Categories
Letters To The Editor Opinion

What They Said (October 15, 2014) …

Greg Cravens

About Bruce VanWyngarden’s Letter from the Editor on Amendment 1 …

When I see the “Yes on 1” signs in yards all over town, I just want to go up to those people and say “Do you really know what that means?”

It means we voluntarily give up our rights to privacy. And we invite our elected state representatives and senators, whoever they may be, now and in the future, to make whatever kind of laws they want to make about a woman and her family’s personal business. I am especially bothered by churches that are promoting this idea that we should defer to politicians about our private medical decisions.

It is gullible to condone government overreach on a promise from elected officials who may not even be in office two years from now. If the “Yes” people want to say their religious dogma compels them to believe this or that about abortion, that’s fine. We all have a right to believe what we want to believe. But, when those same people want laws passed that force me to abide by their beliefs, that’s a violation of my rights under the Constitution.

It really does not matter which political party we align with or whether we are black or white, rich or poor. Women of all stripes and persuasions have problem pregnancies and are vulnerable to incest and rape. What a travesty it would be to pass an amendment to the constitution that affords no protection to us in those cases. Vote “No” on Amendment 1.

Tonya Wall

My husband is an Episcopal minister. We are both Christians and adamantly opposed to Amendment 1. Although some people view this amendment as a religious litmus test, we must really look at the bigger picture. Amendment 1, if passed, would threaten our cherished system of government. The proponents of the amendment in the legislative branch are basically saying to the judicial branch of our government, “Since you struck down the laws we passed in 2000, we found a way to get around it. We will just change the very document we’ve sworn to uphold.” The sad thing is that they have hooked people of faith onto the idea that they can legislate morality and undermine our system of checks and balances.

The passage of Amendment 1 would set a dangerous precedent and could become a slippery slope for many issues, not just abortion. The Constitution ought to be about protecting people’s rights, not taking them away. If you read the proposed amendment, you can see how vaguely it was written: “Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion … not even in circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother.”

While none of us likes abortion, if we or someone we loved was in one of these extenuating circumstances, we would want these personal and very private medical decisions to be made in the doctor’s office and not in Nashville. Please respect the dignity and worth of each woman in our society by voting “No” on Amendment 1. And remember to cast a vote for the governor of your choice.

Janice Richie

Greg Cravens

About Jackson Baker’s post, “Bailey Hits ‘Deal … Political Machinations'” …

I hear there’s a special costume for Halloween this year, with a fuzzy grey-haired cowboy in a black mask and big 10-gallon hat, sitting astride a white stallion. They call him The Lone Dissenter.

OakTree

About Wendi C. Thomas’ column, “Husband Wanted. Unemployed Need Not Apply” …

I have an idea: How about the men not make the choices that will put them in prison and give them a record?

Breckrider

There are a lot of issues Wendi is pointing out here, and I can see why her critics like to give simple rebuttals like “don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.” They like these simple talking points, because it hurts to actually wrap their heads around the complexity of the issues.

Charlie Eppes

Categories
Letters To The Editor Opinion

What They Said …

Greg Cravens

About Jackson Baker’s column, “Insularity Breeds Defeat for Democrats” …

I said it before the election, and it has proven to be true: A reboot is in progress.

There is simply no way to ignore the concerns of young people, Hispanics, South Asians, or any of the many subgroups of people who would normally be attracted to Democratic positions at the national level, and expect to win elections. The message of hate, distrust, and identity politics has run its course.

Memphians, by and large, are bigger than that. Just travel to any other place in America, then come back home. Ask yourself, after talking to people one-on-one, where you can find such an open and welcoming populace. Is there poverty here? Sure. But we’re working on it. Is there crime? Yeah, but that’s improving too. Are there still remnants of structural racism that make it hard for minorities to get a fair shake? Indeed there are. But we’re on the ground floor of a change. And many of us who are trying to make our hometown a better place can see it … feel it.

No one is going to take the politics of division seriously anymore.

OakTree

About last week’s Fly on the Wall column …

WTF MF? I receive The Commercial Appeal the old-fashioned way, at my door, so I have not had to endure the “rough patch” the CA hit recently with its digital editions. However, after 25 years in print, I expect the Flyer to at the least print the crossword puzzle somewhere within the classified section as listed in the index. Not only was it not in the classified section, the darn thing was nowhere to be found between the front and back pages. Perhaps a little more editing and a little less web browsing is in order

Maryellyn Duncan

About Bruce VanWyngarden’s Editor’s Note on the recent election …

Without a doubt, the best assessment of what went wrong for Democrats on Election Day! As a Germantown Democrat, which makes me a rare bird anyway, I’m one of those white “cross-overs” the party leaders hate. But since they insist, as a Democrat I’m obligated to vote for whatever clown they run, and they will keep coming up short. Give us some decent candidates like Cheyenne Johnson and Lee Harris and there will be better results.

1956Gold

About the state of sex education in Shelby County Schools …

Jean-Baptiste Karr said, “The more things change, the more they stay the same”. There was a guest column in this past Sunday’s Commercial Appeal about the state of sex education in Memphis. I’m getting on in years, and sometimes memory fails me, but as I read this I remembered a letter I wrote to the CA editor 23 years ago:

“Last night, the Shelby County School Board voted in a sex education course that is the equivalent of putting blinders on our children and sending them out into the streets. The state of Tennessee has decreed that the board must adopt a sex education program that addresses the problem of AIDS by the end of the calendar year. This is a worthwhile goal. Where the state falls short is in allowing the schools to pick and choose their programs, as opposed to setting a standard. Memphis chose a new program titled “Sex Respect,” a curriculum touted as even more conservative than the much discussed “Family Life” program. The Sex Respect program does not make mention of contraceptives. It ignores the issue entirely. The basis of the program is pure and simple, abstain from having sex until you are married, and even then be careful. This is the moral equivalent of teaching someone how to drive and not mentioning that the car has lights because you don’t want them to drive at night. 

It is a fine thing to teach our young people the virtues of abstinence. But please, for their sake, tell them everything. Remember there may be some people out there inclined to behave in a manner inconsistent with your beliefs and these are the ones who are being deprived of valuable information that may cut down on both the spread of disease and the skyrocketing statistics of illegitimate birth.”

My, look how much more progressive we are in the 21st century. The more we as a nation try to move forward, the more ignorance stays the same.

Joey Hagan

Categories
Opinion

Germantown: Your Turn on Schools

David Pickler

  • David Pickler

This should be good. There’s a meeting at Germantown City Hall at 7 p.m. tonight to talk about schools. I don’t think they’ll be booing David Pickler and Mark Norris.

What snow? As of noon Monday, it was game on. With timely action on a schools bill expected in Nashville today, and possibly some court filings, counter-moves, or shenanigans elsewhere, there will be fresh red meat for a big crowd meeting on its home court in the belly of the beast.

It was a quiet weekend here in Lake Wobegon, also known as Midtown. The Super Bowl took airtime and print space and blogosphere energy from the schools story, which I sense is testing the patience and attention span of everyone involved in it. Sort of like the Black Eyed Peas halftime show.

And I think that is part of the strategy of merger opponents. Killing with delay, kindness, and confusion is a time-tested winner.

That goes for the white men in suits and boots in Nashville who dominate the legislature and the governor’s office. As my colleague Jackson Baker has described in detail, Norris brilliantly crafted a bill that can and will be seen as giving away a lot while actually giving away very little, and assuring special school district status for Shelby County down the road, if not sooner.

Delay worked for annexation opponents a few years ago when Memphis was on the verge of taking in Southwind and a bunch of schools in southeastern Shelby County. The neighborhoods avoided higher taxes, and the county school system avoided losing so much of its black population that it’s lopsided racial imbalance might have drawn renewed interest from the federal courts. Southwind is supposed to come into the city of Memphis in 2013. Where have we heard that year before? Oh yes, its the year that the city and county school systems will merge in Norris’ bill. We’ll see.

Delay works for Memphis City Schools Superintendent Kriner Cash. He can never seem to come up with numbers when the media and elected officials need them, whether it’s the enrollment, the number of kids who fail to start school until after Labor Day, or the number of pregnant girls at Frayser High School. He talks vaguely about closing some schools, but doesn’t look ready to identify specific schools on the chopping block. “Right-sizing” MCS is off the table at least until the referendum.

Last Thursday the Memphis City Council delayed, for a week, finalizing its support of surrendering the MCS charter. Harold Collins was pushing for final action, and when I saw him later that evening at a public meeting at Whitehaven High School he looked visibly distressed at the ability of Norris to persuade some city council members of his honorable intentions.

“Do you really trust him?” he asked me. Hey, I’m the one who gets to ask the questions.

I told Collins I thought he had no choice but to wait, given that five other council members — all the white guys, at that — were going to vote against it. Not a good outcome. Collins glumly agreed. The trouble is that the council’s “nuclear” option may now be the nuclear dud. Defused. Outfoxed. Killed with kindness and confusion.

I disagree with some of my media colleagues who suggested that the moratorium on March 8th may be irrelevant. Symbolic is not the same as irrelevant. It is good to engage people, good to know how Memphians feel, good to follow through with what the school board started on December 20th, good to play by the rules. A split vote for surrender on the school board followed by a split vote for surrender on the city council without a referendum would have been a disaster.

Better to keep talking, have the referendum, get a big turnout, see what happens, then argue about what it means.

I ran into civil rights lawyer Richard Fields Saturday. He said he plans to file a lawsuit to enjoin the state from taking any action. Fields has the bona fides on this issue. We will see. If he does something, we shall report it.

Categories
Politics Politics Feature

Sealing the Deal

I’m off to the two national conventions. But first:

What hath Henri Brooks wrought? And then unwrought?

Or maybe those questions should be posed in reverse order. In any case, what the outspoken and influential county commissioner from District 2, Position 2, did at the very beginning of Monday’s meeting of the Shelby County Commission was abstain from voting on the second reading of an ordinance to redefine five countywide offices.

And a good two hours later, what Brooks did was decide she could vote on that ordinance after all, giving it enough votes finally for the required super-majority of nine and putting it on the way to a third reading and final passage. All of which means that Shelby County voters will have a chance to approve the newly re-created and freshly chartered offices of sheriff, trustee, assessor, county clerk, and register on the November ballot.

What happened in between was that the 13 commissioners were forced into yet another vexing and acrimonious recap of all the various dissents and counterarguments that had kept the commission from coming to agreement on what to do about the five offices, which in essence had seen their constitutionality invalidated by the state Supreme Court in January 2007.

That act, a spinoff of the court’s ruling on similar positions in Knox County, forced the commission to re-create the offices under the county charter. A first compromise effort, which came after literally months of frenzied disagreement, was put on the August ballot as Ordinance 360 and was narrowly rejected, though a companion measure, Ordinance 361, passed handily.

After the defeat of Ordinance 360, presumably because of a controversial term-limits provision — a maximum of three four-years terms for the five officials, plus the mayor and commissioners — the commission bit the bullet last week and forged two new ordinances for November. One would merely re-create the five positions, and the other would impose limits of two four-year terms on the officials.

The second reading on Monday was expected to be routine — though, given the cantankerousness that has prevailed in previous discussions, nobody could be 100 per cent certain. And, sure enough, Brooks’ demurrer left the first resolution short by a vote and put the second one in jeopardy.

The capsule version of what happened next: Every argument for and against limits of two four-year terms, limits of three four-year terms, and there being no limits at all was hauled out of storage, dusted off, and given another hearing — though, as before, agreement proved elusive.

At one point, Commissioner George Flinn seemed to have come up with a compromise that would have let Shelby Countians vote on one ordinance that re-created the five jobs with limits of three four-year terms, accompanied by another resolution limiting the offices to two four-year terms that superseded the first resolution in that respect.

A majority of the commission seemed ready to vote approval, but the moment of epiphany dissipated when it came to actual voting. Flinn’s motion failed, as did another variant, offered by Commissioner Mike Ritz, that located the two-term provision in the first proposed ordinance and a three-term provision in the second or “trump” ordinance.

Then, for reasons as unexplained as was her original abstention, Brooks proposed a re-vote on the original first ordinance, simply re-creating the five positions, and, since she voted for it this time, it got the necessary nine. Following that, so did the original second resolution, with its provision for limits on the five officials of two four-year terms.

Not everybody liked the outcome, but most commissioners acknowledged afterward that the two ordinances, submitted to the voters in November as referenda, had good chances for passage.

• In other significant actions, the commission rejected a proposal for outsourcing food services for the division of corrections to a private corporation and approved a long-pending salary adjustment upward for sheriff’s deputies at or below the rank of lieutenant.

Though both votes flowed across party lines, each reflected the enhanced power of the Democratic electorate — both on the commission, where Democrats now own a majority and District 5’s Steve Mulroy has often provided a swing vote on politically contentious matters, and in the county at large, where the August 7th election results tilted decisively toward Democratic demographics.

• Thursday is the filing deadline for Scott McCormick‘s vacated District 9, Position 1, City Council seat. See memphisflyer.com for updates on this and other political matters.

Categories
Politics Politics Feature

Now for Round Two

Round One, the August part of this year’s election cycle, is over, and Round Two, the November portion, just got a little lengthier — what with City Council chairman Scott McCormick‘s surprise announcement that he’s giving up his seat to head the Plough Foundation.

The council will have to appoint an interim member as a temporary fill-in for McCormick in Super-District 9, Position 1, but the voters will weigh in on November 4th with the final word on a permanent successor.

So what is the field they are likely to be choosing from? Known quantities:

Brian Stephens: The Cordova Leadership Council organizer and runner-up in last year’s District 2 council election has already started gearing up. He’ll have at his disposal the same mix of suburban conservatives and Midtown liberals who kept him close to ultimate winner Bill Boyd last fall.

Mary Wilder: The longtime activist and former interim state representative, who ran well in the Super-District 9, Position 3, race in 2007, is another who says she’ll try again. (The only hitch is if former District 5 councilwoman Carol Chumney, a 2007 mayoral candidate and a close associate of Wilder’s, should get in.)

Kemp Conrad: Last year’s runner-up to current Super-District 9, Position 2, councilman Shea Flinn is another candidate said to be getting a still extant campaign structure revved for another go-around.

Other possibilities: Chumney is a definite candidate for mayor again the next time there’s a race, and some think a return to the council would give her the right kind of bully pulpit. (“I haven’t made any decisions and certainly will think it over,” she says.) Not heard from so far are 2007 council candidates Joe Saino, proprietor of memphiswatchdog.org, and Frank Langston, regarded as a promising newcomer. Word is that lawyer Desi Franklin, who ran strong in Super-District 9, Position 3, isn’t interested — yet.

More 2007 council candidates rumored ready for another go are Antonio “2-Shay” Parkinson and Lester Lit, while Ed Stanton, a congressional candidate in 2006, has also been talked up. Two other possible hopefuls are Florence Johnson and Susan Thorp.

The election results on August 7th were exactly what Steve Cohen wanted to happen the first time he ran for Congress in the 9th District, in 1996 — a 4-1 victory over his nearest opponent, a win so overwhelming and so uniform in his favor throughout the demographic corners of his district that he could truthfully claim to represent the entirety of his constituents.

It was, as he said amid the delirium of his victory celebration last Thursday night in the ballroom of the Holiday Inn on Central Avenue, a triumph for the idea that “we can all work together” and a refutation of the “negative politics” that his challenger had attempted in the last few days of the campaign.

The 79 percent to 19 percent spread between Cohen and Democratic primary foe Nikki Tinker was higher than even the most optimistic pre-election forecasts of Cohen supporters. Unofficial totals from all 208 precincts were: Cohen, 50,284; Tinker, 11,814; Joe Towns Jr., 914; James C. Gregory, 180; and Isaac Richmond, 172. The incumbent appeared to have a comfortable margin across all demographic and geographic lines.

It was a personal triumph for Cohen, who can take the overwhelming approval of his constituents into what is likely to be a pro forma general-election contest with independent Jake Ford. When he first ran for Congress 12 years ago, Cohen was defeated in the Democratic primary by Harold Ford Jr. and was openly disappointed that his long and commendable — if often controversial — record in the state Senate had not, as he saw it, been properly appraised.

Even his victory by a 31 percent plurality in a crowded primary field two years ago was regarded by some as a fluke of mathematics — certainly by Tinker, a corporate attorney and Alabama transplant who thought her 26 percent showing in that race could be improved upon the second time around. Tinker never quite put a platform before the voters, however, and, on the evidence of two late ads, seemed to believe that victory would be hers if, in the most stark and divisive way, she could remind the voters of a 60 percent majority-black district that she was an African American and a Christian, while Cohen was white and Jewish.

The incumbent congressman ran on the record of his first two years in office, during which he had become a national figure and was credited with paying serious attention to the special needs and aspirations of his African-American constituents. A late accomplishment, the passage by acclamation in the House of Representatives of his resolution apologizing for slavery, encompassed both aspects of his tenure so far.

On the day before Election Day, a Cohen press conference held at the congressman’s Midtown residence was crashed by Peter Musurlian, one of the Armenian-American activists who had plagued Cohen throughout the primary campaign. The congressman had been targeted for his role in defeating a congressional resolution condemning Turkey, an American ally in the Middle East, for its century-old genocide of ethnic Armenians. The interloper, a self-styled video “documentarian,” was unceremoniously thrown out by Cohen himself, and the incident seemed actually to have redounded to the incumbent’s benefit.

In any case, as Cohen noted after his victory speech, he had come out ahead “with man and woman, with black and white, with Christian and Jew, with young and old, with the follically challenged [here he all but tapped his own balding pate] and with the hirsute.”

The other side of that coin was opponent Tinker’s seeming repudiation across the board of the district’s constituencies. (See Viewpoint, p. 17.)

On the last two days of her campaign, Tinker was repudiated by the Emily’s List PAC which had earlier endorsed her; by former congressman Harold Ford Jr., whom she had once worked for; and, most crucially, by Barack Obama himself, who will become the party’s presidential nominee at its national convention later this month.

As for Cohen, his triumph turned out to be a victory also for the dream of equality and political harmony, or so at least was the belief proclaimed Thursday night, spontaneously and separately, by such icons of Memphis civil rights history as Maxine Smith, Russell Sugarmon and Minerva Johnican.

In another contested congressional race, this one involving Republicans, incumbent 7th District representative Marsha Blackburn had a two-to-one margin over challenger Tom Leatherwood, the Shelby County register. And Nashville lawyer Bob Tuke, as expected, won the Democratic Party primary for U.S. Senate over opponents Mike Padgett, Kenneth Eaton, and Gary Davis.

Though most observers regard Blackburn and incumbent Senator Lamar Alexander as prohibitive favorites in their general-election races — over Randy Morris of Waynesboro and Tuke, respectively — both incumbents made a point of turning up in Shelby County on the morning after the election, Alexander for a joint appearance at MIFA with Cohen and Shelby County mayor A C Wharton and Blackburn for a meeting with the media and supporters.

Other results: In a closely watched non-partisan race, Criminal Court judge John Fowlkes won election in his own right over three opponents.

And there were two other major developments on display in the election results. Cohen had noted one in his Thursday night remarks — the final establishment of a long-building demographics in favor of Democratic candidates countywide.

In every Shelby County election since partisan elections were established in 1992, Republicans had dominated. This time around was different. It was all Democrats: Paul Mattila defeated Republican Ray Butler and independent M. LaTroy Williams for trustee. Cheyenne Johnson beat Republican Bill Giannini convincingly in the assessor’s race. Otis Jackson won out over Republican incumbent Chris Turner for General Sessions clerk.

County charter amendment 361 won easily, but amendment 360, meant to redefine five county offices formerly regarded as constitutional, narrowly lost — a circumstance that put the Shelby County Commission, which had authorized it, smack dab in the middle of a quandary. (See Editorial, p. 16.)

Categories
Letters To The Editor Opinion

Letters to the Editor

Kudos

Kudos to the Flyer and Jackson Baker for his succinct and invaluable guide to the upcoming election (“A Sleeper Election?,” July 31st issue). There are many of us who rely on your publication and Baker for our political “fix.” Thanks for what you do.

Julio Martinez

Memphis

Creatively Designed

Regarding Charles Gillihan’s letter (July 31st issue): Gillihan is trying to distance himself and the intelligent-design movement away from its predecessor “creation science.” The lecture delivered by Barbara Forrest (“Q&A with Barbara Forrest,” July 24th issue) was not to “offer the alternatives.” That was not her job. Her job was to show in court during the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board trial (and later to her lecture audience) that intelligent design evolved from creationism.

She showed convincingly that intelligent design is creationism and thus religious. By doing so, “intelligent-design creationism” was judged unconstitutional and in violation of the First Amendment as a subject to be taught in public school science class.

I suggest Gillihan read the trial transcript at creationismstrojanhorse.com.

Chris Stahl, Director

Memphis Freethought Alliance

Those in the Discovery Institute and the intelligent-design/creationism movement use code phrases such as “logical analysis,” “critical thinking,” and so forth. Another common one is “teach the controversy.” The irony of those code phrases is that the intelligent-design creationists often do exactly the opposite.

Intelligent-design creationists rarely apply critical thinking, logical analysis, or teach the controversy strategies to ideas about creationism or the Bible (specifically the Book of Genesis). Controversy is rampant in the creationism camp: “young-Earth creationists” argue with “old-Earth creationists.” “Gap creationists” contend that God created and then annihilated man and later annihilated all of humanity except two people. By contrast, many biblical scholars believe that the creation story in Genesis is actually the splicing together of more than one Jewish creation story with varying chronologies.

The point is that there is a lot of debate amongst the Christian communities about the creation story. Intelligent-design creationists instead focus on an imaginary controversy among scientists over the theory of evolution. They also conveniently ignore the fact that a significant number of Christians embrace the scientific theory of evolution.

Jason Grosser

Cordova

Gillihan’s assertion that there are non-creationists who believe in intelligent design is absurd. If anyone takes the time to follow the careers of these people, they were all associated with some sort of fundamentalist religious organization before they got into intelligent design.

Bill Runyan

Memphis

Gillihan wrote: “There are many non-creationists who hold to intelligent design.” This is not so. Creationism is intelligent design. Barbara Forrest did an excellent job during the trial of proving conclusively that in all documentation over the last 10 years, the phrase “intelligent design” has been substituted for “creationism.”

Why? Because the Supreme Court ruled that teaching creationism as science is unconstitutional. This is absolutely clearcut. Creationism equals intelligent design equals religious instruction.

Steve Aldred

Whiteville

More Fireworks

Regarding Bruce VanWyngarden’s recent 4th of July fireworks Editor’s Note (July 10th issue) and subsequent letters to the editor: There has been serious congestion and gridlock downtown during and immediately after any large public event in the last 25 years or so. And for the last several years, anytime between the hours of, say, 9 p.m. and 3 a.m. Fridays, Saturdays, and some Sundays, the same problem exists, which is why “no cruise” areas were initiated.

Our family chose to view the fireworks from the top of one of the multi-tenant buildings in the central business district. Afterward, we rode down the elevator to our condo and then walked to dinner, just off South Main. Rather than moving to Germantown, I say support downtown Memphis. Buy a condo!

J. Tucker Beck

Memphis

Editor’s Note: In last week’s Politics column, the following names should have been spelled: Phil Trenary, Jim McGehee, and Michael Floyd.

Categories
Editorial Opinion

Foul Play

The 9th District Congressional debate sponsored Monday night by the Downtown Merchants Association was marked, as The Commercial Appeal‘s Halimah Abdullah put it, with “plenty of gusts from unexpected directions.” So what else is new? This political season, especially here in Tennessee, the level of negative campaigning has gone over-the-top “nukular,” as George W. Bush likes to say.

We find that a depressing development. But those who run for public office these days know full well that this is how the game is now played, however unfortunate the rule changes are. If a political candidate cannot stand the heat of opponents lambasting their past behaviors and present foibles, he or she needs to consider getting into another line of work.

But a line is crossed when this demonstrable incivility extends itself to reporters trying to do their jobs in as fair and equable fashion as possible. Just such a line was crossed Monday night, when, in the aftermath of this particular debate, Flyer political editor Jackson Baker was verbally accosted by 9th District Independent candidate Jake Ford. The particulars of this event are referred to elsewhere in this issue.

However distasteful his debate remarks about his two opponents may have appeared to those opponents and to many members of the audience, Jake Ford was well within his rights to hurl verbal abuse in their direction within the debate context. When he later decided to extend that approach to a reporter — from whatever news organization — simply trying to do his job properly, he was completely out of line. Period.

Ford owes Baker a public apology, immediately, if not sooner.

The Kroc Center

City attorney Sara Hall is right to say the city should get fair-market value for land at the Mid-South Fairgrounds if a deal is struck with backers of the Kroc Center.

The $48-million recreation complex and social center would be a welcome addition to the underused fairgrounds property. Money from the family of McDonald’s founder Ray Kroc, along with local private-funding sources, would pay for the center, which was discussed this week at the Memphis City Council.

But there’s a principle here that shouldn’t give way to expedience in a rush to make a deal: The Salvation Army, which is the recipient of the Kroc grant, is a church. If the city wants to sell city property to this or any other church, it should receive market value. Some Memphians may be tempted to say that the property should be given away for a nominal amount because the end justifies the means. Hall is right on the law and right on principle to object.

The Salvation Army and other Memphis churches can be important partners with the city. But we’re not ready to turn over public responsibilities or public property to churches without full disclosure and market pricing. Other Christian churches and colleges have their eyes on public land, and Hall has drawn the line properly.

Categories
Politics Politics Feature

Much Ado

So Jake Ford did show for the 9th District congressional debate sponsored by the Downtown Neighborhood Association (DNA) and the South Main Association (SMA) — despite his several threats not to.

Underscore that word, “threats,” for it is all but inseparable from this candidate’s very presence. (Editor’s note: See “Fly on the Wall,” for a brief account of the incident that provoked this column.)

The fact is, a political candidate has, for no good reason whatsoever, chosen to try to employ me as a foil for his own purposes, to have made me a story and to have hauled me onto center stage against my will. In the process, he has also bullied one of the most good-hearted, civic-spirited presences around — Joan Robinson of the DNA.

Since this became enough of a story to have attracted a battery of TV reporters to my home and to the site of a long-planned 9th District congressional debate involving both me (as a moderator) and the aforesaid Jake Ford as a candidate, and since it becomes increasingly clear that the context is candidate Ford’s political strategy, then readers are entitled to know the background of the story. The “back story,” as it were.

That began with a phone call I placed to Jake Ford on the same day (September 6th) that mayors Willie Herenton and A C Wharton endorsed Ford-rival congressional candidate Steve Cohen, the Democrats’ nominee, in a public ceremony. I had seen independent candidate Ford make a brief response — his first public exposure of the campaign season — on the evening news that night (WMC-TV, to be exact).

Herenton had blasted Jake Ford directly (“No one can convince me that Jake Ford has a modicum of qualifications for this position. All he brings to the table is the Ford name. … He has simply no qualifications to serve.”) and assailed the Ford family for seeking, as he put it, “a monopoly on all elected positions in this state and this county.”

Under the circumstances, Jake Ford was restrained and, I thought, impressive. As I said in my column online the next day, Ford had appeared to be “a slim, well-groomed, and reasonably well-spoken — if less prepossessing — version of his older brother, U.S. Representative Harold Ford Jr.

I continued: “Jake Ford’s posture on the occasion, unprovocative and respectful toward the two mayors (whom he declared himself a “supporter” of) did much to mitigate a profile — high-school dropout and hothead — that had been widely propagated in quarters as diverse as local establishment circles and the highly non-establishment blog of African-American maverick Thaddeus Matthews (whose name for the candidate is ‘Joke Ford’).”

Either because he is incapable of making such distinctions or because it fits a calculated purpose, Jake has proved careless in distinguishing between things I have said with my own voice and things said by other people whom I have quoted. This is germane. But to proceed:

I had called Jake, using a cell number given me by his uncle, Shelby County commissioner Joe Ford, a widely liked and respected public servant who had, much to his nephew’s advantage, offered the first-time candidate support and advice.

I told Jake much the same as what would appear in my column the next day, that he had handled himself well, demonstrating gifts of his own worth publicizing. I told him I envisioned writing a cover story about him to that end and suggested we get together for a full interview process.

He responded equably, appreciatively, and with the exquisite manners that he and all members of the Ford family possess in their arsenal and offered to let me speak to my old friend, former Congressman Harold Ford Sr., whom I could hear in the background, drumming up support for son Jake on the telephone.

As it happened, the former congressman never got off the other line. So Jake and I chatted for a while and then said goodbye, with the understanding that we would have another conversation to set up an interview.

On the way into work the next morning, I gave Jake a call on my cell phone. To my astonishment, he began trying to berate me for a line in the online version of the column I have quoted from above. Because of an html-coding error, a phrase about other Ford-family races (“including Ophelia Ford’s in state Senate District 29”) appeared as “including Ophelia Ford’sin state Senate District 29”). Jake kept insisting that was an intentional slur and seemed unwilling to accept my explanation that it was an obvious typo and that I would make sure it got corrected as soon as I got to the office.

Even more astonishingly, he took exception to the description of himself as “slim,” fairly shouting out, “Jackson, I’m the same weight that I’ve always been since you’ve known me!”

He also blustered: “You’re not going to do a cartoon cover on me, are you?” That had to be a reference to a cover illustration that had accompanied a much earlier article on his brother, Representative Ford, and I pointed out to Jake that it is rare for writers to usurp the functions of the editor and art director and that in the case at hand, I hadn’t even seen the cover until all other readers had, for better or for worse.

The long and the short of it was that Jake kept shouting and interrupting and overriding what I had to say. When I had a moment, I explained to him, as politely as possible, that I was going to hang up, that we’d have to try another day for a conversation, when conditions and temperaments were more permitting of it, and then disconnected.

In the next days, I kept to my normally quite busy schedule, which included attendance at a rally for Representative Ford’s U.S. Senate campaign at his Park Place headquarters. There I briefly encountered Jake Ford and shook his hand. When various bloggers, operating on faulty hearsay information, subsequently began to write about a wholly fictitious collusion between Harold Ford Jr. and Jake Ford on that occasion, I made a point of debunking it. (However Jake Ford felt about that, I have reason to believe that Representative Ford, who has not intervened in the congressional race, was grateful for the correction.)

I went on to write positively about Jake Ford’s appearance on a local radio show. When I was unable to attend a Medical Society forum featuring the candidates, asked colleague Chris Davis to go instead. I then posted Davis’ largely favorable review of Ford’s performance in the “Political Beat” section of the Flyer Web site.

Fade to a mid-September downtown meeting of principals involved in the then-forthcoming debate of 9th District candidates sponsored by the Downtown Neighborhood Association and the South Main Association. Joan Robinson of the DNA had observed me in the role of moderator for several forums and debates in the previous year, and, on the strength of that, had asked me to serve again in that role. I happily complied.

One of the principals at the meeting was Isaac Ford, Jake’s brother. At one point, while he was searching for a pen, he realized, “Oh, Jake’s got it!” Whereupon I hazarded an admittedly ill-advised quip, “Uh oh, you mean Jake Ford’s out there with a pointed instrument?”

Everybody laughed, including Isaac, who then, however, began to brood, even when I apologized for the remark and made a point at aiming similar quips at other principals.

The long and the short of that: After the meeting broke up, Isaac and Jake (who had also attended) returned to Joan’s office, and the two of them began berating her and demanding a second moderator. The long and the short of that: She quoted chapter and verse to them of my largely positive columns about Jake and expressed absolute confidence in my objectivity and fairness. When I was informed about the situation, I honestly owned up to being insulted that my integrity was being questioned.

But in the long run, in the interests of comity and letting the forum proceed, both Joan and I relented and were fortunate enough to prevail on News Channel 3 anchor Richard Ransom to serve as co-moderator. Their tempers having apparently cooled, both Isaac and Jake, when we saw each other at an intervening congressional debate on WREG-TV, actually apologized for having made the second-moderator demand. But there we were.

As the world (the local world, anyhow) knows, Jake Ford last week became the subject of reports about multiple arrests during his late teens and early twenties while living in D.C., in the household of his then-congressman father (whose consulting business is also Jake Ford’s sole employer these days).

As the world doesn’t know, I had access to that information but decided against pursuing it, not wanting to be what the trade calls a headhunter and preferring to write about politics and not scandal. Once The Commercial Appeal published its story, however, and Jake held a press conference to give his version, it became a political story, and I did write about it.

I never said so until now, but I had a distinct memory of an occasion, many years ago, when then-Congressman Harold Ford Sr. came up with broken or badly bruised ribs. I realized from the published date of Jake Ford’s arrest for assault against his father that it dated from that same exact time frame.

All of which added to my feeling of awkwardness when Jake Ford, apparently reacting to my matter-of-fact ex post facto story, began — citing me as the reason — trying to back out of the DNA/SMA debate this week. He eventually showed up, however, and comported himself during the debate with reasonable polish and aplomb except for inexplicable intervals of making reckless charges against opponent Cohen. (Nobody, Jake, ever said, “Poor people don’t deserve to go to college” on the floor of the Senate — not Steve Cohen or any other politician.)

Unless I’m mistaken, my colleague Davis will have provided something of a chronology of the near-assault against me that followed the debate. I’ll pay no more attention to it and go back to covering, as objectively as I can, the events of the election and the political world.

I deeply regret that I am compelled, for purposes of providing a complete background record, to use the valuable space allotted to me this week to this subject — it has crowded out an abundance of other news, including that of Representative Ford’s soaring Senate race and the surprising showing now being made by 7th District Democratic congressional candidate Bill Morrison, freshly endorsed by the Nashville Tennessean and rising in the polls.

I promise that both will receive their due next week. And Jake Ford no more than his.

Categories
News The Fly-By

Fly on the Wall

Losing it

Is Jake Ford, the controversial independent candidate for Tennessee’s 9th Congressional seat, losing his cool? That appeared to be the case before, during, and especially after Monday night’s debate, when Ford made a scene that seemed designed specifically to humiliate the Flyer’s political editor Jackson Baker.

Baker, originally the debate’s sole moderator, had agreed to co-moderate with local news anchor Richard Ransom after the Ford campaign complained about the format.

Throughout the debate, Ford was hostile. After it ended, the assembled crowd descended on the bar for hot dogs and wine. Local bloggers discussed Ford’s unfortunate public announcement that “If Cohen was a black woman, he would have been arrested like Kathryn Bowers.” Baker stood nearby, trying to make nice with Ford after he had taken issue with the Flyer‘s reputable political reporting. Like so many in the crowd, Baker was also enjoying a delicious weenie, and as the noted writer spoke, a nearly microscopic bit of hot dog escaped his lips and landed on Ford’s jacket. It was the sort of social faux pas Miss Manners has long suggested we ignore, but manners be damned.

“This man spit on me,” Ford announced loudly, twisting up his face in terrible disgust. “This man spit on me. Does anybody have a napkin?” As Baker politely attempted to defuse the situation, Ford turned on him with a swift battery of questions: “Didn’t anybody ever tell you to chew with your mouth closed? Didn’t your mama ever teach you how to eat?” It was a loud, brattish display that captured the attention of several observers who milled around the two protagonists.

Ford backed away from the crowd calling toward the nearby bloggers and Baker. “Are you going to call me a fucktard?” he asked, referencing a recent article by Baker dispelling nasty, blog-generated rumors about Ford’s campaign. “Because,” he concluded, “I don’t know what that means.”