Categories
News The Fly-By

ASPIRE!

In the wake of the Tennessee Waltz scandal, local governments have been called upon to shore up and codify their ethical standards, lest the state step in and do the shoring and codifying for them. This experiment in self-regulation is good news for Memphis’ ever-progressive City Council which has long understood that a regressive list of “Thou shalt nots” is no substitute for aiming high and pursuing your goals in an aggressive, proactive manner. The council’s guidelines already contain the disclaimer that its rules “are not mandatory but aspirational in character and represent ethical standards which every city official and employee should strive to follow.”

Heartwarming, ain’t it?

Categories
Opinion

CITY BEAT: Mayor for the Millenium

Friends, and some former foes, of Mayor Willie Herenton have donated $85,000 for his 14th annual holiday party December 8th, suggesting that hizzoner will not be giving up his job any time soon.

The “host committee” for the invitation-only party at the Memphis Cook Convention Center includes 85 people, which is slightly bigger than in previous years. It is studded with names in the news, including Jack Belz, Sidney Chism, John Elkington, Richard Fields, Marty Grusin, Russell Gwatney, Dick Hackett, Pitt Hyde, Kevin Hyneman, Rusty Hyneman, Rick Masson, Charles Perkins, Arnold Perl, Gayle Rose, Karl Schledwitz, Gary Shorb, Fred Smith, the late William B. Tanner, Ron Terry, Henry Turley, and Spence Wilson.

Each host or couple gave $1,000, at the urging of special mayoral assistant Pete Aviotti, co-chairman of the event. The donation is not a campaign contribution, and it doesn’t mean the giver will necessarily support Herenton if he runs for reelection for a fifth four-year term in 2007, as he has indicated he will.

Disclaimers aside, however, a $1,000 donation beats a “no thanks” any day. Anyone who hopes to derail Herenton in 2007 — there are no term limits for Memphis mayors, and the election winner only needs a plurality of the vote, not a majority — has a lot of work to do.

“I expect he will be reelected,” said Perkins, a former Shelby County commissioner and a Republican. He made the donation because he and Herenton had “a good working relationship” when they hammered out an annexation agreement several years ago.

The news from City Hall has not been very good this year. The city’s bond rating was lowered and its reserve funds have dwindled. A new team was installed to oversee the division of finance and administration. There was a cutback in trash pickup, since restored. Utility bills are expected to go up as much as 70 percent. The grass didn’t get cut in a lot of public places. Several Memphis police officers were indicted.

But the news wasn’t as bad as it could have been. Operation Tennessee Waltz has not indicted anyone at City Hall so far. Downtown is thriving. Public housing projects have been replaced with new, lower-density housing. An indicted bad cop is better than an unindicted bad cop. Some categories of violent crime are down.

The larger lesson of Herenton’s 14-year reign is inevitability. Absent a credible challenger, neither bad news nor good news or mayoral objectives met or not met matter enough to a substantial portion of the electorate that would just as soon Herenton remains mayor for life. For the record, here are the highlights of Herenton’s proposals at the start of each of the last six years.

2005: Consolidate government and schools. Reduce city expenditures and citizens’ expectations of local government. “You will see the mayor and City Council work hand-in-glove to address the fiscal challenge.”

2004: Consolidation. Better relations with suburban mayors. A strong reserve fund and good credit and sound money management. “I want to say to the political establishment, don’t bring me no mess and there won’t be no mess.”

2003: Consolidation and shift all funding for schools to Shelby County. Run for a fourth term. City school board is “a disaster.” City reserve fund has increased. “I came here to put my gloves on and draw battle lines.”

2002: Consolidation of governments but not school systems. A state income tax and a lower sales tax. “This city, fiscally, is in a stronger position than it was when we came into office 11 years ago. I’m proud of that.”

2001: Downtown development. Praise for Northwest Airlines and Memphis International Airport’s new World Runway. Touts Memphis per-capita income of $34,317. Extend trolley from downtown to Overton Square. “We’ve got to have a light-rail system.”

2000: A “renaissance” of strong neighborhoods beyond downtown. Minority business development. Good relations with the county mayor. “You’re going to see this administration focus more on neighborhoods.”

Categories
Music Music Features

STONES ON TOUR: The Bang’s Still There





New Page 1

 

 Mike Bell has offered to bet me five bucks that when the
Rolling Stones come out to play, they will commence their sixth Memphis concert
appearance in the last 40 years with “Start Me Up,” a 1981-vintage rouser that
has made its way into Americana as a marching-band mainstay at football games,
both collegiate and NFL.
           

I don’t bet, because that’s my thinking, too, and, anyhow,
I wouldn’t want to cost Mike any more than he’s already spent – $750 apiece for
two scalped tickets to this sold-out affair so that he and his 15-year-old daughter
Hillary can sit on the floor of the FedEx Forum, right under the noses of those
seemingly ageless English sexagenarians who evidently will go on playing rock
and roll music as long as Father Time, who’s obviously determined to look the
other way, will let them.

           

The Bells, father and daughter, hail from Nashville, where
Mike Bell has seen the Stones twice before but which the Stones have skipped
this time around. “I was about eight years old, I think, when I first heard them
– ‘Satisfaction,’ ‘19th Nervous Breakdown’ and all those – and I’ve
never stopped liking ‘em since,” says Mike, who runs a helicopter charter
service. This will be the first Stones concert for daughter Hillary, who attends
prep school at Battleground Academy but has a sensibility that derives more from
hip-hop. 

           

That’s a genre that’s supposed to be about real things but
has turned too “flashy and posey” to maintain its street cred, says Hillary, an
Eminem fan who goes on to deliver a critical rap on the intellectual appeal and
acrobatic skills of Los Lost Boys, Saturday night’s warmup group. Mike should be
proud; he’s raising a charmer whose own persona runs all the way from Hillary
Duff to Greil Marcus.

           

And suddenly, after a brief video intro featuring
interstellar images,  followed by the familiar guitar chords of (yep) “Start Me
Up,” there they are in the stage lights, Mick Jagger and Keith Richards up
front, both wearing sport coats, just as they did when they first played the
Coliseum back in 1965, guitarist Ron Wood and bassist Daryl Jones appearing
next, and Charlie Watts back there on the drum stand.

           

During the next couple of hours, their positions will
change, so will their wardrobes and stage arrangements (about midway of the
concert they’ll ride a mobile runway into the middle of the floor and then back
again), and they will be joined now and then by keyboards, by a Stax-sounding
horn section,  and by a backup vocal trio, all these supportive groups classy
and accomplished and unpretentious, just like the Stones themselves.

           

For that’s surely the point of this ongoing Faustian epic
that is the Rolling Stones, who are, of course, superb performers but
whose life-work depends less on any musical virtuosity that than on their
fidelity to an adopted folk history – one made up of blues riffs and E chords
and plain but archy vernacular, even when, as in the great anthem “You Can’t
Always Get What You Want,” it’s accompanied by operatic choruses, Old
World-style.

           

There’s a moment on the DVD that’s included with their new
CD A Bigger Bang (the ostensible reason for the current world tour) when
vocalist Jagger and guitarist Richards, the band’s main songwriters, name
various African-American blues masters as their role models and opine hopefully
that, in their fifth decade of trying, they’ve almost got it right finally.
          

Maybe they do, maybe they don’t. They’re as good as they
ever were, anyhow – which is as good as anybody gets at rock and roll. The
current Stones lineup is marginally changed from the original one. Co-founder
Brian Jones died long ago, of course; guitarist Mick Taylor came and went (to be
succeeded by Wood); and Bill Wyman, who’s pushing 70, finally hung up his bass. 
In the course of doing “It’s Only Rock ‘n’ Roll” Saturday night, Jagger made a
point of thumping his chest when he got to the line “Can’t you see this old
boy’s getting lonely?”

           

Four or five serviceable tunes from the new album were
mixed in Saturday night with what amounted to a medley of the old songs (a
partial list: “Shattered,” “Tumbling Dice,” “Angie,” “Miss You,” “Gimme
Shelter,” “Brown Sugar,” “19th Nervous Breakdown”) and homages to the
likes of Ray Charles and Otis Redding.

           

Results of the physical: Keith looked and (on his two
obligatory lead vocals) sounded haggard, and he moved like Vincent Price on reds
– just as in 1965, 1975, 1978, 1994, and 1999; Charlie was white-haired, serene,
and crisp; Mick’s dervish-like stage strut and sluttish posturing were on point;
and Ronnie looked the right degree of Rushmorian. No reason why this act can’t
go on forever.

After all, as
the second of their two encores suggested, they still can’t get no
(satisfaction).  Thank God. That means these old boys’ll keep trying.

Want to respond? Send us an email here.

Categories
Sports Sports Feature

FROM MY SEAT: When Love and Hate Collide





New Page 1

Few diversions in
life fall into the love/hate category quite like the world of sports. (Apologies
to rockers Def Leppard for borrowing their perfect title.) Be it a uniform
color, a coach’s demeanor, or merely the “tradition” carried like a torch by one
team or another, we tend to cheer with fervor . . . or deride with vehemence.
Which brings me to this week’s topic (or topics): A few things I love in sports
(and a few things I hate).

LOVE:
Offensive rebounding. It takes a special kind of greed to be a good offensive
rebounder. You have to want a second shot for your team more than your five
opponents want their next possession. Winning basketball games is about making
shots . . . but first you have to take those shots. Every offensive rebound is
one more shot taken, and one fewer for your opponent. It would be the equivalent
in baseball of taking away an opponent’s at-bats, or seizing one more swing
after strike three.

HATE:
Two free-throws — all the time — in the NBA. Enough griping about the pace of
a baseball game. An NBA game grows interminable by all the free-throw shooting.
And the irony is that most NBA players would be out-shot at the line by the
13-year-old star in your local rec league. Why reward a bricklaying foul-shooter
(emphasis on foul) with a second shot after he clangs the first? This is an area
where the college game has it right (until the double-bonus, at least): Unless
you’re shooting when fouled, you must make the first, THEN you get a second.

LOVE:
Pass-catching tight-ends. Sure, that sixth bruiser on the line is nice if you’re
playing for five yards at a time. But I’ll take John Mackey, over the middle,
striking fear in the hearts of otherwise fearless linebackers. Because Mackey is
going to (A) catch the pigskin and (B) hurt the first tackler with the temerity
to try and stop his progress. Mike Ditka, Kellen Winslow, Shannon Sharpe, and
today’s gold standard, Kansas City’s Tony Gonzalez. Football is a game of skill
and muscle. These stars have both.

HATE:
Prevent defense. It’s become the cliche muttered by every fan who has witnessed
his team’s demise when victory seemed all but certain: “The only thing a prevent
defense prevents is wins.” Your team spends 55 minutes knocking its opponent
silly, bull-rushing, covering receivers like Spandex, only to drop back in the
“prevent” as the clock winds down in the fourth quarter. Coaches apparently will
take a loss by a dozen gains of seven-to-ten yards . . . as long as they’re not
beaten by anything deep.

LOVE: A
suicide squeeze. You can have a “walk-off” home run, a triple play, even a
no-hitter. Give me a base-runner taking off from third, full-steam, just as a
pitch is being delivered. There’s simply no moment in sports more shocking and
exhilarating in so brief a span of time. And with either profound success (the
batter gets the bunt down!) or humiliating failure (the baseball waiting in the
catcher’s mitt like a parent awaiting a child late for dinner).

HATE:
Lead-off walks. (When my team’s in the field.) I’m not digging up the
percentages, and I won’t cite particular examples for fear I might crack my
keyboard, but there is no better way to blow a lead or start another team’s
rally than by offering a free pass to a batter leading off an inning. When the
leadoff batter reaches, a team can score a run without so much as a base hit. At
least make that batter earn his first bag.

LOVE:
Olympic speed. Summer or winter, the 100-meter dash or downhill skiing, it
doesn’t matter. I love Olympic racing, as it showcases the most elementary
sporting challenge: Get from Point A to Point B faster than everyone else. When
you factor in the potential for crashes in downhill skiing that make a NASCAR
dustup look mild, these events are fist-clinching, body-English-inducing thrill
shows. And consider that these races are measured in THOUSANDTHS of a second. 
In other words, margin for error: zero.

HATE:
Olympic judging. I can understand the subjective quality to gymnastics or figure
skating. But enough of the hairsplitting criteria that makes a “winner”
impossible for the casual fan to recognize. When the 16-year-old Romanian dynamo
does a cartwheel on the balance beam, but falls off, that’s not a 9.271 . . .
that’s a 3. And who came up with the 6.0 scale for figure skating? Again, if
Michelle Kwan can’t stay on her skates the entire routine, she gets a 2 . . .
not a 5.2. Leave the decimal points to the speed events.

 

Want to respond? Send us an email here.

Categories
Music Music Features

live from test

listen now

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

LETTER FROM MEMPHIS: A Tale of Two Speeches

Last Wednesday, November 30th, Ray Nagin, the Mayor of New
Orleans, was here in Memphis, meeting with former constituents semi-permanently
resident in our city, compliments of Hurricane Katrina. About 800 of them showed
up that evening at Mississippi Boulevard Christian Church in Midtown, to hear
what their mayor-in-absentia had to say about the Big Easy’s future, and what he
had to say about his and their place in that future.

 

Nagin’s Memphis “homecoming” was hardly a blip on the
national news scene, especially since all media eyes were focused that day upon
another speech, one that was given by another politician whose career also took
something of a Katrina detour. George W. Bush may have never mentioned the
hurricane in his rally-round-the-flag effort at the US Naval Academy in
Annapolis, Maryland, but watching the two men speak that day gave me real
insight into what works and what doesn’t in the world of oratory. Whatever his
faults (and I’m told he has many), Ray Nagin’s speech indicates that he “gets
it” when it comes to leadership. George W. Bush hasn’t a clue. Not a clue.

 

The refugee crowd that greeted the New Orleans Mayor in
Memphis was similar to those at “reunions” he’s sponsored throughout the South:
mostly black, but clearly a cross-section of displacement – old and young, rich
and poor, people from all walks of life. Indeed, the audience at Mississippi
Boulevard Christian Church was just about as carefully screened as a one
randomly gathered on a Manhattan subway platform.

 

Contrast that with the entirely different “crowd” that
listened attentively to the President earlier that day at Annapolis. The Naval
Academy’s corps of midshipmen formed, literally and figuratively, a captive
audience, one with a vested interest in applauding every word spoken by their
Commander in Chief. (The official transcript of Bush’s speech contains 24
applause breaks.) In such circumstances, Bush could have asserted that the moon
was made of green cheese, and the midshipmen would have given him a vocal
high-five.

 

Actually, the President said things almost equally
far-fetched. “We will never back down, we will never give in, and we will never
accept anything less than complete victory,” he told the middies, delivering his
now-customary empty rhetoric about freedom and democracy, even though the entire
universe by now is well aware of how his Operation Iraqi Freedom has backfired
big-time. By Thursday morning, in fact, all the major newspapers were pointing
out factual errors in W’s speech, one which was judged by all but his most loyal
partisans as something of a rant, a speech as much detached from reality as,
well, he is.

 

This should have come as no surprise. Since his
re-election, the President has remained steadfastly within his own private
bubble, as if he were doing a reality-TV version of “The Truman Show.” Bush
doesn’t seem to notice or even care that there’s a real America out there beyond
the military bases he always visits, the whirlwind photo-op road trips to garden
spots like Latvia and Mongolia, the well-screened crowds at Republican party
gatherings, and, of course, the friends who gather for his many holidays at his
beloved ranch in Crawford.  Tellingly, the President hasn’t had a full-fledged
press conference since July; in fact, he hasn’t had any meaningful face-to-face
encounters with what might be called “ordinary people” since the Presidential
debates last fall.

 

By contrast, Ray Nagin had more face-time with randomly
selected Americans in his brief hours in Memphis last week than George W. Bush
probably has had in the past year. Standing at the church podium, behind a bank
of a thousand bright-red holiday poinsettias, and dressed nattily in a dark blue
suit — in person, Nagin has a self-assured presence that doesn’t always come
across on television — the Mayor of New Orleans got down to business almost
immediately: 

 

“I wanna speak to you tonight in the spirit of truth. I’m
gonna tell you what I know (about the situation in New Orleans), and tell you
what I don’t know. And then I’m gonna try to answer all your questions as best I
can. And if I can’t, I’ll try to get back to you with real answers.”

 

Just try to imagine George W. Bush starting his Academy
speech – or for that matter, any speech – with those lines. Imagine the stunned
stage-propped midshipmen not knowing what hit them.  He wants us to ask
questions, without anybody vetting them first? Then imagine Bush trying to
answer those questions with something besides formless jargon. Then take a deep
breath. Imagine hell freezing over.

 

Back in Memphis, Nagin wasn’t kidding about the Q&A
part. He spoke for about half an hour, and then spent the next two and a half
hours mostly listening, as his reluctantly-transplanted constituents trooped up
to the microphones in the aisles, sharing with the Mayor their criticisms, their
opinions, their hopes, and their fears.

 

Their comments were sometimes petty – one woman simply
couldn’t understand why the Mayor didn’t know why her company had moved to
Memphis — and most ended up being statements rather than questions.  One
passionate Catholic priest spoke at length between his tears about his affection
for his damaged city’s history and culture. And some folk were downright
confrontational, like the woman who wondered why the Mayor had snuck off for a
Jamaica vacation two weeks after Katrina hit.

 

But Ray Nagin took a licking and kept on ticking. Nothing
fazed him. He stood at the podium politely listening to each and every question
— over forty people eventually spoke out, before they had to shut down the
microphones – along with the lights – at eleven pm.

 

All the while the Mayor seemed more psychiatrist than
politician. He told the woman who complained about his Jamaica trip that he
understood her point, but hoped she could understand how he felt like he needed
some quality time with his family, the family he hardly ever sees. (The crowd
did, as the applause that followed indicated.)  He made suggestions to those who
wanted tangible advise, commiserated with those who simply wanted to share their
sorrow, and in the process “uplifted” nearly everyone in the room. As another
more famous Southern politician might have put it, he felt their pain. 

 

One thing was perfectly clear: for better or worse, Ray
Nagin is comfortable in his own skin, something that George Bush just as clearly
is not. With all kinds of domestic storm clouds circling over his White House
and the Iraq war he sought out so deliberately, the President spends most of his
time now circling the wagons. Ray Nagin takes a different approach, being
unafraid to “shoot straight and let the chips fall where they may,” as one
frustrated Memphis refugee grudgingly admitted at the microphone.

 

Over the past year, George W. Bush has been asked time and
time again if he thought he’d made any mistakes in Iraq. Every time, he answers
the questions with a shrug and a smirk, and words to the effect of “Mistakes?
How would that be possible?” Nothing gets in the way of the President’s vision
of a rosy future for the Middle East, one that he himself has done so much to
carve out and create. Not even two thousand dead Americans, and untold more
innocent Iraqis. Not an America made less safe against terrorism. Not even a
hurricane called Katrina.

 

Here’s how Ray Nagin answered the same $64,000 question
about his handling of Katrina. In fact, he not only answered it; he asked it
rhetorically, as if to save his audience the trouble of asking:

 

“If I had had the chance, would I do anything differently
than I did that last weekend of August?”

 

He paused and smiled at the church crowd. “You’ve gotta be
kidding. Of course, I would!  Here are three things I wish I’d done
differently…”

 

Nagin ticked them each off, one finger at a time. “I blame
myself for not ordering a mandatory evacuation earlier. That’s 50,000 people we
didn’t get out, that we could have and should have.”

 

Then he spoke directly about the infamous placement of
transit-system buses that coulda/shoulda been staged on higher ground. “We
staged them above the hundred-year flood plain, but that just didn’t cut it. It
was a mistake. My bad.”

 

Then came the Big One, number three: “My biggest mistake? 
That was assuming that, after three days of waiting, the cavalry would come. I
thought everybody knew that this was too big a job for our city government, for
any city government.

 

“I kept waiting, thinking help was on the way. It wasn’t.
And it still isn’t…”

 

The church got as quiet as if a funeral was in progress, as Nagin completed his thought. “Doing it again, I would not wait for the cavalry. I would try to think of something else to do.”

Who could blame him? As yet another famous politician from the South once said, inexplicably referencing our own state, of course, but, hey, it’s the thought (?) that counts:

“There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.” p>

 

Categories
News The Fly-By

A Commercial Appeal

“The vote wasn’t unanimous, but it was decisive,” says Memphis Newspaper Guild president Mark Watson.

On November 22nd, the union decided to accept The Commercial Appeal‘s proposal to offer buyout packages to 170 employees age 50 or over with a minimum 15 years of service. Watson predicted the vote’s outcome a day earlier, saying, “There have been a lot of layoffs, and I imagine most [CA employees] think some money is better than no money at all.”

It’s been a bad year for people in the newspaper business. Circulation continues to decline, and although daily newspapers are still moneymakers, average stock prices have dropped. Shareholders aren’t happy with 20 percent profits, and publishers haven’t found the magic bullet for reversing circulation trends, resulting in a reported loss of more than 19,000 jobs in 2005. As one commentator satirically pointed out at industry Web site Poynter.org, “[Since] Google has figured out a way to wrap fish over the Internet, [it’s] increasingly difficult for [newspapers] to maintain our 30 percent profit margin and keep Wall Street happy.”

For employees at the CA, job uncertainty is nothing new. On November 8, 2004, the Newspaper Guild staged a lunchtime walkout to protest as-of-yet unresolved contract disputes and to show solidarity with employees who were laid off before the holidays. There were more layoffs in 2005, and although the CA‘s newest proposal has come with the promise that the paper doesn’t have a specific minimum number of jobs to cut, employees aren’t taking chances.

“There are no minimums, but there are also no guarantees,” says Samantha Norton, a guild employee who finds it hard to believe that the CA doesn’t have some rough idea of how many jobs they want to eliminate.

“We hoped [the CA] would extend its age requirements,” Watson says. “There are a lot of 45-year-olds who’ve got 20 more years to work who would probably take the buyouts. … $50,000 and six-months paid health insurance means more to [someone in their 40s] than to [someone nearing retirement.]” According to Watson, the CA didn’t want to negotiate age limits.

While eliminating older employees (those who have reached the top of the pay scale and whose health insurance is presumably more costly than their younger colleagues) may have a positive effect on the bottom line, it’s difficult to see how it can do anything to help the more serious issue of declining circulation. In recent columns and interviews, CA editor Chris Peck has expressed optimism that the paper can do more with less. Watson is less certain.

“When you’re looking to get rid of employees who are over 50 and who have been with the paper for a long time, that’s a lot of [collective] memory,” says Watson. “When you’re looking to eliminate your most experienced journalists, the community is the big loser.” — by Chris Davis

Categories
Music Music Features

Kanye and the Kids

One month into the season, the new-look Memphis Grizzlies are still searching for an identity as recognizable as past editions. But if you want to get a handle on this year’s Grizzlies, you could start with this: If this team doesn’t shoot well from three-point range, it can’t score.

Though the Grizzlies own an impressive 9-5 record through Saturday’s 20-point win in Dallas, the Grizzlies have yet to score 90 points in a game without shooting at least 42 percent from three-point range.

Complaining about a team “settling for jumpshots” is a common hoops cliché. The notion of gearing an offense around outside shooting is so unfashionable that you rarely hear an NBA coach endorse the strategy, at least not publicly. But you shouldn’t make the mistake of thinking the Grizzlies, currently fourth in the league at 20.4 attempts per game, are too dependent on their outside attack.

Sure, there have been occasions this season — down the stretch on opening night against the Heat and in the first half at Cleveland — in which the Grizzlies have jacked up threes indiscriminately. But, in truth, this team’s reliance on three-point shooting is dictated by its roster, which contains one reliable post threat (Pau Gasol) and a cast of perimeter players who are almost uniformly good three-point shooters who lack the athleticism and/or ball-handling skills to consistently create shots.

Minus energy and execution, the Griz’ relative lack of size and athleticism is easily exploited by even bad NBA teams, as witnessed by the team’s 95-87 home loss to Portland last week. So while the Grizzlies have to take — and make — a considerable amount of threes in order to thrive, it’s important how these shots are created. The Grizzlies offense works best — maybe works only — when the team’s three-point attack plays off Gasol’s interior game, and vice versa.

“The Spaniard,” as much of the local media suddenly insist on calling Gasol, hasn’t been quite as consistent a scorer or rebounder as his quick start to the season suggested. But what’s perhaps been most impressive about Gasol in his fifth season is that, on a per-minute basis, his assists are up and his turnovers are down. Once prone to losing the ball under duress, Gasol has emerged as a deadly multidimensional frontcourt threat. The only seven-footers having better seasons passing the ball are Minnesota’s Kevin Garnett and Sacramento’s Brad Miller, and Miller is nowhere near the scorer that Gasol is. Pretty elite company.

This season, nearly half of Gasol’s assists have come on three-point baskets. This doesn’t take into account the myriad possessions in which Gasol’s ability to demand a double- or triple-team and willingness to kick the ball back out has served as the catalyst for ball movement that results in an open shot for a teammate. The Grizzlies have been up and down offensively this season, but when the ball goes through Gasol and the outside shooters are hitting, the Grizzlies have been explosive. In the three games where Gasol has had five or more assists and the team has shot at least 40 percent from downtown, the Grizzlies have averaged more than 113 points per game.

The good news for the Grizzlies is that the shooting can get better. The team’s meager 91.4 points per game looks better when you factor in that the Grizzlies are playing at the league’s fourth-slowest pace. But this team is still capable of better. Of the seven proven three-point shooters on the roster, only two (Shane Battier and Eddie Jones) are shooting better than their career averages. One — Brian Cardinal — has yet to play a game while rehabbing from off-season knee surgery. Once banged-up Mike Miller gets back into the lineup and new point guards Damon Stoudamire and Bobby Jackson settle into a groove, the Grizzlies should be able to better their current 36 percent three-point percentage.

And they’ll need to. That the Grizzlies can’t score without shooting the three well doesn’t mean they can’t win. Four of the team’s nine wins have come while scoring under 90 points, shooting 30 percent or worse from long-range in three of those games. But their opponents in those four games have a combined record of 16-36. So you can win scoring under 90 but only against bad teams or good teams having bad nights. To be a real contender, the Grizzlies’ scoring has to increase. Which means those threes have to fall.

Categories
Editorial Opinion

Changing the Culture

A season or two back, the phrase “culture of entitlement” got some decent mileage in Shelby County — thanks to a scandal involving the free and easy use of credit cards by officials in county government. It was probably no coincidence that former state Attorney General Michael Cody, a Memphian, invoked the phrase again this week in detailing the case for a “sea change” in state ethics legislation.

Cody, who served as co-chairman of Governor Phil Bredesen’s special task force on Ethics in Government, made it clear in an address to downtown Rotarians this week that the “deeply cynical” attitude toward ethics reform in government and in much of the media was not shared by the public at large.

Members of the task force were “not moved to make excuses, to backpedal, or to quibble,” said Cody. Neither were the citizens they heard from. Some version of the panel’s tough recommendations, as channeled through a six-member legislative leadership group, are almost certain to be enacted when the General Assembly convenes in January. The three essential needs, as outlined by Cody, were “to set new limits” on outside funding sources, “to enhance disclosure” of such sources, and “to tighten enforcement.” In particular, the previously untrammeled influence of lobbyists should be curbed and regulated.

To those who imputed naiveté about the way government works to his group, Cody said, “We do understand the political process in Tennessee. We don’t like it, and we want to change it.” So do we.

Categories
Editorial Opinion

The Better Part of Generosity

To put it mildly, we were taken aback by recent reports that FEMA and the Red Cross had given up to $2,000 apiece to thousands of Katrina “victims” in the Jackson, Mississippi, area for spoiled food and the inconvenience of lost power.

The stories in the Jackson Clarion-Ledger, CNN, and The New York Times reported that up to $60 million might have been given away for such purposes. An emergency-services director said there were more people claiming to be displaced than were homes destroyed. Federal investigators are looking into possible cases of fraud.

There are two issues here. One is greed and misallocation of funds to people no more inconvenienced than Memphians were by the windstorm of the summer of 2003.

The other is the impact of Katrina on charitable giving. There are only so many charitable donations to go around.

“Groups ranging from homeless shelters to symphonies are finding their donors tapped out in a season that’s traditionally the year’s most generous,” The Wall Street Journal noted last week.

Non-disaster nonprofits are especially at risk of getting short shrift. A survey of 3,900 nonprofits in October indicated that 80 percent expect their donations to be flat or down this year.

It isn’t realistic for donors to play Scrooge and audit every cause or agency that solicits funds, but it may be a good time to focus more on giving to local groups with non-emergency needs and track records of spending money wisely. Be generous but be wise. Discretion is the better part of giving too.