Does Forsberg want to be here?

It’s not really fair to be questioning this so soon after such a huge trade, but last night’s game has me wondering a bit. Consider this item from John Glennon’s recap of the Preds’ 6-5 loss to Montreal last night:

Predators Coach Barry Trotz asked center Peter Forsberg whether he wanted to be one of the top three shootout participants against the Canadiens, but Forsberg declined.”He said he didn’t want to go as one of the first three,” Trotz said. “He just said it wasn’t something he didn’t feel real strong about, so I listened to him.”Forsberg was the fourth Predators shooter, but slipped as he neared the Montreal crease and failed to get off a quality attempt.

Peter Forsberg is reportedly a humble locker-room leader, so maybe he’s just deferring to the team’s established leaders. I attended the game last night, and it was a little disconcerting to learn after the fact that Forsberg turned down Coach Trotz’s first request to participate in the shootout. Putting him on the ice in the sudden-death round with the game on the line added even more pressure, and even NHL superstars are human and can’t make a spectacular play every time.

The trade is already paying dividends in the stands and around the city, and the team can afford the steep price it paid because it didn’t require a big departure from the current roster. There are rumblings around the league that Forsberg may already have it in mind to return to Philadelphia in the offseason, but some of those rumors are from Flyers fans who are disappointed about an unexpectedly awful season for their favorite team.

Forsberg has made no promises to the Preds, but he did waive a no-trade clause in his contract to allow the deal to happen. He was serving as Philadelphia’s captain, though, and perhaps he sees this move as a way to help the Flyers’ future because he has been limited so far this season for them on the ice.

I hope he will at least give Nashville the honor of keeping an open mind about our team and our community. This could very well be a great place for him to earn another championship, whether this year or thereafter, and it could be a great and welcoming place for him to complete his career, too.

Playing in two quick home games after arriving as the savior via a blockbuster trade will put pressure on anyone, even a premier athlete. The long road trip that starts next week will be a big challenge for the team, but I have a feeling it will be a very good thing for Forsberg’s Predators tenure.

Good thoughts from Garrigan on English-first

As happens more often than not, I agree with Liz and her ode to Councilman Eric Crafton in this week’s Scene:

We do conduct our business in English and always have. Not once, as editor of a newspaper that makes frequent requests for public information—and roots around daily in the recesses of government offices for documents and other city goings-on—have we encountered an arrest record, a legal filing, a personnel file, an interview with a bureaucrat, or any other manifestation of municipal business in a non-English format. Well, except for the usual Metro-mangling of the English language—e.g., “let me have him to call you,” “you can quote me per beta,” or the classic plea for secrecy, “I need this to be unanimous.” (And there’s always the Metro Council favorite: “I have a qwerstion….”) …

That said, you have accomplished wonders in uniting some of the city’s most fragmented factions. There could not be a more widely assorted, contradictory cast of characters who find your intention repulsive. The Scene and Bishop David Choby…on the same side? Liberadio! and the Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce? Bizpigs and African American clergy? The list of multifarious hand-holders who have come together for what may be the first and last time goes on and on—a testament to how spurious and ill-motivated your scheme truly is …

Here you are, assuming that others who find themselves needing to learn a new language don’t have the same willingness and eagerness you did. It’s unfounded. No doubt when you were in Japan you tried to speak the language the best you could, but you probably needed a little sympathetic assistance from time to time—a stranger recognizing your effort, and reaching to meet you halfway. That’s all your mob of critics is saying.

Instead, by saying you’ll back the effort to put the measure on the August ballot, you’re assuming the worst of people in (or off) the same boat. And by trying to create a law where none is required, you’re diluting the good nature of Nashville’s citizens.

The last point here is the one that bugs me the most. This is a great place to live with a lot of kind-hearted people in it. We’re consistently named the nation’s friendliest city (although occasionally not to the homeless), and there are wonderful and amazing things taking place here as people continue to discover and explore Nashville. Yes, we have problems, but our ability to communicate in English is not one of them. How does this help us when we have bigger problems, including Dickerson Pike, to tackle?

Dickerson Pike: The name isn’t the problem

Tennessean reporter Kate Howard is correct that this is what I think of when I hear the words “Dickerson Pike:”

Let’s do some word association. First thing you think of when I say… Dickerson Pike. Was it crime? Prostitutes? Drug dealers, or spray painting graffiti artists? If it was, you might understand why Metro City Council members want to give it a new moniker.

The city is considering a resolution telling the world they to be on “Skyline Boulevard” next time they’re riding down between Spring Street and Trinity Lane. The General Assembly would have to approve the change for the state route.

In my opinion, this is a shortsighted mistake that will only serve as a quick fix to a major issue. How long do you really think it will take until people realize that Skyline Boulevard equals Dickerson Pike?

The name isn’t the problem: The activity on that street is. I hope the council will stop spending time on another resolution that has no practical value and look for real solutions that will help permanently revitalize a blighted and dangerous part of our city. How about expanding the East Police Precinct and hiring more officers to work there? How about adding better and more streetlights? How about dedicating funds toward building future city agency locations there? How about providing incentives for businesses to relocate there?

Maybe none of these ideas make sense for Dickerson Pike. Maybe some of them do. Unless we keep thinking about how to improve the reality of Dickerson Pike and stop worrying about what to call it, though, it won’t be long until we read about the next prostitution sting or drug bust on Skyline Boulevard.

Appearances, plural, of impropriety

In my opinion, this is the risk Nashville runs if it elects a career politician, such as Bob Clement, as mayor this fall. Nashville has been fortunate since Bill Boner left office in 1991 to have chief executives in office who, regardless of one’s opinions on their initiatives and decisions, have generally gone out of their way to avoid controversy and the appearance of impropriety.

To be fair, Clement is probably known more for being bland than for being scandal-ridden, but hints of impropriety and corruption even prior to taking office are not encouraging signs. Let me say in alluding to Boner that Clement isn’t likely to embarrass us on national television by playing harmonica with his mistress, but I still think his election would be a step backward, not forward for the city.

This also is not the kind of availability and responsiveness that, in my opinion, we need out of a future mayor: “Clement did not return calls for comment Tuesday.”

Larry Woods, Clement’s campaign manager, did respond when contacted by the City Paper: “There’s absolutely no involvement of those PACs on any level in the Clement campaign. They have not given us a dime and are not going to give us a dime.”

In today’s story, The City Paper also cited Woods’ and Clement’s explanations last July regarding a related incident:

“But Bob’s got the highest ethical standards of any public official I’ve ever worked with and rather than have questions about it, he wants to meet those high ethical standards,” Woods added. “And so that’s what the campaign’s doing.”

In a statement last summer, Clement said he believed the donations were legitimate.

“While I have been assured and advised that these committee donations are appropriate and proper, I think it is important for those of us who are privileged to seek and to hold public office to avoid even the appearance of anything that is less than the highest moral, ethical and legal standards,” Clement said.

This is one “appearance” that has not been avoided. Maybe this is all much ado about nothing, but I’m not hearing anything here that makes me think that Clement is the best candidate out of a crowded field to be our next mayor. Better and more informed takes on this issue are available here, here and here. Thanks to Kleinheider for raising awareness of this development.

Touche, Erik Cole

Hats off to Council member Erik Cole for his motion at the council meeting last night, as reported in today’s City Paper:

District 7 Council member Erik Cole, who last week voted against the English First bill, motioned for the council to override Purcell’s veto. On a vote, the motion failed 12 – 14, with four members abstaining. The bill’s original sponsor, 22nd District representative Eric Crafton, made an immediate motion to reconsider. His motion was denied by the Council Chairman, Vice Mayor Howard Gentry.

Thanks to Vice Mayor Gentry for preventing Council member Crafton from avoiding the vote, too. The Tennessean reported Cole’s reasoning for the motion, and I fully agree: “The intent was to dispatch with the discussion,” Cole said. “This has been a purely political exercise, and the citizens of Nashville are ready to move on to more important matters.”

Please let this go, Councilman Crafton. In my opinion, you are wasting our time and our money.

Titans’ Jones has a decision to make

If this kind of news is going to go away, Titans cornerback Adam “Pacman” Jones is going to have to decide that he wants to stay away from trouble more than he wants to party:

The aftermath of a weekend in Las Vegas is ugly: three people shot at a strip club, with one still in critical condition. A combination of celebrities with money and strippers fighting over it started a melee that led to the bloody scene. It happened Monday at 5 a.m. at Minxx Gentleman’s Club off the Vegas strip.

Pacman Jones was in the middle of it all, though on Tuesday his lawyer [Worrick Robinson] reiterated that the Titans cornerback is not a suspect … “[Las Vegas police Sergeant Jon Sott] told me he was really disgusted at the way there were attempts to implicate Pacman,” Robinson said. “But they said again he is not a suspect, and they don’t see anything changing. He said they have a description but it’s not Pacman. … I think this chapter is close to being closed…”

After a judge dismissed a case against him earlier this month, Jones said he had learned his lesson and would try and do a better job of picking his spots to hang out. [emphasis added] “Maybe I’ll chill out as a jazz bar or something with some older folks,” he said. As for what Jones took out of Monday morning’s incident, Robinson said: “It scared him. Pacman said he was scared and he’ll tell you he heard the gunshots and they stepped it up and got out of there. I think this is pretty much behind him now, but yeah, it scared him.”

I’m not convinced yet that this incident or ongoing trouble is “behind” Jones. The problem, in my opinion, is that trouble continues to be “in front” of him. When you are trying to overcome negative public opinion, being confirmed as a non-suspect is not enough.

Gail is right

Tennessean columnist Gail Kerr applauds Mayor Purcell for his recent veto of the English-first bill in this morning’s paper.

“I have never been more proud to be a Nashvillian and to call Bill Purcell my town’s mayor than I have been this past week. Well done, sir, well done, indeed.”

I wholeheartedly agree. Despite Councilman Eric Crafton’s plans to continue his quest for this legislation with a public referendum, I think Purcell’s veto was a noble action in the best interest of our city. Thanks again, Bill.

Lights out Down Under

Well, more accurately, the bulbs are on the way out Down Under. After meeting with mayoral candidate David Briley, who is advocating for a greener city government, yesterday, I think this might be a noble goal to add to Nashville’s future to-do list:

While some US cities like Raleigh are already planning steps to cut back on energy wastes by converting to more efficient lighting systems, it looks like the entire continent of Australia could be following suit. Claiming to be the “world’s first” national government to phase out incandescent light bulbs in favor of the more “fuel-efficient, compact fluorescent bulb,” environment minister Malcolm Turnbull is hoping to “cut Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by four million metric tonnes a year by 2015.” Citing the “climate changes” the world is facing as a “global challenge,” Turnbell also urged other nations to follow suit in making a difference, but didn’t exactly open up his personal wallet to stock our households with those uber-pricey bulbs. Interestingly, some environmentalists feel that the bulk of greenhouse gas emissions come from government and business-related activities, which should presumably take priority over swapping out a country’s light bulbs.

I also found it interesting that the article makes the point about governments needing to lower their greenhouse gas emissions because Briley, as Kleinheider pointed out yesterday, make the point that governments are often behind the private sector these days when it comes to environmentally friendly practices. (By the way, there are much cheaper options for green bulbs out there than the $65 LED versions Engagdet mentions above.)

Lost and Found: Global Edition

Is this a bad time to mention that I left my wedding ring on a shelf in my bathroom this morning? It’s been bugging me because I can feel it “missing,” but now I’m especially interested in returning it to my finger ASAP after reading this amazing CNN story:

A college ring lost more than 20 years ago by a former undercover officer for the CIA has been found in an underwater cave off the coast of Africa. Steve Ruic, a writer on staff at Notre Dame College [in Ohio], received an e-mail about two weeks ago from a professional diver from Germany. Wilfried Thiesen wrote that he had found a class ring bearing the college’s name while diving off Mauritius.

The ring was engraved with the year ‘76. The ring was missing the thin portion on the underside that ordinarily carries its owner’s name. Ruic publicized the discovery in both an e-mail to college staff and a newsletter to alumni, but no one came forward to claim it. Then, while interviewing a member of the class of 1976 for an unrelated alumni magazine story, Ruic asked Dr. Maryellen Amato Stratmann if she’d ever been to Mauritius.

“I couldn’t believe it,” Ruic said. “She said, ‘No, but Clare Cavoli Lopez has.”‘

Sure enough, it turned out to be Ms. Lopez’ long-lost ring. I experienced a more believable, less astounding version of this story while I was in college. I discovered while home here in Nashville one summer that my missing high school ring had been found in a softball glove at my church gym. I’d borrowed a glove from someone the summer after I graduated in 1991 and left the ring inside accidentally. Nearly four years later, the ring turned up. I can’t claim that any strangers tracked me down, and the ring barely crossed Davidson County, much less an ocean, but I was still pretty amazed to find it.

When it comes to my wedding ring, I’m likely to be in sight of my bathroom shelf a little sooner than my next (and first) trip to Mauritius, but I’ll still be heading straight there after work. Gulp. [Image: AP via CNN.com]

Lunch with Briley

It’s been a good week. First off, my wife and I were seated next to Mayor Purcell for our Valentine’s Day dinner on Wednesday, and today I participated in a lunch along with several other local bloggers hosted by mayoral candidate David Briley. Even better, unlike Purcell, Briley and I actually had a conversation while I was there.

My general impressions were that Briley is a well-spoken, open-minded person who would like to make Nashville a better place to live. I haven’t made up my mind yet, but he appears to be someone I could vote for. At the very least, I don’t think I would be upset to see him serve as mayor, and that’s not insignificant with five months or so still remaining in the race. (In other words, that’s a compliment with so much campaigning left to go.)

Thanks, Sean, for setting this up, and to everyone else for participating (Brittney Gilbert, Adam Kleinheider, Sarah Moore, Ned Williams and John of Salem’s Lots). Here are some collected thoughts from today’s discussion, which I found to be respectful and good-natured throughout despite a wide variety of thoughts and opinions on the issues:

Regarding fellow progressive mayoral candidate Karl Dean, Briley said, “Karl Dean is a friend of mine, and I have nothing negative to say about him.” He did go on to say that he considers himself “better prepared after the past [nearly] eight years on the council” to serve as mayor, citing “broader experience” with budgeting, tax concerns, legislation, juvenile justice, crime and education compared to Dean’s fairly targeted tenure as the city’s director of law and as an adjunct professor of law at Vanderbilt.

When asked how to support Nashville’s improving but still ailing public schools, Briley quoted Lamar Alexander’s three keys to a successful school system: A good prinicipal, good teachers and good parents. He emphasized that involvement by parents is a major deficit right now and pledged to offer “unprecedented support” to encourage involvement by parents and by other role models. According to him, where our schools struggle most is in middle school. We do a decent job in elementary and high school, he argued, but not nearly as well for grades five through eight. Briley promised to get “every possible organization engaged in middle schools to get students through high schools in four years.” He also noted that 10,000 young adults ages 16 to 24 in Nashville are responsible for 80 percent of our crimes, and that taking measures now to reach out to struggling students may help change this.

Briley acknowledged that reforming an organization large enough to serve 70,000 students will take some work. At the same time, he said that the school system “can’t be one size fits all” and that it must be able to adapt to meet the needs of a diverse body of students. He emphasized the need for greater parental choice in the school system, stopping short of widespread adoption of charter schools but still acknowledging that parents are choosing now, for example, by moving to satellite counties when their children lose out in the lottery for magnet school slots.

Briley did say that he would like to see a “more objective” method for selecting charter schools and that the current system, where the school board has the primary say, is like “asking Wal-Mart to decide about putting a Target nearby.” He would also like to provide more choice for parents within the public school system by allowing different categories of schools and granting parents the option to choose among them: He mentioned schools with uniforms, single-sex schools and Montessori schools as possible options.

When asked specifically about the fact that he did not vote in the final tally for the Metro Council’s recent and controversial English-first bill, Briley explained that he voted against the bill on its second reading and had “nothing to gain by flip-flopping on the final vote.” Even though he stepped out during debate for the legitimate reason of checking on his children by cell phone, he acknowledged that it was “a mistake on my part” and “I would have voted against it.” He also claimed that he would have vetoed the bill, as did Mayor Purcell, if he had been mayor when it passed the council.

Explaining his stance on what he described as a merely “symbolic” bill,” Briley noted that Nashville is “not a homogenous place” and that legal immigrants are “here to stay whether we like it or not.” “We can’t as a community act in a way that pushes everyone into a corner by label,” he said. “We must empower immigrant communities to be a part of the culture.” Briley also said that the bill “does zero legally” and went on to say that Nashville is “an inclusive city where everyone is expected to conduct themselves appropriately.”

Philosophically speaking, I have the impression that Briley and I are in the same ballpark of many of the major issues. I did not have the impression during lunch that he ducked any questions, even tougher ones, but I will say that he has his talking points down pat. He did a good job of staying on his message without straying into territory that he didn’t want to address, such as whether his tenure on the council would make him more or less effective as mayor. On that issue, he answered by saying, “It’s up to the mayor to develop leadership in the council and to allow proactive, intelligent leaders [within the council] to raise issues … Changing term limits alone won’t solve the council’s recent problems.”

I’ll close with what I thought was a genuine and respectable statement by Briley that I would say sums up my impressions following lunch: “I won’t pretend to have all of the answers, but I will open up the doors for those who do.” Thanks, David, for inviting a few of us in the blogosphere to sit down with you and for letting us fire away today.