Wednesday, October 15, 2014

~~A Brief Explanation of This Year's 4 Tennessee 'Ballot Amendments' ~~ What They Mean, and How I'm Voting







By Peter Rodman
That's my "I VOTED"sticker; I always seem to wear it around
for the rest of the day, like I won the lottery or something!
(I wear white socks too, just like the rest of the voters my age.)
How many times have you made it into the voting booth, only to discover you knew almost nothing about any of the 'ballot proposals' you found there?
This column provides a brief synopsis of all 4 Tennessee "amendments" on this year's ballot.  The descriptions of them are unbiased--taken straight off  ballotpedia.org.
I've added background points, arguments or quotes I think relevant about each amendment, and each section finishes up with my own endorsement.

Even if you disagree with my views, my hope is that each of these sections will help you better understand what that amendment is all about.
The goal is for all of us to walk into that voting booth:
  • at our leisure (polls are open every day now!)
  • anywhere in the city (you can vote at any poll)
  • and know precisely what to expect, and exactly what each of the amendments means, for a change!
I hope these brief summaries help you make up your mind, just as I have (*with one exception!)...


So let's get started, shall we?






 

TN Amendment 1 reads as follows:
Shall Article I, of the Constitution of Tennessee be amended by adding the following language as a new, appropriately designated section:
Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion. The people retain the right through their elected state representatives and state senators to enact, amend, or repeal statutes regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother.

"Amendment 1 is carefully worded in order to deliberately confuse voters about the real intention and motives of those behind the amendment. The people and organizations supporting Amendment 1 have clearly said that they believe all abortion should be illegal, no matter what. When many people read the Amendment, they believe that there will be guaranteed exceptions for women who are victims of rape or incest, or when a woman’s health is in danger.
In simple terms, Amendment 1 says two things:

  1. There is absolutely no right to abortion, and Politicians can pass laws for exceptions in case of rape or incest, or when a woman’s life is in danger, if they choose to.
  2. There is no requirement that they do so. There is not even an exception for extreme cases like when a pregnant women needs treatment for cancer."  --(These opinions came from the 'Vote NO on One Tennessee' organization.)
I couldn't have said it better myself.
This draconian right wing proposal takes us right back to the Dark Ages, essentially denying a woman's right to choose, established over 40 years ago by the United States Supreme Court. It should be summarily batted down, like the miserable flea who proposed it in the first place.

My decision?
  AMENDMENT 1:  VOTE "NO!"











___________________________________________________________


TN Amendment 2 reads as follows:



Shall Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution of Tennessee be amended by deleting the first and second sentences and by substituting instead the following:
Judges of the Supreme Court or any intermediate appellate court shall be appointed for a full term or to fill a vacancy by and at the discretion of the governor; shall be confirmed by the Legislature; and thereafter, shall be elected in a retention election by the qualified voters of the state. Confirmation by default occurs if the Legislature fails to reject an appointee within sixty calendar days of either the date of appointment, if made during the annual legislative session, or the convening date of the next annual legislative session, if made out of session. The Legislature is authorized to prescribe such provisions as may be necessary to carry out Sections two and three of this article.
 

I am voting "YES" on Amendment 2, because it helps take key judicial appointments OUT of election politics, while still letting the peoples' elected representatives vote 'up or down' on the Governor's judicial nominees.
According to Ballotpedia.com, "The measure would empower the governor to appoint judges to the Supreme Court or any other state appellate courts, subject to confirmation by the general assembly. The appointed judge would serve an eight-year term. Thereafter, the judge could serve another term via a retention election by voters.
The measure would largely constitutionalize the state's current system, but would dismantle the Judicial Nominating Commission and empower the legislature to confirm or reject appointments. This proposed process mirrors how federal judges are selected.  The Tennessee Constitution currently reads, "The judges of the Supreme Court shall be elected by the qualified voters of the state." 

Former Governor Phil Bredesen puts it this way, in urging that we remove Supreme Court Judges from the election process: “Suddenly you get at the last minute somebody on there who’s promised to, I don’t know, stop all abortions or something like that. You get just a lot of outside money coming into elections. You can do that to a governor or to a congressman, but I think it’s particularly effective and dangerous with races that people are generally not interested in.”

My decision?
AMENDMENT 2:  VOTE "YES!"









___________________________________________________________________________


TN Amendment 3 reads as follows:




Shall Article II, Section 28 of the Constitution of Tennessee be amended by adding the following sentence at the end of the final substantive paragraph within the section:
Notwithstanding the authority to tax privileges or any other authority set forth in this Constitution, the Legislature shall not levy, authorize or otherwise permit any state or local tax upon payroll or earned personal income or any state or local tax measured by payroll or earned personal income; however, nothing contained herein shall be construed as prohibiting any tax in effect on January 1, 2011, or adjustment of the rate of such tax.
 

This is 'red meat' for the anti-government, anti-tax crowd. (Think: Phil Valentine.)
I'm voting "NO."  Not because I want a state income tax, but because I do not believe setting constitutional traps precluding one is any kind of answer to our fiscal problems.  Who knows what unforeseen future needs we may have, as a state?  What if some pandemic like Ebola struck here, in a big way?  What about swapping our exorbitant sales tax for a minimal income tax?  Literally anything can happen...but basically what this is, is a right wing, stomp-your-foot, tie-the-government's-hands measure.  
Unlike many, I am not anti-government.  In fact, I don't see the problem with having more government employees--I can't seem to get 'Metro Codes' out here, because a mere four people have divided our entire city (alphabetically), and the backlog for enforcement is literally months long.  Do we really want to see another 30 years of cutbacks in services, after the last 30?  No!
I happen to believe that government services in a rapidly growing state should not be cut back, ever.  What sort of defeatist thinking goes into having half the staff do four times the work?
You may disagree with me on this one, and I understand--nobody likes even the thought of a new tax.  In fact, this should be nicknamed the 'Don't even THINK about It!" amendment, but that's my problem with it: Why not?  Do we not trust ourselves to make these judgements going forward, just as we always have in the past?
In my opinion, here's what this amendment is designed to do: Corner the government into more and more cutbacks, by never allowing that one last 'escape hatch,' which might someday be a (small) state income tax.
My philosophy is that I'm happy to pay my fair share of taxes, whatever they may be.
Sure, I hope there's no need for a state income tax!  But do I want it 'set in stone,' potentially supplanting the future 'will of the people' with the current 'will of the people'? ...NO.  That's not my idea of democracy; that's the GOP Taliban, again...saying: "There's no state income tax now, and since we're in the majority now we'd like to make sure you can't possibly change your mind later...even if you decide you want to!"

My decision?
  AMENDMENT 3:  VOTE "NO!" 








___________________________________________________________________________


TN Amendment 4 reads as follows:  


Shall Article XI, Section 5 of the Constitution of Tennessee be amended by deleting the following language:

All other forms of lottery not authorized herein are expressly prohibited unless authorized by a two-thirds vote of all members elected to each house of the general assembly for an annual event operated for the benefit of a 501(c)(3) organization located in this state, as defined by the 2000 United States Tax Code or as may be amended from time to time.
and by substituting instead the following language:

All other forms of lottery not authorized herein are expressly prohibited unless authorized by a two-thirds vote of all members elected to each house of the general assembly for an annual event operated for the benefit of a 501(c)(3) or a 501(c)(19) organization, as defined by the 2000 United States Tax Code, located in this state.

This is, of course, Chinese to me--and you too, unless you're the guy who wrote it, or Professor Irwin Corey, the famed 'double talking' comedian from our youth. 
'Professor' Irwin Corey
'The World's Foremost Authority'
I tried reading both paragraphs, over and over, until I realized a translation was in order. 
Strictly combining and comparing the "before" and "after" paragraphs, you get this:
"All other forms of lottery not authorized herein are expressly prohibited unless authorized by a two-thirds vote of all members elected to each house of the general assembly for an annual event operated for the benefit of a 501(c)(3) or a 501(c)(19) organization
located in this state, as defined by the 2000 United States Tax Code
or as may be amended from time to time., located in this state."


Turns out the State Legislature wants to empower itself to okay gambling beyond the existing categories of various charities, to include veterans organizations. [That's what a 501 (c) (19) is.]
The reason vets organizations weren't included in the original amendment over a decade ago, is that it seems a few Vets organizations had some little ol' bingo games goin' that were...well.......
Here's a bit of history on it, from the Clarksville Leaf-Chronicle:


"In the industry's heyday, some 300 bingo halls operated across Tennessee on a cash basis, collectively raking in millions of dollars, with little of the money going to charity. Many were run in violation of the law by professional gambling operators with no real connection to the charitable organizations in whose names they were licensed.
But in 1986, the FBI, IRS, Tennessee Bureau of Investigation and U.S. prosecutors got involved. Their investigation, dubbed Rocky Top, erupted publicly with the guilty plea in early 1989 of the state's former chief bingo inspector-turned-bingo lobbyist, W.D. "Donnie" Walker of Marion County.
By the time the scandal ran its course, then-Secretary of State Gentry Crowell, whose office regulated bingo, had committed suicide in advance of his third federal grand jury appearance. State Rep. Tommy Burnett, D-Monterey, was later convicted of having a secret interest in a bingo hall. State Rep. Ted Ray Miller, D-Knoxville, also committed suicide.
And the Tennessee Supreme Court finally weighed in with a ruling that bingo was illegal under the state constitution's lottery ban.
Veterans groups struggle under ban
But Dean A. Tuttle, adjutant and finance officer with the American Legion Department of Tennessee, said the end of charitable bingo a quarter-century ago was devastating to legitimate veterans service organizations that used the money to support veterans and their families with student scholarships and other aid and to promote such causes as veterans' health care.
"Likely about 80 percent of our post homes or Legion homes are probably now nonexistent," Tuttle said, noting that many veterans groups now meet in places ranging from churches to schools. "It is awfully tough to go out there and make it baking cakes and washing cars."
Once-a-year gaming events such as raffles and cakewalks aren't ideal, Tuttle said. But he noted the annual events would help some.
Like Crowe, Tuttle worries about the amendment's chances, given the lack of public discussion and the wording of the proposal.
"If you don't know the IRS code you have no idea of what it's doing," he said of the amendment.
Differing opinions
As to why veterans groups weren't included in the 2002 constitutional amendment on lotteries, some lawmakers say it was an inadvertent omission due to their IRS 501(c)(19) designation. The 2002 amendment covered only 501(c)(3) groups.
Others say that with the Rocky Top scandal still fresh on their minds, there was concern that including veterans groups might harm passage of the legislative resolution putting the issue before voters, even though most veterans groups shunned dealings with the professional gamblers."


 My decision?  
AMENDMENT 4:
(undecided--but leaning "NO")

I'm just not sure I want the state expanding gambling for any reason. I want to say "yes' to the vets...but I lean toward "no," just thinking of all those so-called 'Native American casinos' that end up having zilch to do with Native Americans. Whether it's supposedly for 'veterans' or not, I'd kinda rather keep this door closed, at least for another few years. The old saying goes, "Past is present." Just look at all the corruption these very 'games' inspired in the past, in the story above.







Well, that's my perspective on this year's ballot amendments.  
I hope this gave you some food for thought. 
Constitutional Amendments are the rarest (and most serious) adjustments we can ever make, when voting.  They put in permanent ink what one side or the other might want-- and that can be a very dangerous thing, unless very carefully thought out in
Remember: VOTING is not a 'spectator sport'!!!
Photograph Copyright 2014 by Peter Rodman.

advance.  

Too many times, radical Tennessee state legislators have tried to hijack our rights as citizens, by "sneaking in" ballot proposals that purposely confuse the issues, or make them sound a lot more harmless than they really are.  (A good rule of thumb on ANY amendment or proposal you don't know enough about, is to vote "NO.") 
But an even better option is to know what you're doing, when you enter that voting booth.   

I hope this blog has helped you, in that endeavor.


____________________________________________________
This Opinion Column Copyright 2014 by Peter Rodman.  All Rights Reserved. 
____________________________________________________________________


Post Script:

This political cartoon concerning Amendment 1 has stirred some controversy, but I agree with its premise. The amendment was proposed by MEN, seeking to regulate the private medical activities of WOMEN.  ('Twas ever thus.)  VOTE NO!!!


 

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

An Appreciation of 'Two Things'




By Peter Rodman


If you're a fan of great music writing here in Nashville, you'll no doubt be bummed to learn of Peter Cooper's impending departure from The Tennessean.  He routinely captured the characters who gave 'first breath' to the music part of Music City, and his craft as a columnist was unparalleled...as was the wit with which he did it. < (I invite you to try that tongue twister, before we move on.)

Ahem!  Where was I...?  Oh:
On the the plus side, Cooper is leaving the paper to go to work for the Country Music Hall of Fame--where nearly all of
Yep, that's Peter Cooper, alright...
But is he performing in this picture?
Or is he doing that other thing he does?
Nashville's greatest music writers (Michael McCall, Jay Orr and more) seem to end up, to finally find job security and a viable paycheck--as well as to continue a most 'joyous autopsy' that never ends, on the music that built this town. 

Job security can be particularly important, if one has chosen to 'moonlight' by traveling the world in your spare time playing smallish gigs, simply for the love and romance of becoming a 'troubadour.'  (Okay...artiste!)
 ________________________________

A Brief Personal Digression:  
I can clearly recall my own such trajectory. I moved here full-time in the early '90s, after being highly encouraged to do so by Neil Fagan and Amy Kurland at the Bluebird Cafe. "No one thinks you're serious about songwriting here, unless your area code is 615." 
I'd begun playing at the 'Bird in early 1990, and by 1992 I was more or less a regular 'opening act.' But I was flat broke, having shuttled back and forth from the West Coast to cut demos, do (free) gigs,  rent cars, and pay players...so I moved here. 

Not long after that (during the summer of 1993) I got a call from my old 'station manager' at KBCO in Boulder, Ray Skibitsky.  He said, "I want you to do me a favor.  I have this friend there (in Nashville) who owns a radio station, and I want you to meet him. I told him all about you."
"Ray, I'm doing the songwriting thing now. "
"Just do this for me," he said. 

Within six months, I ended up reviving Sunday Night with Peter Rodman (a long-running music/interview show I'd had in Colorado) on Nashville's Radio Lightning 100.  
My point (and I do have one) is that, as the new show gained a larger audience, people seemed more and more...well...perplexed, to see me still out singing my original songs--even infrequently. I was in great singing and playing shape, but what became clear--even among prominent musicians at the time--was that you weren't going to be taken seriously as one thing in the music business, if you were also trying to become recognized for doing another thing. 
Everyone I spoke to--from label heads to famous players--nodded in agreement, when I would explain why a choice had to be made.  At that time (just about 20 years ago now), Nashville demanded such choices...so I made mine.  The singer-songwriter thing had to go (or at least be put in mothballs for awhile) as the radio program had taken off. It was, for its time, the best decision I could make. 
                                                  
[End of Personal Digression]
_____________________________________________

   
He may not remember this, but early on in his Tennessean tenure, I gave him a nickname:  
Peter 'Two Things' Cooper. 
I did so not derisively, but admiringly--because Peter Cooper had succeeded in doing what Peter Rodman (that'd be me) had failed to do: Two Things, at once.
1.) Become a key part of our local music media...and 
2.) continue building his career as a singer-songwriter. 


This was no small feat, in a town that had previously demanded (see above digression) that we all choose just ONE thing in music to be good at, and leave the other behind.  
For whatever reasons, I found it was better for the radio program if I just didn't confuse people about the reporter also being an songwriter.  
'Two things' were one too many for this town, back in the early '90s. But guess who changed all that. 
'Two Things' Cooper, that's who. 
He got it all done, and did it in style. He's far more respected now as both a songwriter and a newspaper writer, than he was when he started out.  
Even I remember having misgivings:  Which side of the microphone do you want to be on?
 
Peter Cooper wasn't having any of that nonsense. 

In recent years he's almost single-handedly rewritten the book on how Nashville's music business now views multi-tasking. 
Now, you see musicians interviewing each other, everywhere you go.  
Back then, you were either the reporter or the musician. 
Turns out you can walk and chew gum at the same time!
But like Einstein's Theory of Relativity (or asking directions at Mapco) the answers proved elusive...until that one guy showed us all how it could be done.
Speaking of multi-tasking, Mr. Cooper managed to find a bride along the way, and they now have a young son. 
So who knows?  Maybe a father's thoughts about job security (and 401k's and college funds and such) began to tilt the scale toward pragmatism, which 'writing for a living' barely (read: rarely) indicates. One hopes the boy will follow in his Daddy's footsteps, especially when it comes to accomplishing two big feats at once.  (I truly apologize. Turn the fans on, that was awful.)

 
Anyway, I'm normally pretty stingy with my compliments.
But Peter Cooper would have no way of knowing that, as his columns often drew effusive (and sometimes gushy) personal notes of praise, from my normally pursed lips. 
I'll miss his vivid portraits of the Cowboy Jacks and the John Prines, fleshed out with a painter's touch--like that one brilliant street painter you saw in Monmartre or Manhattan that time, who began with a blank page and splashed colors every which way until, like an orchestra conductor, he drew OUT of the page an image that always seemed to be there, but no one else could find.  Suddenly, we were all inside Cowboy Jack's attic, listening to him reminisce about Johnny Cash, or Patsy Cline. 
Peter Cooper interviews John Prine
Country Music Hall of Fame
Photograph Copyright 2014 by Peter Rodman.

In bright and muted colors, with large and tiny images, and always ending with a flourish, Peter could leave you sitting there at the end of a newspaper column--just like a symphony's last chord might--in front of it all, just...there.  Not turning the page, just staring at it--pondering not only the art of the artist you just read about, but the art of the writer who wrote about the artist you just read about.  That's how good Peter Cooper was, and is--and The Tennessean's not gonna 'replace' that, no-how. 
 

The Country Music Hall of Fame
Nashville, Tennessee
Photograph Copyright 2014 by Peter Rodman.

Meanwhile, the Country Music Hall of Fame has gained one more soulful cat among many, who'll no doubt conjure his stories in a new way, drawing exactly the same stares-in-awe some of his best columns or songs have.
You can be sure the Museum will now dig deeper, as Peter applies his boyish fascination to everything from sports to sound.  (Given his penchant for baseball, it wouldn't surprise me to see a gargantuan 'tour ball cap' exhibit, or a detailed history of how Nashville both led and followed the world, vis a vis sound reproduction, right down to the tiniest phonograph needle, and what it meant to its owner back in the day.) 
A great columnist has to be a great storyteller, and that he is.
Like baseball's Tim McCarver, Mr. Cooper admires the real storytellers, and humbly regards himself as merely the "re-teller" of their stories.  More importantly--again, like McCarver--he has made it his mission to offer the biggest possible platform to them, simply to let the stories speak for themselves.
In that context, Peter Cooper is landing exactly where he should be.
You can look far and wide, and you will never find another "Hall of Fame" even close to the Country Music Hall of Fame. (Don't even get me started about the miserable, boring, don't- bother-going 'Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame.')
At the CMHOF, I am sure Peter will unearth many more treasures--stories even grizzled country veterans have never heard in quite the same way, and he will show them all to us--each as a precious thing, yes...but to be enjoyed (often with a belly laugh) more than just revered. 


I'm usually pretty good at ending columns (I did it three times a week for over a decade, back in Colorado), but Peter Cooper is a master at the 'final flourish' before that ~30~. 
So I'm not even gonna attempt to pull one off here.  
I'm that grateful to him for all the stories, and the dignity he's brought to music writing here in town.  
We all look better, when one of us elevates the craft.  You might say Peter Cooper raised the bar...even as he was playing there.
I wish him good luck with the museum thing, and already The Tennessean is making motions toward collaborating with him on future stories.  So it appears his byline won't be disappearing altogether. 
If I know one thing, it's that you can't keep a good writer down.  

But I gotta give him credit.
Peter Cooper knows two things.  


____________________________________
This Opinion Column Copyright 2014 by Peter Rodman.
All Rights Reserved.
All Images and Photographs Copyright 2014 by Peter Rodman.
All Rights Reserved.
__________________________________________________________________