Davis More Vigilant Amid Tightened Security

Sept. 11 and the attack on Iraq mean that the color orange is an all-too-familiar alert hue. Nowhere is it brighter than in Washington. Recently U.S. Capitol Police Chief Terry Gainer warned House members to be on the lookout for assassins. It doesn’t get any redder than that.

Congressman Jim Davis, D-Fla., said the threat hadn’t appreciably changed his habits, although it certainly helps that his family, especially his two kids, are in Tampa “developing roots.”

“I would say I’m more vigilant, more patient,” acknowledged Davis, “but I honestly haven’t changed a lot. I stayed there (Capitol Hill) after 9/11. Is there great security there? Yes. The Capitol is heavily fortified.”

When The Enemy Is One Of Our Own

For all the “shock and awe” scenarios at play in the attack on Iraq, perhaps the most shocking development so far was the gory grenade-and-rifle attack on American troops — perpetrated by an American soldier. Fifteen were injured and one — 27-year-old Army Captain Christopher Scott Seifert — was killed at a brigade headquarters in Kuwait.

The suspect, who apparently acted alone, has been identified as Sgt. Asan Akbar, an American convert to Islam. The erstwhile Mark Fidel Kools has been described as a “loner” better known for an “attitude problem” than competence. Akbar lobbed four grenades into three tents and then shot soldiers with his M-4 rifle as they tried to escape.

Two things.

First, the U.S. command needs to further review its policies regarding American Muslims on the battlefield. We don’t need a politically correct army. Their understanding of Islam and possible language skills, however, can be of obvious use, especially during an occupation.

But better screening certainly seems in order. By all accounts, Sgt. Akbar was of dubious ability — not just loyalty.

Second, throw him in with the Iraqi prisoners where he belongs.

Another Hyde Park Shooting

To Hyde Park residents, it’s become a familiar sight.

In this case, it was several trucks and a couple of vans crowding around an Orleans Avenue house for the better part of 12 hours on a Saturday. An off-duty police officer was there to help out. It was a New York production company filming a commercial for Publix.

At Ellen Cheek’s house.

She had received a notice left by The Artist Company that her house was being considered for a commercial shoot. She called, checked it out with Edie Emerald, the Tampa Bay Film Commissioner, negotiated a fee and agreed to do it.

She was also flattered. Somewhat needlessly, as it turned out.

“You know you initially think they’ve chosen your house because you’ve decorated brilliantly or some such reason,” says Cheek. “Actually, they take down a lot of your things. What they’re looking for is a certain perspective, you know, large windows facing a certain way, admitting plenty of light. That sort of thing. Not my brilliant touches.”

“I’ve seen the trucks and all on other streets, and I didn’t want it to be a pain for the neighbors,” Cheek says. “So they did their homework, checked out the traffic flow for themselves and agreed to do it on Saturday.

“It was a pretty positive experience, although it’s invasive,” notes Cheek. “But they’re professionals and they clean up. Would I do it constantly? No. But I’d do it around tuition time again.”

Speaking of money, such shoots — mostly commercials, but also infomercials and music videos — were worth $30 million in economic impact to the Tampa area last year, according to Film Commissioner Emerald.

“This is a very competitive business,” points out Emerald, “and we’re lucky to have some popular sites for filming. Hyde Park, the beaches, Bayshore Boulevard, the University of Tampa, the Columbia Restaurant, old cigar factories. The Port of Tampa is wonderful. Tampa International Airport is aggressive and organized and they get it. City Hall here is very cooperative. Mayor Greco’s been good to work with.”

According to Tampa City Council Member Rose Ferlita, who lives in Hyde Park, there’s very little down side to the commercial-shooting business. Especially during uncertain economic times. Problematic areas have been addressed with city code updates.

Ferlita says she’s had one complaint in the last year and a half. A port-o-let was left on someone’s lawn. “I called Edie, and by the time I got out of my house, it was gone,” recalls Ferlita. “From something bad came something good.”

Liberate Us From This Liberation Rhetoric

There are valid reasons why the United States has invaded Iraq. America’s own national security in the era of transnational terrorism and mass-murder weaponry in the wrong hands is a decent argument for pre-emption. At least when you’re pre-empting a thugocracy that has defied United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 and refused to disarm for the last 12 years. And lest we forget, appeasement of pathological despots and mass murderers is never good advice.

The case for “liberating” Iraq, however, is spurious, if well-intentioned.

It is not the job of the U.S. to “liberate” other countries. It goes for Cuba or North Korea or anybody else we know is stuck with a despotic government and a crummy quality of life. It’s still not our job to change their government. And Iraq is no exception. It is the job, alas, of Iraqis to liberate themselves from a rogue regime. Even though we presume to know what’s best for them, it’s not our role to save them from themselves through invasion and occupation.

Of course overthrowing one’s oppressors is a daunting task, but there’s ample precedent.

This is not unlike the formidable charge of the Iranian people, who felt the need to be liberated from the Shah’s powerful regime. Cuba’s Battista and Nicaragua’s Samoza were chased into exile. Marcos was given the Filipino heave-ho. The Berlin Wall came down. The Soviet Union imploded. The list goes on. None required liberating invasions. All required indigenous opposition and subversion — with their own inimitable rallying points and politics.

The liberation of Iraq is not to be confused with the liberation of, say, Kuwait, which had been invaded by Iraq. Any more than the liberation of Belgium or Poland, which had been invaded by the Nazis.

And speaking of Nazi Germany, no, it wasn’t our job either to liberate the German Jews. Holocaust or ethnic-cleansing scenarios can’t be ignored because they are crimes against humanity. That’s why there will always be a need for a worldwide forum and lever, whether it’s a League of Nations or a United Nations. Ironically, that multi-national peace-creating-and-keeping, nation-building, war crimes-punishing option, however frustratingly imperfect, is now close to obsolescence.

Put it this way. If it were the proper role of the American colonies to overthrow the mother country, it is also the proper role of the Iraqi people to unyoke, i.e., “liberate,” themselves. It can be done.

Just not by us.

There are reasons to get physical with Iraq, but “liberating” them from their own government isn’t one.

Rays Turn Coup Into Crap

It may be a “whole new ball game” from the Tampa Bay Devil Rays’ perspective, but there remain some hauntingly familiar signs of past failures. Lou Piniella is now on board, but the hitting still looks awful and the losses, albeit of the Grapefruit League variety, continue to mount.

Incredulously enough, General Manager Chuck LaMar continues to retain his job.

There’s also evidence that the Rays can still be ham-handed in their approach to the media and public relations. Witness the Rays’ retaliation against WFLA-TV Channel 8 for airing a clip–with audio–showing Piniella going ballistic in the dugout. The Rays claim the audio was included without authorization.

The Rays have a point, but it’s pointless to take it out on the affiliate’s reporters who had nothing to do with the third-party feed incident. The team is not expediting interviews and other courtesies to Channel 8 reporters as it does with the other affiliates. “I don’t trust their news judgment,” sniffed Rays Vice President Rick Vaughn.

As a result, WFLA has now filed a complaint with Major League Baseball about the Rays’ petulant, retaliatory actions. Moreover, the station also alleges that Vaughn threatened its sports anchor J.P. Peterson. Ironic that the Vaughn who goes on the offensive is Rick–not Greg.

Two things: First, the Rays’ need all the local media coverage they can get. They can get in the face of WFLA news director Forrest Carr without, in effect, hurting themselves. Second, the Rays apparently didn’t recognize a PR coup when it was dumped in their lap.

Showing Piniella’s well-hyphenated tirade, which became an instant ESPN SportsCenter classic, was the sort of national exposure this team needs almost as much as major league hitting. When viewers, especially locals, heard “That kind of bleeper-bleeping stuff is why you lose a 100 bleeping games a year around here,” they didn’t so much think of just a lousy team. That clip said, in no uncertain, vintage Piniella terms: “Lou’s on the case; he’ll kick some ass; and don’t expect this loser tag to last much longer.”

Leave it to the Rays to turn a coup into crap. In fact, there’s something else for Lou to address in his inimitable style.

One more thing: wouldn’t you love to see Chris Thomas back at Channel 8 right now?

Iraq: Win The War But Lose The Peace?

Let’s get this part straight.

I don’t much like the idea of France, let alone Cameroon or Syria — Syria! — having to sign off on United States security. Neither do I like the 12 years Saddam Hussein has been able to defy the United Nations. He invaded and trashed Kuwait, lobbed missiles into Saudi Arabia and Israel, lost a war, agreed to disarm — and didn’t do it.

But I do like the idea of taking the war that was declared on us on Sept. 11, 2001, right back to the terrorists. Indirectly, Saddam Hussein is part of that menacing mix. He’s not al-Qaeda, but he’s an enabler with a sadistic, murderous track record. In the world of transnational terrorism and civilization-altering weapons of mass destruction, the cost of counterpunching may be unacceptably, obscenely high. That’s why President George W. Bush replaced the Cold War policy of containment with that of pre-emption. It so happens that Iraq is the first test case.

I also like making the U.S. — and the Middle East — safer places. I even like re-making Baghdad into Babylon.

Having said all that, however, here’s where we are. Being basically right doesn’t preclude the possibility of being wrong-headed and counterproductive.

President Bush’s rush to attack and invade, delaying enough to placate Colin Powell and maybe coax a rubber stamp out of the UN, has painted the U.S. into a foreign policy corner. “On your mark, set, set some more” just doesn’t cut it after you’ve drawn that line in the sand. Troops on ready lose their edge and morale, if held too long. You either declare victory, go home and ignore the Iraqi spin on who blinked — or you go to war.

However imperfect, and often maddeningly, hypocritically so, the UN has a role. It offers the auspices of legitimacy. There is, at least, a sense of some accountability. For all its flaws, its global forum represents hope for the planet. It’s why the U.S. pushed for its formation — and pays a quarter of its budget.

But when the world’s only superpower picks up its cards and shuffles off to a unilateral declaration of war, the UN is truly rendered obsolete. And the U.S. helped make it so.

Worse yet, the precedent is set for others to bypass the UN. Don’t think China, for one, hasn’t noticed. It doesn’t think an invasion of Taiwan, for example, is anyone else’s business. Including Taiwan’s. And how do you think the International Atomic Energy Commission regards American complaints about Iran unilaterally accelerating its nuclear program?

We can surely agree that America doesn’t need to be lectured to by France — unless we need advice on truffles. But France isn’t really the problem. Russia and China, two countries that really matter and have been on board in the fight against terrorism, are adamantly opposed to U.S. military action in Iraq as well. Even the Irish won’t let us use their airfields. Turkey, which is saddled with Iraq as a mutant border neighbor, can’t even be bribed into being a self-interested ally.

When you gather your close, staunch allies — at a table for four — and two thirds are Spain and Portugal, you are coalition challenged. While the U.S. disingenuously points to support from the so-called “Coalition of the Willing,” no one is impressed by the lightweight likes of Eritrea and Estonia. The only countries actually willing to contribute troops are England and Australia. And that contribution could cost Tony Blair, America’s best friend in the world, his job.

Would that it only mattered on the logistical front. We can certainly win a war by ourselves against anyone. But whereas victory is said to have a thousand fathers, this one may be a bastard.

As many have noted, winning the peace can’t be done unilaterally. Especially in an alien culture, amid those already too disposed to see us as the essence of arrogance and hegemony. Yes, they’re wrong — at least on the hegemony rap — but a billion Muslims misperceiving the U.S. is not just THEIR problem. In the aftermath of 9/11, it’s very much OUR problem.

Those who were not signatories for military action are not going to be much help in the reconstruction of Iraq. They now think we’re arrogant, if not hegemonous, too. And that perception is also our problem if we want help in post-war Iraq. And we do.

Let’s face it. An American-occupied Iraq under Viceroy Tommy Franks stands a very good chance of not playing well in the Arab world. And that includes Iraq, whose populace just might not act as if they have been liberated. Some will likely turn on their “invader,” regardless of how we couch our arrival. Others will simply resume the historic Kurd-Sunni-Shiite fratricide.

Policing this mess — while pouring billions of dollars into infrastructure rebuilding — will be reminiscent of the ill-fated involvement of the U.S. Marines in Lebanon in the 1980s under President Ronald Reagan. The likelihood of terrorism against Americans — at home and abroad — will only ratchet up. The color orange could become a permanent alert hue.

And lest anyone forget, the genesis of Islamic fundamentalist hate — and jealousy — for the U.S. is not our quenchless thirst for oil or the stationing of U.S. troops, including women, on sacrosanct Saudi Arabian soil. No, it’s ultimately the bloody, Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Sure, the Palestinians are more at fault by virtue of intentionally targeting innocents — but Israeli policy is hardly innocent. Nobody gets more American foreign aid than Israel. For our $5 billion a year, we should at least be demanding that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon start dismantling the provocative settlements in the occupied territories. A regime change in Israel would also be welcome. The recent Bush Administration “road map” was a good idea — two years ago.

For all the trauma and tragedy that gripped this country after 9/11, there was at least the consolation that the truly civilized world was with us. If it were “us” against “them,” it helped mightily that there were more of “us” than “them.”

The unilateral Iraqi fiasco, however, has squandered much of that good will.

It’s sobering and disgusting to see so many around the world perceiving the U.S. as a bully and its president as a gunslinger. We could continue to say, in effect, we don’t care what others think, we’re going to do whatever it takes to protect ourselves. That plays well to a lot of domestic constituencies, if the polls are truly reflecting public opinion. And it makes eminent sense to look out for number one first.

The irony, however, is that with the backing of most of the world, that formidable task becomes much less daunting.

“Zero Tolerance” Makes Zero Sense

“Zero Tolerance.” Here we go again.

It’s one of those buzz phrases that, in the good name of exhorting something positive, gives buzz phrases an especially bad name.

Not unlike “Just Say No” or “Three Strikes and You’re Out,” such modern shibboleths materialize in response to serious — but complex — societal concerns, such as weapons in schools, the allure of drugs or the threat of career criminals. They eschew equivocation and restore a sense of control. Reminders to us all that if only we show some fortitude, we can take back our schools, our kids, our streets. If not our rhetoric.

The policy-shorthand message is simplistic and not at all subliminal: Enough of the hand wringing and excuse mongering; ditto for social science and psychobabble. “Just Do It,” so to speak.

Which brings us to the latest installment of “zero tolerance” here in Hillsborough County. A sixth grader at a Brandon middle school has been suspended for violating the county’s “zero tolerance” policy on weapons possession in school. Such policies are not rare.

Who, after all, would want to be soft on weapons in school? Especially after Paducah, KY, Jonesboro, AK, and Lake Worth, FL. This is a different world than the one we thought we knew. Columbine meets al-Qaida. Automatic weapons or box cutters. Can’t be too careful.

But we can be too arbitrary. And too over-reactive.

That Brandon middle schooler didn’t pack heat with his lunch. He brought his mom’s calculator. It so happened, however, that it was one of those calculators that can do more than just calculate. Perhaps it was a Swiss Army Calculator; it came equipped with some gadgetry; i.e., a magnifying glass, a screwdriver and a 2-inch knife blade.

Strike up the contraband.

This is a weapon. Whether he brandished it or not. Whether he knew it had all these features or not. He had it; he dropped it; a blade popped out; and he was suspended — it’s automatic — for 10 days. He was also arrested and taken to juvenile detention.

While he’s certainly learned to leave his mom’s fancy calculator at home, he won’t learn any other lessons for at least a fortnight. The severity of the offense precludes him from making up the work. Conceivably, he could be expelled or sent to an alternative school, where he’d likely be the only one in on a calculator rap. Go figure.

“It’s a shame, but the way things have been in our society,” said sheriff’s Deputy Jeff Massaro to a Tampa Tribune reporter. “The bottom line is he had a weapon,” underscored Massaro, the middle school’s resource deputy.

Added Hillsborough County School District spokesman Mark Hart: “That’s what zero tolerance means.”

And he’s right. Even when the policy is wrong. It’s what’s wrong with any zero tolerance policy. They are well intentioned and a serious response to a serious problem. But they are invariably overly broad and inflexible and typically nail the wrong people in the name of getting tough with those who are societal threats.

The bottom line is that this middle school student had a calculator that could have been used as a weapon. The letter of the law addresses that.

The spirit, however, says to put this into a common sense context. What kind of “weapon” are we talking about and what was the kid doing with it? Moreover, what kind of kid is this sixth grader? And what’s to be gained by arresting him and punishing him academically?

There’s no lack of questions, including why cutting edge calculators have to be so literal.

Admissions (Standards) Impossible?

The University of Michigan awaits word from the Supreme Court regarding the status of affirmative action at its law school. Meanwhile, athletic scandals at St. Bonaventure, Fresno State and the University of Georgia have disgraced those institutions.

They are connected. It’s all about admissions and standards.

In the best of all higher education worlds, here is what would happen.

Starting tomorrow race will not be a factor in admissions. For example, to accord a designated race more weight than a perfect SAT score, as UM has been doing, is outrageous. It’s as unfair to all as it is insulting to black Americans.

Starting tomorrow student athletes will have to be student-athletes. There will be no more athletic scholarships for those who wouldn’t otherwise qualify as student-students. The athletic loophole — almost exclusively for the revenue sports of basketball and football — is what causes schools, such as Georgia, to recruit academic misfits and then offer them sham courses taught by coaches.

This is what causes schools, such as St. Bonaventure, to bring in recruits with credited courses in welding on their transcripts. The SBU president, who was just jettisoned, even signed off on that one. This is also what causes schools, such as Fresno State, to hold their nose, open their wallet and hire the likes of Jerry Tarkanian.

And starting tomorrow “legacies” and “development applicants” will need the grades to go with the genealogy and philanthropy. For example, Duke University acknowledges that it has accepted 100 to 125 underqualified students annually due to family wealth or connections. It’s hardly unique.

In their heart of hearts, the scions of fortune and clout just might want to earn their way too. If not, too bad. If standards are to be color-blind, they can also be class-blind.

Mayoral Candidates Deserved Better

The recent mayoral debate on Channel 10 was memorable more for its reporter questions than its candidate answers.

For openers, moderator Mike Deeson, in the name of pinning down candidates Pam Iorio and Frank Sanchez for specifics, made an intrusive pest of himself. Prime example: the voters were done no favor by his insistence on pursuing the non-issue of the all-male Ye Mystic Krewe through countless, fruitless follow-ups.

Sanchez finally had to remind the Channel 10 reporter that except for some media types, nobody thought this was a relevant issue. Not last month when it was “news.” Certainly not now. The resulting applause was not unlike the derisive clapping aimed at a pitcher with control problems who finally throws a strike.

To take the baseball metaphor one step further, the best-umpired games are the ones where fans are barely aware there are umpires. The players are the game.

In an extension of its aggressive marketing, the St.Petersburg Times , the co-sponsor with WTSP, offered up two of its columnists, Mary Jo Melone and Ernest Hooper, to question the candidates.

Melone came out of the blocks by querying them about their commitment to ethics. Not surprisingly, they were both very committed.

Melone, who had to know Sanchez would get her question first, framed it with a cheap shot. She prefaced the ethics issue by trashing Dennis Alvarez, the former chief judge of the Hillsborough Circuit Court, who is a Sanchez supporter. She then asked if there were a place for “a man like Alvarez in your administration.”

As for Hooper, the thinking must have been: “Why assign a black columnist to the panel if he isn’t going to ask minority-related stuff?” He asked nothing but. One of them had to do with the city hiring a “minority liaison” person — in effect a token. Nice, ironic touch.

The upshot was neither candidate would bite, preferring to cite the need to have a meaningfully diverse administration.

Granted, Iorio and Sanchez weren’t exactly Lincoln and Douglas, but they deserved better than they got. Perhaps no talk-radio hosts were available.

Is Timing Right For Bob Graham?

Timing is everything in politics. Had Florida Sen. Bob Graham been Al Gore’s choice for a running mate in 2000, he’d likely be Vice President Graham now.

Instead, he’s a 66-year-old senator recuperating from heart surgery who has just filed the necessary paperwork to run for president. Sure, he’s qualified to be president, but that’s never been enough. America’s political landscape is littered with the shattered hopes of intelligent, knowledgeable, competent men who couldn’t win this country’s ultimate popularity contest.

Graham is not exactly charismatic, and although he’s a political icon in Florida, he’s not particularly well known outside the Sunshine State. While he did gain exposure by heading the congressional inquiry into Sept.11, he’s still not considered a prime time “player” in Washington. Then there’s that weird habit of documenting everything, including the minutiae of his daily life, in those little notebooks. Some 4,000 — and counting. Imagine how that will play on Saturday Night Live or the Fox Network.

Moreover, he’s not far enough to the left to appeal to Democratic Party activists who exact inordinate influence in the early primaries. He’s the only one in the hunt, for example, who’s actually signed death warrants. He’s relatively late to the ’04 fray and needs to raise at least $20 million to be viable.

The odds are long, and his campaign seems likely to parallel that of President Orrin Hatch.

The Graham candidacy, however, represents more than a last chance scenario for Florida’s popular three-term senator and two-term governor. It’s also a statement about the competition. Call it a vote of no confidence in the underwhelming candidacies of former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt, North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman and the Rev. Al Sharpton.

Much more telling, however, had to be the formal papers filed with the Federal Election Commission by former Illinois Sen. Carol Mosely-Braun and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich.

Mosely-Braun and Kucinich?

Why not George McGovern? He’s still alive. Why not Jimmy Carter? He still has eligibility left.

In fact, why not Ted Kennedy? He still has the Camelot connection. Or why not Jesse Jackson? He still has but one illegitimate child.

To Graham, an expert on national security who is at odds with the president over Iraq, the prospect of a re-elected George W. Bush couldn’t be more frustrating. A case can be made that President Bush, although beset with a troubled economy, an impending $400-billion deficit, homeland security anxieties and a polarizing, imminent war with Iraq, is still on track to be re-elected in 2004.

By default.

How’s that for motivation?