If you can resort to this, you really have zero shame left:

Here’s a tip for the guy who beat up a 101-year-old woman in a walker and took off with her purse: Get out of New York.

The vicious mugging, caught on surveillance tape, has sparked outrage in a city where people are accustomed to hearing about strange and violent crimes. Police have launched an all-out manhunt, but it’s not just the cops who want the villain’s head. “I could hold him, and let the woman beat him up,” said Joe Sarju, 59, who lives in the Queens neighborhood where the attack occurred. “I’d love to beat him, but then they would lock me up.”

The heartlessness of the March 4 attack is clearly conveyed on the grainy, black-and-white videotape, which has now been broadcast well beyond New York. In it, 101-year-old Rose Morat is trying to leave her apartment building to go to church. The mugger, a man who looms over the senior citizen and is holding on to a bicycle, pretends to help her get through the vestibule.

Then, he turns to grab Morat’s head and delivers three hard punches to her face, and swipes her purse. The dazed victim tries to reach for her purse when the mugger hits her again, pushing her and her walker to the ground.
He got away with $33 and Morat’s house keys. She suffered a fractured cheekbone and spent time in the hospital. The attack didn’t break Morat’s spirit, though: She has said in the days since that if she had been just a bit younger, she would have gone after the guy. “I’m a very strong woman,” she said. “I’ve been that way my whole life.”

The New York Times reports that the city’s entire police force has been briefed about the incident and the assailant:

Every officer working yesterday in all 76 police precincts in New York City was shown the same thing: a grainy 45-second video of a 101-year-old woman being punched and robbed in the lobby of her Queens building on March 4.

Showing the video at roll calls to a patrol force of about 25,000 officers — including those assigned to the subway system and public housing complexes — was part of the Police Department’s intensifying effort to catch the attacker before he strikes again, the police said.

I trust that the officers are continuing to go about their other duties as well, but I sure wouldn’t want to be this guy.

At first glance, I don’t think I like the idea of establishing an elected lieutenant governor position, as state Senator Joe Haynes wants Tennessee to do via a constitutional amendment. The City Paper’s John Rodgers reports:

[T]he elected lieutenant governor would “temporarily act as governor” while the governor is out of state or incapacitated for more than seven consecutive days. As far as their duties, Haynes said they would do “about the same thing” as current Vice President Dick Cheney or former Vice President Al Gore. “Whatever the governor tells them to do I guess,” Haynes said.

Ramsey said he doesn’t “disagree” with Haynes, although it would make a lieutenant governor “more or less a ceremonial type position anyway.” The position’s main duty now is leading the state Senate and becoming governor if the sitting governor dies.

My objection to this is twofold: One, I don’t like creating a largely ceremonial office that would draw a salary and create another layer of bureaucracy. Two, I think in most instances now and in the future, the speaker of the Senate, whether Republican or Democrat, will likely not be in as poor health as former Lt. Governor John Wilder was when Bredesen fell ill from a tick bite last year. Haynes is citing Bredesen’s illness as one reason for his desire to make the office of Lt. Governor an elected position.

There may be hurdles and unintended consequences to this possibility, but I would prefer to have the electorate vote for speakers of both houses out of a pool of candidates chosen by each party during the general election itself or at a subsequent date. I like the notion of giving the power to the people to determine the leadership of the General Assembly, but I don’t like the idea of establishing a Lt. Governor’s office that would not hold the duty of presiding over the Senate.

Tennessean columnist Gail Kerr notes in her column this morning that mayoral candidate Howard Gentry may need to ask someone on his staff to keep a closer eye on his Web site:

“Howard Gentry’s Web site with no video has remained unchanged for months. Two pictures in his photo gallery [one above] show voters with Bob Clement signs. Oops. Gentry did start using a “blast” e-mail technique last week, sending out a heartfelt piece about the things he believes in.”

Ouch. Kerr also describes Clement’s and Kenneth Eaton’s Web sites as “bland.” I tend to agree. One thing seems clear to me: It takes more than just throwing up a Web site to maintain an internet presence as a political candidate. Daily updates aren’t necessary, but consistent updates and engaging site content are important. They may not win a race for you, but the alternative sure isn’t going to help, either.

A developer has offered the owner of property where Rumours Wine and Art Bar (above, map) now stands $900,000 to purchase the plot and build a Publix grocery on the site, according to neighbors I spoke to over the weekend. The Art House Gallery & Studio next door is also a possible casualty. While current tenants apparently have the right of first refusal to match the offer, it is likely that they will not be able to do so and will be forced to relocate.

I would not necessarily oppose a grocery store in the right spot in an urban neighborhood, but in my opinion Rumours and The Art House are an important part of 12South’s distinctive character. This will be a big loss, especially if these businesses are unable to reopen nearby.

The Tennessean picked up an interesting Los Angeles Times story today regarding conflict among evangelical Christians over their political agenda. Jim Wallis, who has recently challenged Focus on the Family leader James Dobson to a debate, had the following to say:

“Are the only really “great moral issues’ those concerning abortion, gay marriage and the teaching of sexual abstinence?” Wallis asked in his challenge. “How about the reality of 3 billion of God’s children living on less than $2 per day? … What about pandemics like HIV/AIDS … (and) disastrous wars like Iraq?”

Dobson and other evangelical stalwarts are claiming that issues such as poverty, environmentalism and health care are overshadowing traditional issues such as abortion and gay marriage. Though I disagree with Dobson’s stance on these two issues, I don’t expect him and his colleagues to abandon their focus on them. At the same time, what is wrong with adding other relevant and serious concerns to the conversation? Even the evangelical right won’t address Iraq, wouldn’t addressing poverty, health care and global warming be compassionate and worthwhile things to do?

By criticizing other evangelicals who are focusing on these issues, it appears to me that Dobson and others in his camp are only reinforcing negative stereotypes. Isn’t there a chance that lending support for other worthwhile issues might help the general public better understand evangelicals and their core social issues? If it were solely up to Dobson, we might never know the answer to that question.

John Rodgers reports in this morning’s City Paper that General Assembly members are squabbling over who gets to sponsor a bill that would eliminate the certificates for driving program that many people believe is being abused by illegal immigrants.

“[The Assembly may] be headed toward gridlock concerning two very similar bills that eliminate the certificate for driving program and replace it with a license for legal immigrants. But while both sides are in agreement on the core of the issue, they are in disagreement concerning who should sponsor the legislation that actually becomes law.

[Lieutenant Governor Ron] Ramsey said his Republican colleague, Sen. Bill Ketron of Murfreesboro, has championed eliminating the certificate for driving program ‘for years’ and should be the sponsor of the bill that passes and becomes law.

‘Nothing personal, that’s just the way it oughta be,’ Ramsey said.

The Democrats, however, want to pass the Bredesen administration bill concerning certificates for driving. House Majority Leader Gary Odom (D-Nashville) said the Department of Safety has worked on the bill and would be administering the legislation, and “that’s obviously important.”

And Rep. Mike Turner (D-Old Hickory), the House sponsor of the Bredesen bill, said he is not signing onto Ketron’s Republican-backed measure.

“That’s not going to happen,” Turner said.

This kind of infighting is nothing new in the Assembly or in nearly every legislative body, although as Rogers notes John Wilder’s departure as speaker has changed the climate in the Senate. Nevertheless, it is a sad state of affairs, in my opinion, that some of our lawmakers are more concerned with getting credit for what they accomplish than for actually doing it. That is not a good thing.

After reading the news today that the Preds are interested in changing the name of the Gaylord Entertainment Center back to the venue’s original name, the Nashville Arena, I couldn’t help but wonder whether The Tennessean might be trying to stoke controversy where there is none. In my opinion, this is much the same move that the Titans made when Adelphia ended its sponsorship of what temporarily became known as the Nashville Coliseum (and is now LP Field):

The Predators, already struggling with lukewarm fan support, have apparently had no luck finding a sponsor to step up and pay for the naming rights to the Gaylord Entertainment Center, and the hockey team wants to change the name back to the Nashville Arena. Metro will decide later this month whether to accept the team’s request to change the name of the 17,113-seat hockey and concert venue.

Gaylord Entertainment Co. signed a 20-year, $80 million naming rights and partial ownership deal with the Predators in 1999. But the agreement was terminated in 2004, with Gaylord agreeing to pay the Predators more than $9 million over the next five years.

No one is happy that the Preds have not been able to secure a name sponsor yet, but naming deals don’t typically happen overnight. It also took the Titans years (plural) to partner with LP. Reporter Bryan Mullen opens his story by calling out the Preds’ lukewarm fan support, even though the team’s attendance has been markedly improved since late January.

Furthermore, Mullen and the copy editor, who likely wrote what seems to me to be a sensationalized “if Preds get their way” headline, appear to me, at least, to be implying that this change will be questioned and criticized. No one quoted in the article says anything to indicate that they have any serious concerns about the name change, and a presumably unbiased marketing executive from another city is quoted saying he thinks it’s a good idea:

“Go to the trouble to change the name back to a generic name because that will make it more palatable for a new partner to come in and begin to distance itself from Gaylord,” [Denver-based The Bonham Group's president Shawn] Bradley said.

Metro Finance Director David Manning weighed in for the story to note that the city is not expected to be on the hook directly for any costs associated with the change, and team owner Craig Leipold, who has bent over backward working to make the Preds a success in the city, reiterated that the team has no plans to do anything but stay in the city and play hockey, as reported by Mullen: “Predators  owner Craig Leipold has said he plans to stay in Nashville and has no interest in moving the franchise.”

The name change is definitely news in Nashville, but there doesn’t appear to be much controversy alongside it. If you ask me, it’s a no-brainer to change the name to stop providing Gaylord with free advertising and to make the naming rights more attractive for a future sponsor. Consider the City Paper’s much less dramatic approach to the same news in its story headlined GEC to be renamed the ‘Nashville Arena’:

The GEC will not be the GEC much longer. The Nashville Predators have notified Metro the team intends to drop the “Gaylord Entertainment Center” appellation of the downtown arena it calls home and to re-title the complex, at least for the time being, the “Nashville Arena…”

“We recognize the commitment the Nashville community made in building the Nashville Arena and we are committed to securing a naming rights partner that all of Nashville will be proud to have associated with the City and the facility!”

“Effective March 16, 2007, all communications and references (website, game and event broadcasts, advertising and promotion, etc.) will identify the facility as the Nashville Arena,” [Predators executive vice president Ed] Lang wrote to [Sports Authority Chairman Kevin] Lavender.

The Predators can rename the arena per contract with the Sports Authority. The city owns the GEC.

Note that last sentence. The Predators have the legal right to make the name change, and everyone quoted seems to think it is a good idea or at least not something that will cause the city any problems. The Preds have been at or near the top of the standings all season long, and their small-but-rabid fan base has been joined by more fans in the seats as the playoffs draw near. The team’s front office has been dedicated to this city since day one, and it’s working hard to make this a successful franchise on and off the ice. Why pile on the Preds when there doesn’t appear to be a reason to do so?

During Tennessean Senior Editor Deborah Fisher’s presentation to PRSA Nashville last week, one audience member raised concerns about the newspaper’s policy to allow essentially anyone to post comments anonymously. Making his argument, he mentioned that the policy eliminates accountability for the poster and calls the validity of information shared into question.

I’m not saying that the following comment that was posted below today’s story about Bredesen and the driver’s license bill is not from the prince of darkness, but I think someone should verify that it is before it is posted:

I’m starting to think that anonymous comments are a valid concern, at least for a media organization. Is this kind of comment really hurting anything? No. Is it really helping anything? No. Is it free speech? Yes. Would requiring at least an email address limit speech? Not in my opinion.

Today’s Tennessean reports that Governor Bredesen opposes the current bill that would designate English as the main language for driver’s license testing:

Gov. Phil Bredesen said he is disappointed the Senate passed an English language driver’s license testing bill and will seriously consider a veto if the House also approves it.

“This is not a bill about illegal immigration. We are already fully on track to not have illegal immigrants get driver’s licenses in Tennessee,” Bredesen said Tuesday. “This is just posturing.”

I agree with him. Since English was established as the official state language in 1984, I don’t see any reason for this legislation. It seems like political pandering to me.

I don’t know much about nuclear energy, admittedly, but I’d like to see much, much more information and lengthy community discussion before these plans to transport and process nuclear waste in Tennessee go any further. This project is going to have to go in someone’s back yard, but I want to hear more before I know whether it’s time for a NIMBY campaign. Since a railroad runs a few hundred feet above and behind my back door, the back yard in question might very literally be mine.

The State Senate passed a bill to make English the “main language” for driver’s license testing, according to this Associated Press story. The story also notes that proponents and opponents agree that the bill would “make little difference in how the state issues licenses.” The article goes on to note that this appears to be a long-resolved concern:

Lawmakers in 1984 established English as the “official and legal language of Tennessee.” Under that law, all government publications and communications were required to be available in English.

This bill and the Metro Council’s bill seem to me to be pointless initiatives that are only fostering negative impressions of our city and our state as unwelcoming communities. Let’s devote our time and resources toward addressing the challenges and shortcomings we face together instead of generating divisive pieces of legislation that serve largely as distractions, not solutions.

The Tennessean reported this morning on Gaylord Entertainment’s plans to develop a to-be-determined entertainment venue on 100 acres in Donelson. The Metro Council approved the rezoning request on the second of three required readings last night. Support is ample from nearby residents even though the company isn’t exactly sure what it will do with the site yet. So far, it is doing things the right way, as the paper notes:

Company executives said they are being sensitive to neighbors’ concerns, have invested more than $1 billion in Donelson and will be required by Metro to do more extensive traffic studies and site plans before they can build anything.

“I can assure you that our intent is to develop a comprehensive development plan that will minimize the effect of new traffic on the surrounding residential areas and on our Donelson businesses,” said Bennett Westbrook, Gaylord’s senior vice president for development, design and construction.

The Metro Planning Commission approved the request last month but said Gaylord should create buffers to protect against noise and traffic.

It sounds like Gaylord is being responsible and straightforward. I hope the company will continue to be open and flexible as its plans for the site become clearer in the future. If the council is going to approve their request without all of the details, Gaylord should remain willing to adjust to address future concerns if the eventual venue decision creates new concerns and headaches.