Categories
News The Fly-By

Fire by the Numbers

Last year, Tennessee’s fire fatalities increased a record 40 percent from the previous year. Those 143 deaths put the state second in fire deaths nationwide. Unfortunately, in many cases the causes of those fires are still unknown because fire departments across the state are delinquent in reporting the incidents.

Like the state’s crime incident reporting database, the Tennessee Fire Incident Reporting System (TFIRS) enters its numbers into a national fire database for research and analysis. Departments are required to submit reports on a fire within 10 days of the incident. According to state records, however, the Memphis Fire Department has submitted no information for any fires in 2003 or 2004.

“Those reports are submitted by our CAD coordinator,” said Memphis Fire Department spokesperson CJ Walker. “That person retired in November 2003, and the position has not yet been filled. We have notified [Tennessee TFIRS coordinator] Dennis Mulder of the vacancy and hope to submit those reports as soon as the position is filled.” Walker said the position will be posted within the next few days.

“It has been a requirement of law for many years that local departments notify the state of their fires. Unfortunately, that law has not been heavily enforced,” said Paula Wade with the state Department of Commerce and Insurance. That department includes a fire-prevention division, among other divisions. “For the first time in a lot of years, the director [Paula Flowers] has not come from the insurance industry, and she has really taken an interest in fire prevention.”

Flowers is also the state’s fire marshal. Last week, a letter was sent to all city and county fire chiefs requesting TFIRS compliance. “If Tennessee consistently had twice the rate of cancer deaths or child mortality or hepatitis, people would be up in arms demanding action,” said the letter. “But without the [fire] data, we can only guess what approaches will make a difference.”

Legislation was passed last year shielding fire departments from liability when reporting suspected causes of a fire. Before the law, departments had been hesitant to file reports, for example, in cases where the cause was thought to be arson, said Wade. “We know that arson is a tremendous problem in Tennessee, but to quantify it is difficult. Now, as long as a department lists a legitimate reason for a fire, they aren’t held responsible even if it is later found to be the wrong cause.”

Another obstacle to Tennessee’s compliance is the large number of volunteer firefighters, who account for 75 percent of firefighters statewide. “When you have a force made up of volunteers with other full-time jobs, filing those reports doesn’t tend to be on the top of people’s lists,” said Wade. “And honestly, our department doesn’t have any enforcement powers. The worst we can do is tell people that there is a lot of good that can come with [reporting].”

What Wade’s department lacks in enforcement, it is making up for in warnings and reminders. Part of Wade’s letter to fire chiefs noted that a failure to comply with TFIRS could jeopardize federal funds. The funds, awarded to individual departments, are essential to rural departments, which use the money for training and equipment. As part of the federal awards, departments are required to be in TFIRS compliance for that calendar year. Fire chiefs have also been told that noncompliant departments will be listed on the state’s Web site.

Unlike Memphis, the Shelby County Fire Department is in full TFIRS compliance. n

E-mail: jdavis@memphisflyer.com

Categories
Cover Feature News

Brats

Carrie is 2 years old, with curly brown hair and Windex-blue eyes. In a still-life portrait, she would be adorable. In three dimensions, she’s a cross between a Gerber baby and the Tasmanian devil.

Bang. Bang, bang, bang, and bang and bang.

That’s the noise of the plastic water cup she is whacking against the ceramic-topped table of a neighborhood coffeehouse whose concrete floors function like an echo chamber. If she had a hammer she would have destroyed the table by now, and I’m pretty sure her parents would’ve let her. People look up from their lattes, squint at the diminutive figure making the big, ear-splitting noise, and try to continue with their newspapers or conversations. The banging goes on for a good 10 minutes. Normally, I would say something — I’m not shy about these things — but I’m curious to know just how long her parents, with whom I’m having coffee, will let this go. The answer: Indefinitely. They don’t even seem to notice. Maybe they’re just used to it?

On some primal level, Carrie must be offended that she’s not the center of attention. There is anger in her banging, along with what I read as malice. As she grows even more restive, her father lowers her to the floor. Still clutching the cup, Carrie crawls through the room, pounding on the concrete floor as she goes along, giving everyone an up-close earful of her drum solo.

A few weeks later, I’m at a party, mostly adults with a few kids sprinkled in, among them the volcanically unruly 5-year-old son of a friend. As I squat down to greet him, he responds by biting me in the arm, leaving teeth marks through a shirt and a sweater. I am just about to spank his little behind when I realize I’m in dangerous territory. People go to jail for that these days.

I release him so that his father doesn’t see I’m on the verge of administering what probably would be the kid’s first corporal punishment. The youngster begins kicking the floor-to-ceiling window, which fortunately is made of Plexiglas. His father finally intervenes, taking the child by the arm and pointing out some of the window’s unique features. “You shouldn’t kick this window because it’s a very special window,” he tells his son. “See how the frame …” And I’m thinking, Kid, you shouldn’t kick the window because in another universe your father would have some vague concept of parental authority.

A few weeks after that, I’m on a plane … Never mind, I’ll tell you later. [See sidebar, opposite page.] Everybody has a kid/airplane story. But mine is better than yours.

Child behavior is a vast subject, to be sure, but let’s focus on one aspect that affects everyone, parent or not: what children do in public places. And if you think they are getting away with a lot more than they used to, you’re right. Permissive parenting is one thing, but wimpy parents who let their kids run roughshod over them and other adults are quite another. And they’re rampant.

This apparently has not been lost on parents themselves, judging by the raft of books advocating firmer discipline. The question is, when will “No!” be reinstated into the dialogue between parent and child and to what extent must the rest of us suffer the whims of children who rule civil society as if they’re banana-republic dictators?

Educational psychologist Michele Borba, author of numerous books on child rearing, including No More Misbehavin’: 38 Difficult Behaviors and How To Stop Them and, most recently, Don’t Give Me That Attitude! 24 Rude, Selfish, Insensitive Things Kids Do and How To Stop Them, says wimpy parents are not merely an American thing. They are a global concern. “I was in Malaysia, and even there the biggest concern is selfish, self-indulgent children,” Borba says. “It’s a growing new breed. People aren’t taking ownership of their children’s behavior. I call it the NMK Syndrome — ‘Not My Kid! My kid is perfect!'”

“Community involvement has diminished in favor of child autonomy,” says Peter N. Stearns, provost and professor of history at George Mason University in Virginia and author of Anxious Parents: A History of Modern Childrearing in America. “With children, there’s a weaker boundary between home and public, and at the same time, we have more groups now [retirees, for example, and childless couples] that are really not used to children. So it’s not surprising to see it causing a good deal of friction.”

Bring up the subject of children in public places and you will find a number of recurring complaints. There is, for example, the all-too-familiar scenario described by Layla Revis of Hollywood, California: “I was watching Cold Mountain, and there was a couple sitting in the middle of the theater with a 3-year-old girl. Naturally, the kid flipped out during the first battle scene and cried for a half-hour. Then, finally, somebody yelled, ‘Take your kid outside,’ and the whole theater started applauding.”

There’s also an implicit assumption that everyone’s home is child-proofed. Just ask Donald John, a former literature professor at Oxford who’s currently writing a book on poet William Blake. John hosted a Memorial Day barbecue last year at his home. The party was underway when the sound of violin strings being plucked alerted him that something was amiss. Upon investigation, he found that the 6-year-old son of one of his guests had removed his grandfather’s antique Italian violin from its case. “It’s a mystery how he found it,” John says, “because we keep it at the entrance to the wine cellar.”

What ensued might be called performance art. The boy began darting through the house, swinging the violin by its scroll, clipping it against walls and furniture as he led a merry chase. The mother declared that only she could defuse the situation, but each time she squared off against her son, he scurried into another room. “It turned into a hostage negotiation, but it was all appeasement,” John says. “She would offer him ice cream, and his eyes would light up for a second before he ran off again.”

By the time the violin was retrieved, its bridge and neck were damaged. “The perplexing thing is that some of these parents seem amused when their children do this sort of thing,” says John, the parent of two grown daughters. To avoid unruly children, John, a nonsmoker, requests the smoking section when dining in restaurants because he finds secondhand smoke less irritating than the kids in nonsmoking sections. (It was a child skateboarding in a restaurant lounge who tipped him over the edge.)

Restaurants, perhaps next to planes, figure big in the case against overexuberant children, as Corey Saldana will tell you. The paralegal was dining at a Japanese restaurant in Pasadena, California, when his dinner companions unleashed their 3-year-old, who tore through the restaurant, toured the kitchen, and wound up lying on the dining room floor — “like she was in a meadow, staring up at the stars” — until finally the waitress tapped the mother’s shoulder and handed back her child.

Cotton Mather, in a 1685 sermon freighted with more than a little disapproval, said: “The Youth in this country are verie Sharp and early Ripe in their Capacities.” The Puritans indeed took a pretty hard line on child behavior. According to Mary Cable’s The Little Darlings: A History of Child Rearing in America, children in the New England colonies “could be — and sometimes were — sentenced to a public whipping. More often they were forced to make a public confession at a meeting, or made the specific target of a denunciatory sermon.” And if that didn’t keep them in line, well, as every American child of the 17th century was taught, the Protestant theologian John Calvin put forth that, “[T]he Lord commands all those who are disobedient to their parents to be put to death.” The colony of Connecticut regarded this language reasonable enough to put a law on the books that called for death to all disobedient young people over the age of 14, though there’s no evidence that this was actually carried out.

“What’s interesting is how far 19th-century manners for children — which was ‘to be seen and not heard’ — extended into the 20th,” says Stearns, the George Mason history professor. In the past, he says, parents operated on the assumption that teaching their children to sit still for extended periods of time was an important part of their socialization. “We no longer do that. We have somehow come to believe that our children are just going to misbehave in public.”

We have traveled a considerable distance from the days of the Puritans, when children were taught to regard themselves as burdens and admonished to feel fortunate that their parents bothered to clothe and feed such inferior little beings as themselves. Now if it is not quite the opposite, it is almost so. A woman I know who’s expecting her first child was struck by a remark her doctor made. “You know,” he told her, “we’re the first generation that feels we have to campaign for our children’s love.”

Much blame is laid to Benjamin Spock for cheerleading the rush to permissive parenting, but take away his spare-the-rod approach to child-rearing and one must still factor in how families have changed. “Guilt is a biggie,” says author Borba. “You’ve got moms and dads doing two or three jobs. They come home frazzled, and they’re feeling guilty because they know the children aren’t getting as much attention as they should. They don’t want to spoil the time when they feel they ought to be creating warm family memories by disciplining their kids and making a scene.”

Stearns agrees. “Particularly in the last 15 or 20 years, parents have definitely become more guilty about how they treat their kids, particularly when mothers work. They don’t think it’s right to deny them attention.”

The time crunch may have as much to do with contemporary children’s encroachment on adult space as anything. I was a child in the ’60s but not of them. My parents grew up in post-Depression America and embraced what now are fairly antique ideas about “boundaries,” a word they never used but a concept of which they had full command. When guests came over, kids were exiled to the basement. The stairs were the DMZ, and if we crossed into adult territory, somebody’s father was sure to bellow, “No kids in the living room!”

This is a far cry from the father who allowed his 8-year-old son to interrupt conversation by asking, “What makes the wind blow?” and then gave him a detailed explanation worthy of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, as I observed during a recent visit with some suburban friends. But then, my mother worked only intermittently, and when she did, it was at the family business, which was within walking distance from school and home. My parents didn’t have to schedule “quality time,” except for themselves.

But back, for a moment, to the subject of basements, or rather the lack of them or other rooms where kids were traditionally sent off to be, well, kids. “Since the mid-1980s, partly because it’s cheaper and they’re becoming smaller, more and more houses are designed to have a great room instead of a parlor and a den or a playroom, which might normally segregate children from adults,” says Calvin Morrill, professor and chair of the sociology department at the University of California-Irvine. This could be a subtle factor in further obliterating the barrier between children and adults, says Morrill, who co-edited a book due out in spring 2005 from University of California Press, which includes a chapter on how parents control children in public places.

Still, many professionals agree that today’s children are overindulged and suffering from a dearth of boundaries, which means adults suffer with them. As with most things, there is a way to blame it on the boomers. Permissiveness and indulgence is an overcorrection for the autocratic parenting styles to which many of those now raising their own children were subjected, says Michel Cohen, a New York pediatrician and author of The New Basics: A-to-Z Baby & Child Care for the Modern Parent, which advocates a sterner approach. “A lot of today’s parents come from a flower-power background where they think they have to talk and explain everything to their children,” he says. “Also, many of us came from a much more rigid background, so the reaction is to go the other way. And definitely, I think people are just too busy, so they take the path of least resistance.”

All of the explaining and negotiating, Cohen says, ultimately reinforces bad behavior. “Say a kid is banging on the television. The parent may give five or six inconsistent responses. All the child remembers is the attention he got from banging on the TV, so now he’s totally engulfed in testing his parents just to see how they’ll react because it’s different every time.”

“The whole concept of self-esteem over the past 10 years really got corrupted,” says Borba. “It’s become a marshmallow thing. Too many parents subscribe to the myth that if you discipline children, you’re going to break their spirit. Children thrive with nurturing but also with structure and consistency. ‘Overindulged’ doesn’t necessarily mean that the kid has every toy. It’s making him think that he can get away with what’s not good for him. The ‘Me Generation’ is raising the ‘Me-Me-Me Generation.'”

Martin Booe is a contributor to the Los Angeles Times, where this article first appeared.

Now, the airplane story

A companion and I were on a flight to Hawaii a couple of summers ago. Directly behind Maria was a woman, about 30, attractive and well-dressed. Riding in her lap was her daughter, about 2, and they had carried onboard roughly half the Toys “R” Us inventory in the child’s age category. Before takeoff, the child was restive. She thumped, bumped and wriggled. But we let it pass, saying to ourselves that kids usually settle down and are lulled to sleep once the plane lifts off.

It was not to be. As the plane reached cruising altitude, the child thrashed like a wild animal in a box. There were squeals, giggles, and laughter emanating from both child and parent, who kept her daughter goosed up with all the toys, raucously bouncing her in her lap, then propping her on the back of Maria’s seat so that her diapers were all but resting on Maria’s head. The man beside me grimaced in a gesture of solidarity. I resorted to deep breathing.

After an hour of this, I turned around, looked the woman in the eye, and said in a low voice: “Could you please control your child?”

The woman swelled with indignation. She looked as if I’d suggested the child be dumped off the plane. “This is a 2-year-old,” she shot back. “I can’t give orders to a 2-year-old. They don’t understand orders!”

Maria then turned to face the woman and said, without masking her anger, “You are the mother. It is your responsibility to control your child.”

All around us, passengers looked up from their magazines and paperbacks.

“You obviously don’t have children!” the woman said, her tone insinuating that she, having met her biological imperative, had transcended those of us who hadn’t. With a majestic flaring of her nostrils, she added, “Because if you had children, you’d understand that you can’t control a 2-year-old!”

By now the woman and Maria were yelling at each other, prompting the flight attendants to step in. They were taking this very seriously, and I sensed that we were likely to be greeted at the airport by a federal marshal. The woman held her child in the aisle while a volunteer was found to trade seats with Maria, who graciously took the fall for a fight I had provoked. The beatific mother, meanwhile, surreptitiously gave us the finger. Once the fracas ended, the entire plane divided into two camps. As Maria marched toward her new seat, faces rose to scrutinize her. Some gave her subtle nods of support; thank goodness someone had dared take a stand against impudence! Others, as might be expected, turned their heads away in a gesture of ostracism. Those who met her gaze did so with steely eyes that said, “Child hater!”

Among the latter was a woman in high middle age with a Malibu Barbie haircut and supple, collagen-enhanced cheeks. I pegged her as a soap-opera actress. With pointed self-righteousness worthy of Joan of Arc, she offered to hold the child for the mother, rescuing her from the child-hating cranks.

Later, when the plane tilted downward, an attendant presented my new seatmate and me with two bottles of wine for tolerating Maria, whom they didn’t realize was my companion and whose contempt for children they clearly saw as the root of the trouble. When we got to our hotel, Maria asked me where I’d gotten the wine. I thought she would enjoy the irony. “They didn’t realize we were together, so they gave it to me for having to sit next to a child hater,” I said.

As the bottle whistled across the room and grazed my ear, I realized I had seriously overestimated Maria’s sense of humor. n — MB

Categories
News The Fly-By

Diagramming Sentences

If you were going to be sentenced in Memphis for a federal crime, July 15th and 16th were probably good days to have it done.

In an opinion on a Memphis case, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled July 14th that the federal sentencing guidelines should be just that — guidelines. Federal judges long bound by dictates stemming from the 1984 Sentencing Reform Act — a virtual diagram of exactly how much time an offender should serve based on the crime and aggravating factors — were suddenly free in the Sixth Circuit states of Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee to use their discretion.

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a seemingly innocuous decision in Blakely v. Washington. In the Blakely case, the defendant pled guilty to kidnapping and using a firearm during a domestic dispute, a crime that in Washington state carries a 49- to 53-month sentence. Under the state’s law, however, the judge was able to take aggravating factors into account. Deciding that the defendant’s offense entailed deliberate cruelty, the judge sentenced him to 90 months. When the case worked its way up to the Supreme Court, however, the justices determined the sentence to be unconstitutional because the judge — not a jury — decided the facts surrounding the aggravating factors.

“It was a bit of a sleeper decision,” said Steven Mulroy, an assistant law professor at the University of Memphis. “It came down along with Guatanamo Bay and terrorists. Those are all important issues, but in the day-to-day administration of justice and in the amount of defendants it will affect, it’s clear Blakely is the 800-pound gorilla.”

Though the Supreme Court’s opinion in Blakely concerned a sentencing in Washington state, federal judges paid attention because the federal guidelines were very similar. What’s more, the court’s opinion seemed to implicate the constitutionality of sentencing guidelines.

“It’s a significant transfer of authority from the prosecution, on one hand, to juries and, secondly, judges, on the other hand,” said Mulroy. “The federal sentencing guidelines gave federal prosecutors enormous power and enormous discretion. … Because of the rigidity of the sentencing process, judges’ hands were tied.”

Locally, assistant U.S. attorney Vivian Donelson said she’s not certain how the rulings will eventually affect what her office does. “The Department of Justice and this office are analyzing to see what ramifications and impact it will have,” she said. When Blakely first came down, she saw lawyers requesting continuances to get their bearings on the ruling.

The issue became clearer for local federal judges when the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in mid-July on a Memphis case, U.S. v. Montgomery.

In the wake of Blakely, the Montgomery case gave the judges some direction.

“Under the Constitution, a defendant is entitled to a trial by jury, and I suspect that’s the primary part of the judges’ rationale both in the Supreme Court and the Sixth Circuit [opinions],” said Mulroy. “A significant undercurrent is that most federal judges have had a problem with the sentencing guideline regime. They resented the fact that their power had been taken away.”

Across the county, many judges also thought the guidelines were too harsh. Legislators — the ones determining how much time fits the crime — are not in a position to consider specific cases, and they have an incentive when it comes to harsh sentencing. No elected official wants to be accused of being “soft on crime.”

While the change clearly spelled out how judges were to conduct business, Donelson said it hasn’t made much difference in sentencing. “We have had several sentencing hearings since Montgomery said the guidelines were advisory, and we have not seen sentences that are significantly lesser or greater than the guidelines,” she said.

But whatever newly restored powers the judges had under Montgomery were short-lived. Five days later, the Sixth Circuit decided to re-hear the case en banc, which means all the judges will sit to hear the case, not just a three-judge panel. The previous opinion is invalidated, and the case goes back onto the docket as a pending case. The case is expected to be heard sometime in August.

In all probability, the U.S. Supreme Court will be asked to decide on sentencing guidelines within a year or two.

In the meantime, Mulroy thinks more juries will be asked to determine specific facts about the nature of a crime: Did the defendant use a firearm? Did he or she prey on a particularly vulnerable victim?

“Expect dramatic change in the way sentencing is done in the federal system,” Mulroy said.

Categories
Art Art Feature

The Naturals

The titles of the two exhibits currently at David Lusk Gallery are particularly apropos. “Sight Unseen” by Huger Foote and “The Very Idea” by painter John Ryan accurately suggest how the show’s artists look deeply into the nature of things while maintaining playful attitudes.

Created within a six-month time frame and encompassing a 10-mile radius of inner-city Memphis, Foote’s 11 photographs are sweeping (42-by-60-inch) close-ups that combine the artist’s love of energetic lines with an Impressionist play of color and light. Full sunlight turns white clapboard phosphorescent in Untitled 6. Thousands of weed stalks and grass blades become green waves that eddy through a corridor of yellow gold in Untitled 11. Dead grasses and vines slice and curl around the monochromatic picture plane of Untitled 10. And the fading left bumper of an abandoned 1950s automobile appears as rounded and porcelain as the torso of a reclining Renoir nude in Untitled 7.

Untitled 7, one of the most powerful pieces in the show, is a jumble of decay, life, light, line, and color. An intense blue sky is refracted through the windshield of the old car and reflected back and forth between the front and side windows, creating a shifting mosaic of midnight blues. Vines growing through and inside the car record the persistence of nature — a struggle between the manufactured and the natural playing out as weeds slowly push open the car’s front door.

While Foote was exploring back streets and vacant lots in Memphis, Ryan was fishing off the coast of Florida and the inlets of the Mississippi River.

Ten masterfully rendered acrylic paintings on paper record the sensory impressions Ryan experiences while fishing: leaves floating onto the surface of a lake, startled birds turning sharply in mid-air, a nest fallen into the water, and ribbons of red and yellow surveyor’s tape flapping on beaver sticks, those pristine white branches with the bark gnawed away.

In a recent interview, Ryan said he hoped that, above all else, his paintings “remind others to notice, to be more aware of their surroundings.” The artist succeeds. With his personal iconography of memory and reflection, Ryan takes a nuanced look at both the natural world and human nature.

He takes us deep into his paintings with midnight-blue washes and subtle gradations of color. His ominous palette for birds ranges from pitch-black to nearly transparent gray ochre, and his translucent beaver sticks are shadowed with yellows, blues, and lavenders. Highly textured blue washes are tinted with ochres and greens and accented by shadows on the water’s surface.

Ryan distills experiences into images that create feelings and perceptual shifts in viewers. In Untitled 1, the soft brown contours of a bird nest become an eye surrounded by deeply furrowed animal hide. The eye’s gaze has been described as bold, unsettling, foreboding, instinctual, cryptic, straight-from-the-gut, frightening.

In other paintings, crows, those intelligent fishing-site scavengers, soothsayers, and savvy tricksters, appear to search their own natures as they bend their heads in flight, observing the reflections they cast on water (Untitled 7) and turning to face their own shadows (Untitled 4).

Ryan’s paintings are adeptly executed statements of color, design, and haunting metaphor. Once again, this artist’s icons of distilled memory and sensation entice viewers to take leaps of imagination and chase shadows of their own. n

“Sight Unseen” (dye coupler prints by Huger Foote) and “The Very Idea” (acrylic paintings by John Ryan) are on display at David Lusk Gallery through July 31st.

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

A Vote, Not a Date

Here are some things Americans should consider before deciding for whom they will vote in November: You are not going to sleep with the president, become his best buddy, or be his favorite pen pal. Therefore, you do not have to vote for someone you think is likable or handsome or charming.

Statesmen, in fact, are often not likable, as they often have to make unpopular decisions. And America needs a statesman in the White House, because the years ahead are full of dangers, both from human sources and from environmental stresses. It is also impossible to think seriously and smile at the same time. I have always distrusted people who smile perpetually.

America, like any other nation or empire, has the potential to self-destruct. Nations and empires self-destruct when their leaders make a series of bad decisions. If you visit Great Britain, France, or Spain today, you would never know from their present state that they were once world powers. There is not one single example in world history where any empire ever sustained itself indefinitely.

Leaders make wrong decisions when they are shallow-minded, uninterested in the affairs of state, and ignorant of the world outside their borders. They make wrong decisions when they depend on advisers who are driven by ideology. An ideologue is by definition a person out of touch with reality. Reality is always fluid, complex, and changing from moment to moment. The rigid thinking of an ideologue inevitably loses a clash with reality.

So remember, when it comes to choosing a president, you’re not choosing a date, a fishing buddy, or someone to spend your vacation with. You will be choosing someone who hopefully will have the brains to keep this country from joining so many others in the ash heap of history.

Now, let’s look at how people can make a mockery of democracy.

You make a mockery of self-government when you choose your candidate strictly on the basis of the party label. Political parties in our country are not based on philosophy. They are merely machines for electing candidates and distributing patronage. The truth is that sometimes the best choice is a Republican; sometimes, a Democrat.

You make a mockery of self-government when you vote purely on the basis of your selfish interests. Many Americans make a religion of selfishness, but for self-government to work and to endure, we must all think of the common interests when it comes to choosing the people who will run the government.

You make a mockery of self-government if you allow demagogues to influence your vote on the basis of phony issues. The real threats facing the United States are not homosexual marriages or legal abortions. If you allow people to persuade you to cast your vote based on those two issues, you are wasting your vote, because I guarantee that the politicians, regardless of what they say now, will not do anything about either one of them. These are scarlet fish.

Finally, you are making a mockery of self-government if you allow your vote to be influenced by concerns for a foreign country. And yes, I’m directing this to the Israel-first crowd, both Jew and Christian. The election in November is for the president of the United States, not the deputy prime minister of Israel. We need a president who will make his decisions based on the best interests of the United States, not those of Israel (or France, or Japan, or any other country).

When one of our revolutionary forefathers said the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, he meant that liberty is always at risk. It can only be preserved if a sufficient number of Americans care about it enough to take a serious approach to choosing their leaders.

Charlie Reese writes for King Features Syndicate.

Categories
News The Fly-By

Clearing the Air

Air pollution from cars and trucks is lingering in Tennessee. In a report released in March by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Memphis ranked 17th in the nation for pollution from vehicle emissions in large cities. Nashville topped the list at number one. Now, the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) is attempting to regulate the problem with a new office devoted to improving air quality.

TDOT’s Environmental Policy Office, formed last month, was established to work with local, state, and federal governments to address transportation-related air-quality issues through various measures. The office is currently planning public awareness campaigns as well as looking at ways to reduce pollution by lowering speed limits for large trucks and encouraging the use of biodiesel technology in diesel vehicles.

“We want to work with road-building contractors to reduce emissions from road construction equipment, and we’re going to encourage employers to establish ride-sharing programs and commuter benefits for employers,” said Alan Jones, TDOT’s air-quality policy supervisor.

He says the group also is working with the Shelby County Clean Air Coalition on public education and outreach. Shelby County and Crittenden County in Arkansas recently sent a petition to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to get both areas taken off the nonattainment area list. The nonattainment classification means air-pollution levels consistently exceed national air-quality standards.

In the petition, Shelby County pledged to reduce interstate speed limits for trucks to 55 mph. The EPA is set to make a decision on the county’s request in mid-September, and the Environmental Policy Office is awaiting that decision to implement the new strategy.

“Reducing truck speeds would significantly reduce oxides of nitrogen. That’s an ozone-forming pollutant,” Jones said.

As for long-term goals, Jones says the office is working with local governments to encourage growth patterns that would make mass transit more efficient so communities are less dependent on automobiles. n

E-mail: bphillips@memphisflyer.com

Categories
Letters To The Editor Opinion

postscript

Charter Thanks

To the Editor:

Thanks to the Flyer for positively reporting the outcome of the curriculum change for Star Academy (City Reporter, July 22nd issue). I am very pleased with the decision and look forward to increased student achievement as a result of the full support (well, almost full support) from the MCS board of directors.

Dr. Kia L. Young, Principal

Star Academy, Memphis

Bush and War, Redux

To the Editor:

David Kay, the former Bush-appointed chief weapons inspector in Iraq, recently said that Bush “should have been able to tell before the war that the evidence did not exist” for an imminent threat from Iraqi WMD and that it “was not something that required a war.” Bush has been passing the buck to the CIA; Kay isn’t buying that.

Bush’s blunder in Iraq has cost 900 Americans their lives so far, with almost 6,000 Americans injured, according to the Pentagon. Our troops are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for us, and all they ask in return is that we put their lives in harm’s way only when it is absolutely necessary.

Remember when starting a war was an extreme and immoral act? It still is.

Doug Long

Marion, Arkansas

To the Editor:

President Bush, given a copy of the 9/11 Commission’s report in a White House photo-op, thanked the commissioners for doing a “really good job” and said the panel made “very sound, solid recommendations.”

Let’s not forget, however, that Bush originally opposed the formation of the commission. He changed his mind only after relentless pressure from loved ones of 9/11 victims. Then he opposed the commission’s request for additional time to complete its final report. He opposed the public testimony of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, but he flip-flopped and gave approval with the condition that no other adviser be allowed to testify.

Bush originally would agree to only one hour of his own testimony — and that only before the chairman and co-chairman of the commission. He flip-flopped when critics asked how he could spend several hours attending a NASCAR event but only one hour for important testimony on 9/11. Then Bush agreed to appear, but only in private, only with the vice president at his side, only if what he said was not under oath, only if there was no video or audio recording, and only if no notes were taken by commission members.

Bush’s actions sought to block this commission from seeking the truth at every point about what was known and done about terrorism leading up to

9/11. Yet now he praises their report.

It is unfortunately this president’s standard operating procedure: He says one thing in a public photo-op yet does the opposite when the cameras are turned off.

Alan L. Light

Iowa City, Iowa

To the Editor:

Last week, President Bush told an audience in Iowa that he wanted to be “the peace president.” Is this the same George W. Bush who has spent the last three years telling us he was “a war president”? And Bush has the nerve to accuse John Kerry of flip-flopping!

George B. Lewis

Memphis

To the Editor:

To all you Bush haters who still can’t get over the fact that Al Gore lost straight-up to Bush: Get a life! And while you’re at it, you might want to consider not voting for Democrats, who worship at the altar of the NEA, which is more interested in indoctrinating your kids and teaching them how to use condoms instead of how to read a butterfly ballot!

Scott Leath

Oakland, Tennessee

To the Editor:

John Kerry and John Edwards say they are protecting American workers from foreign competition. But The Washington Times recently reported that while Kerry was in Detroit attending the National Urban League Conference, he insulted that city’s American autoworkers by issuing a press passwitha Rolls-Royce 100EX emblazoned upon it.Prices for that car start at $324,000.

I assume the blue-collar auto-industry workers just loved that.

Joe Mercer

Memphis

Categories
News The Fly-By

Heated Response

Just one day after Shelby County’s Community Services Agency (CSA) began making appointments for residents seeking utility assistance, the number of calls forced the agency to stop taking any more appointments until next month.

To qualify for the Summer Cooling Program funds, residents were to call the CSA beginning last Monday from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. During that time, 640 appointments were scheduled. More than 40 daily appointments also were scheduled at other CSA assistance locations in Southbrook Mall and Raleigh Springs Mall. Calls were to be taken through Friday, July 30th, with funds being distributed on a first-call basis.

But no more appointments will be taken until August 23rd, said program administrator Clarice Williams. “We had an overwhelming number of people call in need of utility assistance, and we are booked with appointments through August 19th,” she said. “If we still have money left after that date, we’ll start issuing appointments again for the month of September.”

The program has $839,000 in federal funds administered by the Tennessee Department of Human Services to distribute. Each eligible household receives between $225 and $325. To qualify for the funds, a household must include a member who is elderly, disabled, or has a medical condition aggravated by heat. Also, the household’s total income must not exceed the federal guidelines for non-farm families.

There are currently no emergency service funds available to extend the program. n

E-mail: jdavis@memphisflyer.com

Categories
News The Fly-By

Book Police

The Hollywood Branch Library closed its doors last week for renovation and expansion. It’s set to reopen next summer, and when it does, some new visitors will already be at home: officers from the Memphis Police Department (MPD).

An MPD mini-precinct has set up shop in the rear of the library on Hollywood Avenue, the first precinct to be installed in a local library. According to Rhonda Lee, MPD public affairs officer, the office is still without furniture, but it is up-and-running.

What was once the Hollywood-Douglass Co-Act Unit was split into two separate units. The library precinct is serving as the Hollywood unit. The same five officers who staff the unit will also be staffing the Douglass unit. Both units operate under the North Precinct.

“There was definitely a need in that area for a Co-Act unit,” said Lee. “It’s there as a resource for the people of that community. The officers in a Co-Act unit are trained to be more community-minded.”

The area of the library building occupied by the MPD was previously owned by the Shelby County Health Department. Although it is located inside the library, a separate entrance will be used to enter the precinct.

“The police precinct was the city’s idea, but we don’t think it’s a bad one,” said Bobby King, a spokesperson for the Memphis and Shelby County Public Library. “It’s not like they’ll have a desk right in the middle of the library.”

The library portion of the building is set to open next June, and according to King, the 6,250-square-foot branch will be expanded to 14,280 square feet. It will include new carpet, furniture, shelving, and several new computers. There won’t be much of an increase in new reading materials.

“They already have a pretty sizable collection, so they’re going to be taking better advantage of the space they have available,” said King. “The shelves will be spread out and there will be more room in the children’s area for public seating.”

The $1.5 million renovation is being funded by the city of Memphis. n

Categories
Editorial Opinion

EDITORIAL

Bill Clinton brought down the house with his Monday night speech at the Democratic National Convention in Boston. Even the right-leaning pundits on the Fox Network (with the exception of Ann Coulter, perhaps the looniest person ever to be taken seriously on network television) acknowledged that the former president had made a formidable case for his party. Former Clinton adviser, now official Fox Hillary-basher, Dick Morris, called the speech a “masterpiece.”

Clinton’s principal political gift has always been his ability to humanize and personalize grand-scale issues, to illustrate them in such a way that they resonate with average Americans. That gift was much in evidence Monday night, as Clinton contrasted the actions of President Bush and Vice President Cheney — and his own actions — during the Vietnam conflict with those of John Kerry.

“During the Vietnam War,” Clinton said, “many young men, including the current president, the vice president, and me, could have gone to Vietnam but didn’t.” Clinton wangled a student deferment. Bush used family connections to get into the Texas National Guard. And Cheney asked for and got five student deferments before he turned 26 and became ineligible for the draft. His explanation: “I had other priorities.”

John Kerry, Clinton went on to point out, also came from a privileged background, also was a student, and could have also easily avoided going to Vietnam. But, instead, he asked to go. The point was obvious: America, if you’re looking for a patriot, look no further. If you’re looking for someone who’s literally battle-tested, here he is.

Clinton also self-deprecatingly noted that for the first time in his life, he was wealthy enough to be a beneficiary of President Bush’s tax cuts. He went on to point out in a very concrete manner how the $5,000 tax cut granted to him and other millionaires forced budget cuts that led to a reduction in the number of cops on the street. I’d rather have more cops on the street, he said, than give millionaires a $5,000 tax cut. It would be hard to imagine many Americans disagreeing with him.

The 24-minute address was interrupted numerous times by ovations and shouts from the faithful, a testament to Clinton’s sustained popularity. Amazingly, despite the lingering residue from his impeachment and the Lewinsky affair, Clinton’s approval ratings with the American public are higher than those of Bush or Kerry.

Presidential polls show Kerry and Bush neck-and-neck in both the popular vote and in the electoral polls. But in the next 100 days so much could happen, so many events (some possibly horrific) could alter the course of this election, that current polls could bear very little resemblance to November’s cold reality.Democratic strategists believe Bush’s best chance at winning re-election is convincing voters that the Democratic ticket would be soft on terrorism. John Kerry will get his first real chance to dispel that notion before a national television audience this week. He needs to connect on a human level, not just as an intelligent wonk. It’s a lesson Al Gore never learned. He, too, could have done far worse than to take a cue — or three — from the man from Arkansas.