter be amended as follows: The Knox County Charter Section 9.05 D is hereby amended to delete the phrase “Not more than sixty (60) days and not less than forty-five (45) days prior to the next general election next following its appointment” and to substitute the following language: “In accordance with Section 9.05E” and to delete only the first sentence of Section 9.06 E, and to substitute the following two sentences: Any and all proposed charter amendments to be submitted to the voters of the County shall be submitted to the Knox County Election Commission in accordance with state law. The County Election Commission shall submit any Charter amendments certified and delivered to it, in accordance with the provisions of this Section 9.05, to the voters of the county at the next regular State or County election following the delivery to the County Election Commission of the ordinance or petition proposing the amendment?

Update from explanation: This is a housekeeping amendment to bring our county into conformance with state law. In short, the amendment says, "Amendments can be added to the ballot."

COUNTY CHARTER AMENDMENT QUESTION 2
Question 2: Shall the Knox County Charter be amended as follows: Section 9.05 of the Knox County Charter dealing with the composition of and the selection process for the members of a Charter Review Committee is amended by deleting Subsections D. and E. in their entirety and substituting the following: D. Within certain prescribed time periods, but not less than every eight years, a Charter Review Committee will review this Charter to determine the need for amendments. The committee shall be composed of 27 members with 1 member of the County Commission from each commission district to be nominated by the Commission, 9 non-commission members who are registered Knox County voters nominated by the Commission and 9 noncommission members who are registered Knox County voters nominated by the Knox County Mayor. Only 2 noncommission members shall be nominated from each commission district. The Commission shall vote upon each nominee individually. If the nominee does not receive a majority of votes, then whoever nominated that nominee shall nominate someone new. E. Proposed Charter amendments shall be submitted to the Election Commission in accordance with state law?

Update from explanation: This is also a housekeeping amendment. Apparently the current charter does not explicitly state how the composition of a Charter Review Committee (that is, who makes up the committee). I looked for the actual wording in the current charter but could not find it. So, as a matter of housekeeping, this question adds that language to the charter.

COUNTY CHARTER AMENDMENT QUESTION 3
Question 3: Shall the Knox County Charter be amended [1] to reduce the number of commissioners elected by the people from nineteen (19) to eleven (11) so that each commission district will have only one (1) instead of two (2) elected representatives along with two (2) at-large commissioners elected in a County-wide vote so that seven Commission Seats shall be elected in the County primary and general election of 2010 for an initial extended term of six (6) years and every four (4) years thereafter while four (4) Commission Seats shall be elected in the County primary and general election of 2010 and every four (4) years thereafter; [2] to insure no person shall be eligible to serve as a member of the Commission who is employed in any other position by Knox County; [3] to adopt a nepotism policy prohibiting an elected or appointed official from recommending, supervising, or causing employment of his or her relative to an office or position of employment within Knox County government and; [4] to require elected or appointed officials to disclose, prior to voting, any conflict of interest in any matter and recuse him/herself from the discussion and/or vote on the matter?

Update from explanation: This question is actually two unrelated questions in one. The first half of the question is asking do we reduce the number of county commissioners from 19 to 11. Each commission district would be reduced from 2 representatives to 1. And 2 at-large commissioners who would serve county wide and not be bound to district. This is similar to the way the city government works. So if you feel the city’s representation of the people is effective, then that part of the question is a YES vote. If you feel the city’s government is ineffective, then that half of the question is a NO vote.

The second half of the question regards a nepotism policy which obviously prohibits family from supervising or influencing employment of a relative. It also says that no person drawing a paycheck from Knox County would be able to serve as a commissioner. For example, a Knox County school teacher could not also be a Knox County Commissioner.

This is a tough question simply because the first half has to weigh between less overhead in our county government versus less representation. And the second half has to do with eliminating the good ol’ boy network in our county government (again, my interpretation, not the County Law Director’s Office). However, you cannot vote NO to half and YES to the other half. Your vote is either FOR or AGAINST.

COUNTY CHARTER AMENDMENT QUESTION 4
Question 4: Shall the Knox County Charter be amended [1] to take away from the people the ability to vote for the County Trustee, County Clerk, and Register of Deeds by changing these elected offices to administrative offices appointed by the Mayor subject to Commission approval effective September 1, 2010; [2] to take away from the people the ability to vote for the County Law Director by changing this elected office to an office appointed by the Mayor, subject to Commission approval, and subject to removal by two-thirds of the Commission for fraud or malfeasance, effective September 1, 2012; [3] to give the Mayor the power, with Commission approval, to create or eliminate major departments of county government and to appoint all department directors, subject to removal for cause by two-thirds of the Commission; [4] eliminate the office of County Auditor and put in its place an Inspector General to be appointed by the Commission for a six (6) year term, effective September 1, 2010; and [5] adopt a conflict of interest policy requiring elected and appointed county officials to disclose their personal interest in any matter requiring an exercise of discretion and to recuse himself/herself from participating in the matter?

Update from explanation: Right now, the positions of County Trustee, County Clerk, Register of Deeds and County Law Director are all elected positions. If you live in the county, you get to vote for the people who hold those positions. This question proposes that those four positions will no longer be elected. Instead the Mayor will appoint those positions.

LIQUOR REFERENDUM
[ ]For legal sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises in Knox County.
[ ]Against legal sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises in Knox County.

Update from explanation: There are not overreaching implications of this question. Either we want to be able to have liquor by the drink served in bars and restaurants in the county, just like we do in the city, or we don’t.

To review and my recommendations:

  1. (YES) Housekeeping
  2. (YES) Housekeeping
  3. (NO) Two unrelated questions: a) reduce the number of commissioners b) Instate a nepotism policy
  4. (NO) Change 4 elected positions to positions appointed by the Mayor

Please post your thoughts in comments. I will be looking for an explanation online and possibly adding my own interpretation.

Michael Silence’s poll says the Amendments won’t pass.

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Despotism vs Democracy

Despotism is a form of government by a single authority, either an individual or tightly knit group, which rules with absolute political power. This 1946 Encylclopedia Britannica newsreel made to educate classrooms about political science explains:

If a community’s economic distribution becomes slanted, its middle income groups grow smaller and despotism stands a better change to gain a foothold. [Source, Despotism (1946), 4:40-4:51]

Another sign of a poorly balanced economy is a taxation system that presses heaviest on those least able to pay. A larger part of a small income is spent on necessities such as food. Sales taxes on such necessities hit the small income harder. In the days of the salt tax, feudal despotisms were partly sustained by this and other ?? [Source, Despotism (1946), 5:58-6:27]

Posted on by — Leave a comment

McCain’s Fallback Career – Comedian

McCain also got some good laughs at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner:

I haven’t found McCain’s closing yet although ABC has a 13 minute version of John’s performance but they don’t provide the ability to embed and the quality on my machine is painful to watch like ABC had their mics too hot. Be sure to watch Obama’s Fallback Career – Comedian.

Posted on by — 3 Comments

Today’s satire (was The most absurd thing I have read today)

Update:
Blogger rule #34- Never post prior to coffee.
Blogger rule #35- Never post while multitasking.
Blogger rule #71- Never post if after skimming an article you are not sure if it was satire or serious.
Blogger rule #3- Never post when your gut feeling says you are making a mistake (drafts are a good thing)

All that said, check out today’s satirical find at Patterico’s Pontifications. (after all, it was labeled humor as b-i-l points out) I misread it on my first pass. And my apologies to Jim Treacher and Patterico.

I try to read both sides so that I can understand the McCain supporters and to thoroughly appreciate all the issues. This statement is ridiculous:

James F. Treacher, Professor of Media Studies at Noesutch University, notes: "If Obama isn’t an evil, racist, fascist hatemonger of hateful hatred, why hasn’t he conceded the election?" [Source, Patterico’s Pontifications, Obama Rallies Turn Ugly]

What kind of logic is that? And coming from a university professor?! Btw, I think Patterico is stretching a bit in his Obama Rallies Turn Ugly.

You could write that quote as a fill in the blank and it still wouldn’t make sense! "If McCain isn’t an evil…" "If Bush isn’t an evil…" "If James F Treacher isn’t an evil…" It just isn’t a logical statement particularly when the contest is so even yet polls are showing Obama slightly ahead. Maybe we should do away with elections and we the people could all contribute questions toward a standardized test. Whichever candidate scores highest on The People’s Test wins the office.