In my thinking, that “something else” always was running for the U.S. Senate, not governor of Tennessee. It generally is a more natural move to go from a U.S. Representative to the Senate, although in 1994, Don Sundquist made the move that Wamp wants to do, winning the gubernatorial election and defeating current Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen in the process.

But, here we are just weeks away from the primaries, and next month, voters will decide if the Republican nominee will be Wamp or Bill Haslam, mayor of Knoxville. My sense is that the real election is the Republican primary, and whoever wins is going to be the next governor.

Obviously, Haslam will outspend Zach, although I think that Wamp has done an impressive job of raising money, and certainly his campaign is not broke. Nonetheless, it is hard to win elections when one’s opponent has deeper pockets, and I think that Zach knew this would be an uphill fight no matter what.

Although the polls have Haslam in a double-digit lead, my sense is that Zach has gained in recent weeks and it remains to be seen whether or not he can pass Haslam, who in my view is a very strong candidate. Should Wamp win the nomination and the election, what kind of leadership do I think he would provide? I will try to answer that question in this column.

Wamp’s experience for the past 16 years has been as a legislator and a dealmaker. Obviously, there is nothing wrong with either, and while I have not agreed with all of Zach’s votes (his support for the ill-conceived TARP comes to mind, although I suspect he would like to have back that vote), I do think that his overall voting record has been positive and certainly better than what we have seen from the current Congressional leadership.

However, as governor, Zach cannot legislate; he must be an administrator, and an administrator that is effective enough not only to deal with executive branch agencies, but also to work with the legislature. I’m not sure which job is more difficult, to be honest, but having spent almost all of his political life as an elected representative, I am sure that Zach has insights into dealing with the members of the Tennessee General Assembly.

There is one thing that Wamp cannot do: engage in deficit spending. Unlike the federal government, which has been running deficits for years, states and localities must balance their budgets or go broke. They cannot borrow their way out of such a situation, and they certainly cannot print money.

Because the policies of the Obama administration are going to guarantee that the U.S. economy will be in the tank for a long time, whoever becomes the next governor of Tennessee is going to be dealing with budget crises, and that also means that the main newspapers and a lot of other “progressives” are going to demand a state income tax. That is guaranteed.

Interestingly, many of the states with the worst budget problems also have high income tax rates, which serve to encourage the legislatures (and governors) to spend beyond their means. So, while I know that there will be the pressure to enact an income tax, nonetheless Tennesseeans will be better off without one, and I hope that either Zach or Haslam remembers that simple truth.

So, what kind of governor will Zach be if he wins the election? I believe that he has too much energy and too much political experience to be a failure. In fact, I believe that Wamp, if elected, will be a highly effective governor and in a few years, people will be throwing his name around for the Republican nomination for president.

Since I have not talked to Zach in many years, I have no idea if that is his goal: to be president of the United States. If he wishes to go that route, certainly he will have a better shot as governor of Tennessee than as a representative or even a senator. But if he wants to be president, he first needs to win the primary, which means he has to come from behind to do it.

I don’t have a crystal ball, and while I follow the news in Tennessee more than I follow the news in Maryland, nonetheless I cannot make a prediction. Zach is an excellent campaigner, a good stump speaker, and is very charismatic, especially in person. Whether or not that makes up for the financial advantages that Haslam enjoys, plus Haslam’s connections across the state, is something that the voters will decide.

Finally, the kids are out of school and many of us have already taken a week’s vacation. We should be ready to hit it hard at the office, but many people I’ve talked to did not enjoy their vacations. They admit service was terrible wherever they went because there were too many people on vacation at the same time, and not enough staff to handle the large numbers of adults trying to make vacation a festive event for their children. The kids had been stuck in a classroom for months, and really do not want to wait in line an hour to check into a busy hotel, or wait for food to be served or wait for the swimming pool to be less crowded. What are these vacation destination managers thinking? Staff up! Change or we’ll help you change.

Those of us left behind are in the same condition, with less than vacation-like surroundings. Good luck contacting a company for a return of merchandise. The person you need to talk with is — you guessed it — on vacation. How about trying to get a repairman for the office air conditioning? The repairman is too busy to get to me today because some of his co-workers are on vacation. No problem, I could just open the office windows and let some bugs in, right? First, I’d better check to see if the pest control service is on vacation.

Now, I’ll try getting my car into the shop to get it ready for summer vacation the week before the 4th of July. (I’m going early to beat the crowds.) Same story. Repair people are on vacation and the parts they need are delayed in shipment anyway. Hmmm. Someone that drives the delivery truck must be on vacation.

I decided to pick up salad ingredients at the grocery store after leaving the office yesterday. I could not believe they were out of cucumbers, feta cheese, cherry tomatoes and lemons. Again, I muttered to myself, “change or I’ll make you change — and begin shopping elsewhere.”

Still hungry for my favorite salad, I stop by a restaurant that serves a wonderful Greek salad, and had one boxed up to take home. Later, while watching TV and eating my salad, I see hundreds of unhappy Tea Baggers letting the world know their displeasure with Washington, the Congress and President Obama. More “change or I’ll make you change” attitude right there on the evening news! It’s pervasive across the nation due to too many lost jobs and home foreclosures.

We are constantly reminded as we go about our business day that not all companies give the best customer service. Sometimes you only get one chance to make clients happy. While nobody expects a perfect Congressman, Senator or president, after several major disappointments, people vote for change.

Many East Tennessee companies have had to downsize and far too many have had to go out of business altogether. You have to wonder if they just didn’t hear the “change or I’ll make you change” signals from their customers leading up to the closure of their businesses.

President Obama declared he stood for “change you can believe in” when he was running for president. If your business does not already have a way to communicate with customers and clients regarding their satisfaction with your company, you may want to consider a simple customer opinion survey.

The “change or I’ll make you change” possibility is certainly worth pondering.

­—Jayne Andrews

This is the third major U.S. oil spill in my lifetime, although none of these spills have been as great as those that have hit other countries. What is different, however, is the reaction that Americans have had to the spills — especially the political reaction. The fact that our society is so politicized does not enable us to have a rational response to these inevitable spills, and that is a shame.

The first major spill that I remember was the Santa Barbara blowout of 1969, in which a well under a platform six miles off the coast of California blew out and about 100,000 barrels of oil got out, much of it washing ashore and killing about 10,000 birds. The pictures of that oil spill provided fodder for the Earth Day festivities that were launched a year later.

The next one came 20 years later, as the Exxon Valdez ran aground off Prince William Sound in Alaska and about 250,000 barrels of oil turned some of the shoreline into a wasteland. The public reaction against this and the Santa Barbara spill changed the attitudes of many Americans about drilling offshore for crude oil (although the Alaska spill dealt with a tanker accident, not a problem with the oil rig).

And now, we have the experience with the Gulf blowout with the failure of the BP deepwater platform in which, admittedly, the technology for deep drilling apparently is much further advanced than the technology for plugging the well itself. As this looks to be the largest oil spill in U.S. history (but not even in the top 15 in world history), no doubt the political reaction will be very predictable, especially given that a left-wing Democrat is in the White House and he already is on the “green jobs” bandwagon.

First, what is the perspective that I am pushing in the wake of what clearly is an environmental disaster? It is this: while the oil spill is bad, nonetheless the number of spills has decreased as technology has improved — even as engineers look for oil in harder-to-reach places. This is not a trivial perspective. In fact, one of the reasons oil spills are such big news is because they don’t happen very often. That does not lessen their severity when they do occur. Nonetheless, we should not forget that fact.

Second, what should be our response? I can guarantee you that our response should NOT be to build more windmills or to force Americans to pour more corn “likker” into our cars or to require that we all drive cars that get 50 miles to the gallon. Unfortunately, we will see Congress react — and Congress always is reactive in these situations — by making us more dependent upon heavily-subsidized technologies and fuels, which will further drag down the economy and make all of us poorer.

Third, the rhetoric from the Obama administration — “We need to put the boot on BP’s neck — is not helpful, and I agree with Rand Paul: it is un-American. The notion of the state engaging in such action tells us that the Obamaites have been chomping at the bit to use whatever crises come about in order to further control the rest of us.

Instead, the U.S. response should be to deal with this as all industrial accidents should be dealt with: find out what went wrong and let the industry fix it. The insurers of these rigs and operations should have a lot more say in what goes on than they presently do, and I guarantee you that because the insurance companies ultimately pay the bills, they should be the ones doing most of the regulating — not the government.

No, insurers are not foxes guarding the henhouse. People who have to pay the bills always take a greater interest in a set of circumstances than those who do not. Government regulation has a huge disconnect between those who regulate and those who pay, and the sets of incentives that exist there are not conducive to effective regulation.

It may be that companies engaging in deep-water drilling might not be able to continue doing so unless they also have developed ways to deal with these kinds of accidents. I have no problem with that scenario, but I do have a problem with the government taking this latest incident as “proof” that the state needs to “put its boot” on our necks.

The laws of science tell us that the oil molecule releases far more energy than the other “alternative forms” touted by the government, and there is a real price to pay for abandoning petroleum and turning to “government-approved” methods. We have to understand that the price we will pay for “alternative” fuels will dwarf whatever the costs of this latest oil spill might be. The administration might be able to spew out rhetoric, but it cannot control the laws of thermodynamics, and it certainly cannot rewrite the laws of economics.

­—Bill Anderson

Of course, I’d love to take her sledding, as it would bring back fond childhood memories for both of us. And following the frolic in the snow — complete with snow angels — we’d enjoy cups of hot chocolate together. Don’t forget the marshmallows on top! Granted, there were a couple of days that warranted the closing of schools and businesses since driving was hazardous. However, my annoyance with non-snow snow days is matched by the anger of many parents I talked to this past winter. If school is closed, so are daycares and afterschool programs. Yet, many businesses are still open. What is a parent to do at 7 a.m.? Taking the children to work is simply out of the question for most of us.

This spring, things seemed to have gotten worse. Just when we thought it was finally safe to put away the big jackets, scarves and hats, the temps dipped again. This seems to have brought on another round of unusual behaviors. Road rage and crime went up, according to some police officers I’ve talked to. Of course the soggy economy and constant bickering we listen to coming out of Washington, D.C. and Nashville does not lend itself well to improving the average Tennessean’s outlook on life. Over the next few days, the weatherman says our weather is going to continue to fluctuate between spring and winter.

Those of us who garden — whether vegetables or flowers and plants — know that does not bode well for tender crops and plants. And scientists have known for decades that weather most definitely affects our moods and productivity. Many of us remember the songs, “Rainy day feeling,” and “Raindrops keep falling on my head.” Give us a sunny, warm spring day here in East Tennessee with those gorgeous mountains and many of us totally forget about speed limits and turn signals because we are engulfed with a sense of euphoria. (Especially after a long, cold winter or several days in a row of rain.)

Again, scientific studies have proven that weather impacts our ability to focus and concentrate on daily tasks at work. So, if you’ve noticed some erratic behaviors in your company, perhaps you could think about how the weather — coupled with an uncertain economy — is affecting your employees. And don’t forget that many of them are already anticipating a busy spring filled with children getting out of school, graduations, wedding, vacations and other personal obligations. Some organizations find it helpful to have companywide meetings in order to explain to employees that despite the suffering economy, the company is financial stable and that employees’ jobs are secure. This goes a long way to improving company morale and encouraging a corporate culture in which everyone works towards the same goal — making customers happy and retaining their business, while having a work environment that is enjoyable to remain at every day for eight to 10 hours. (Or more!)

While you can’t change the weather or the economy, I’ve found that honesty helps motivate people. Allow employees time to ask questions, and offer one-on-one discussions if necessary to talk about personal matters that may be weighing heavily on their minds. Some people “suffer in silence” while juggling a high stress job, parenting, caring for elderly parents, a sick pet, neighbors who disturb sleep many nights and paying their bills on time.

If you are not already keeping the communication lines open at your company, spring is a wonderful time to “turn over a new leaf.” The investment of your time now will garner huge returns later in employee satisfaction, improved customer relations and a more profitable bottom line.

Oh, and don’t forget to share some of those additional profits with your church or a deserving local charity. (Take a look at Pages 8 and 12 in this issue for some suggestions.) Yes, they are public service announcements, for which we are proud to be able to help them help others. Powell Presbyterian Church is dedicated to giving free food to needy and hungry families here in Knoxville. The Young Williams Animal Shelter helps animals find homes that will be loving and supportive.

Let me know what you and/or your company are doing to give back to your community. ETBJ will be glad to print your letters, since it will give us all some much needed inspiration. Every time we pay taxes, we are forced to support organizations we may not personally agree with. Yet, when we give personal donations, we give from our hearts to those we respect and admire.

­—Jayne Andrews

However, we are not dealing with rational creatures, especially editorial writers who are True Believers in whatever the Talking Points of the Day might come from the Democratic National Committee. In an April 5 lead editorial, the Times decided that where Wamp is living has become the Great Crisis of the Day. If you think I exaggerate, read on:

“The secretive religious foundation which provides favorably priced housing in Washington, D.C., to a select group of senators and congressmen, including Tennessee’s Dist. 3 Rep. Zach Wamp, has come under fire again for operating the C Street house under the tax exempt status accorded to religious institutions. Two new complaints reasonably raise issues that beg transparent answers about the legal status of The Fellowship’s Washington house and the ethical propriety of the lawmakers who reside there.”

No, the “secretive foundation” is not under fire. Instead, this is what we contrived incident courtesy of a shadowy organization, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, called CREW. Now, if you have never heard of CREW or its executive director, Melanie Sloan, it is not because you are ignorant of the news.

No, it is because for all its supposed “nonpartisan” status, CREW exists to create contrived news stories. I never had heard of CREW until I was reading a piece on the legal challenge to the shadowy and murky federal law called “honest services fraud.” I have written a number of articles on this legal abomination, and last fall was a guest on the Fox News show hosted by Judge Andrew Napolitano in which I pointed out that the “honest services fraud” violates every constitutional norm one can imagine.

Well, guess who was in favor of this abomination? It was Melanie Sloan, so it is obvious to me that when we have a “public watchdog” who favors laws that truly are evil and unjust, I am not interested in what Sloan or her confederates might have to say.

Furthermore, if the editors at the Times want to look at a secretive organization, they might want to check the record of one of their favorite organization, Public Citizen. If you wish to see secrecy in action, look at how Ralph Nader does business.

Of course, the Times considers Nader to be pure, and Sloan to be brilliant, so there can be no questioning the wisdom of these people. Nonetheless, just because Sloan wants some publicity by sending out a press release does not mean that what she has to say is newsworthy.

If we want to be concerned about ethics, perhaps the accounting practices that this current government uses to claim that a huge new spending program called ObamaCare is going to “cut the federal budget deficit.” Maybe we can look at the ethics of propping up worthless paper in the administration’s Wall Street bailouts, or maybe how taxpayers are being drained to pay for the fraud known as “green energy.”

Nonetheless, the editors at the Times are not particularly worried about fraud. No, they are upset that Rep. Wamp is paying $600 a month rent for a tiny room. He should be paying more!! We demand justice! Lest anyone think I am being silly, read on:

“Mr. Wamp, however, denied that he has violated gift and ethics bans. He said his room rate has remained unchanged for years, but that he moved into a Spartan eight-by-10 foot single room that has no closet or bathroom.

Given the other amenities of the commodious house — a kitchen and common living areas — that still amounts to a low price.

What is most incongruous about The Fellowship’s tax-exempt status for the house as a church is the behavior of some of its previous residents. Sen. John Ensign, R-Nevada, and former Congressman Mark Sanford, now-the beleaguered Republican governor of South Carolina, became embroiled in scandals for separate adulterous affairs while they were residents of the C Street house. Such behavior certainly is at odds with the focus of the National Prayer Breakfast which The Fellowship, also known as The Family, sponsors for Congress and Washington big-shots every year.”

Which means what? Because Mark Sanford was acting like Bill Clinton has nothing to do with Rep. Wamp or where he sleeps at night. This is what is known as a cheap shot, and no one does it better than the Times. Ever since the paper published hit jobs masquerading as news stories in 1992, the Times has been all over Zach, and it drives Harry Austin and Wes Hasden batty that the voters won’t listen to their Great Editorial Wisdom at election time.

My guess is that the Times would have paid scant attention to this latest “ethics” nonsense if Zach were not running for governor of Tennessee. And if I know the people running the show at that sorry excuse for an editorial page, I am sure that we can expect to see hit job after hit job all the way until the primary election, and maybe beyond. That is the only way that these people know how to do business — the dirty way.

—Dr. William Anderson

Since the passage and signing into law of the health care reform bill, you could say we’re not in Kansas anymore. While life in America right now does not resemble Oz, that’s only because a great share of the new bill in not yet in effect.

I know you have probably read and heard more than you care to about the positives and negatives of the new bill, and whether it is even Constitutional to force people to buy any good or service. It is not my intention to wear you out still further with the same information simply regurgitated in this publication. Perhaps what you have not read much about is what true health care reform could look like. Yes, reform is possible. And I am talking about a reform that most of you reading this would accept. So what do I mean by “most of you?” Let’s do the math. Here are the stats:

The number of ETBJ readers varies due to our Web page and how many new subscriptions we receive each month. Our research indicates we have over 50,000 readers of our print edition and about 35,000 readers of our Web site each month. That means this editorial is read each month by roughly 85,000 pairs of eyeballs. I am not foolish enough to try to delude myself into thinking all of you agree with me each month.

Small town mayors do not have 85,000 citizens voting for them, and they get quite nervous when facing reelection. That is why the old saying “you can’t please everyone” applies here. Mayor Ashe and I had that conversation years ago. He was concerned about trying to please his voters. I told him I know I have a great deal of responsibility as managing editor of this rag. My job each month is to bring you news and information that will inform, educate and entertain the subscribers of ETBJ. Trust me, I get phone calls from those of you who do NOT agree with me, one of my columnists or one of our reporters. Mayor Ashe often had his feet held to the fire trying to please his voters at Mayor’s Night Out, he explained to me. The number of folks calling me about something Dr. Anderson wrote is off the charts, but then he has that Ph.D. in economics from Auburn. Ouch! Auburn! Perhaps that upsets a Big Orange fan who may now read no further due to Vols Loyalty?

The letters you write and sign your names on are so dear to me. Personal mail! Yummy. You have company letterhead, are proud of your beliefs and are willing to “put it in writing.” (I always call those brave souls personally.)

My point here? I am concerned enough to care. I do my best to take my job seriously because I want to KNOW I earned my paycheck. Our advertisers and subscribers deserve no less. All the staff and columnists at ETBJ are perfectionists. And no, it’s not something we get out of the water cooler. If a woman in East Tennessee and her staff — a small staff in comparison to the number of elected officials in East Tennessee, the U.S. Congress and White House — care this passionately about our work and the impact we have on the lives of our subscribers and advertisers — what the devil is wrong with those elected officials when it comes to making decisions that drastically impact the lives of countless Americans and generations to come? Mayor Ashe was correct in being concerned as to why only a few people in Ft. Sanders register to vote, and actually show up at a polling place. (Most of the residents of Ft. Sanders are college students, and many do not “live” here, so they must vote back “home” in Memphis or Nashville.) It’s the Election Law of the Land.

We here at ETBJ are not Tea Baggers, Right Wingers, Left Wingers etc. No, we are just people who know we have the right to say, “I’m proud of what I do, and I make a very good wage here at work. The Business Journal is expanding right now, not cutting back as, sadly, so many companies have been forced to do in recent years.

I know that all will be well here, no matter the state of the economy, if we work as a team and offer a quality product. Our advertisers will continue to renew as they have for 19 years; so will the subscribers. The new business for both departments will come to us as it always has. People use computers and phones to check headlines, yet the majority of our subscribers still prefer a print edition of East Tennessee Business Journal.

We continue to develop new business, and strive to treat each client as if they were “the only one.” We give our subscribers what we said we would give them. We do not lie to clients, we do not make them wait any longer than necessary for an answer to their question. Our Legal Briefs editor does his research. Our Financial Planning Guru gets it right the first time. We do NOT endorse political candidates, but offer clear and concise analysis of who they are and what they represent. Our sales team is professional on the phone when speaking to advertisers. Our billing department rarely makes mistakes.

I could go on and on with how I personally feel about ETBJ and my staff. Our CPA has discussed with me for hours over the years his formula for health care reform. I think he has it “right” since many of his clients are physicians. He served as CFO at hospitals before starting his own CPA firm years ago. I listen to him and wish he could tell Congress his plan, but also realize most of the folks in Congress would not listen to him even if the appointment were held in the privacy of their Washington office. Still, I know as I sip my coffee at lunch with this forward-thinking man that there is hope he will be in the right place some day talking to the right person who will listen to what he thinks could save health care, and make it better for doctors, providers and consumers. He says he is going to write a book, and that gives me even more hope for a better tomorrow since that means he could sell copies on amazon.com. Tell the world. He writes for ETBJ when he has time.

I sleep with a clear conscience at night and know that I have attempted to serve all of you who read this. So why can’t Congress and all elected officials look at their job like we here are ETBJ do, and like most of you do at your companies?

They could. They should. We know they don’t. It’s almost election day. Who will you vote for this year? Will you take the time to research what each candidate stands for and consider carefully what changes he or she will bring to your personal and professional life? Don’t depend upon we members of the media to do your job for you. Voting is such a strong way to voice your support or disagreement with those who are running for office. Each vote is important, even if your choice for public office loses. This is a critical election year, so we all need to consider how we vote carefully.

—Jayne Andrews

Today, the carnage of World War II is long past, and Germany once again is a united country. East Germany simply ceased to exist (but not before having a “going out of business sale”), and it was incorporated into what was then West Germany. For those of us who had been to East Germany and seen the communist repression up close, this was a wonderful time, a heady time in which we let ourselves believe that perhaps freedom had won.

Today, Germany (like so many other Western countries) is less free than it was when the Berlin Wall came down. In the United States, the Patriot Act gives federal agents powers that our colonial forbears could not have imagined would exist in a supposedly free country. Every day, we see examples of police brutality, of prosecutors knowingly presenting false information to gain wrongful convictions, and governments at all levels seizing private property wily nily.

However, there has been a most welcome development in East Tennessee, the arrival of the family of Uwe Romeike from Germany, seeking political asylum on our shores and living near Morristown. Why? German law forbids home schooling, and the Romeikes had accumulated thousands of dollars in fines and were in danger of having their children removed from their home altogether by authorities determined to make the family heel. (An immigration judge in Memphis granted the Romeikes asylum.)

No, there were no shouts of “Macht Schnell!” or the sound of the Gestapo rapping at the door, but nonetheless this was totalitarianism in action. Germany has a long tradition of oppressive statism, and home schooling is verboten in the land that wants us to believe it has purged itself of the goose stepping, stiff-arm salutes, and the mentality of “Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Fuhrer!”

Other European countries are about as bad, as teachers unions and leftist governments have declared war on families (and especially Christian families) that believe they can educate their own children better than can the government schools. Such repressive — and they are repressive — policies are going to drive other families perhaps to the United States. Obviously, the leftist Obama administration sees this as a problem. Time reports:

The ruling is tricky politically for Washington and its allies in Europe, where several countries — including Spain and the Netherlands — allow homeschooling only under exceptional circumstances, such as when a child is extremely ill. That helps explain why in late February, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement formally appealed the Romeike ruling, which was issued by an immigration judge in Memphis, Tenn. His unprecedented decision has raised concerns that the already heavily backlogged immigration courts will be flooded with asylum petitions from homeschoolers in countries typically regarded as having nonrepressive governments.

The Romeikes did not take this action lightly. Uwe is a concert pianist, and to finance this move, he had to sell his Steinway piano, not an easy action for an accomplished musician. To me, this is reminiscent of the Jews in Nazi Germany selling their beloved instruments in order to finance their leaving the country. The more things change, the more they remain the same.

It does not surprise me at all to see Obama siding with the heirs of Nazism and try to send this family back to Germany, where the mother and father most likely will be arrested and at very least, the children will be taken from their parents. Obama is a lackey of the labor unions, including one of the most powerful unions in the country, the National Education Association, which favors making home schooling illegal altogether.

I admit to being prejudiced here. My wife and I home school our three adopted children. It began when our oldest son had spent four years in school and could not read. After my wife worked with him, he finally was able to make headway, and now is a fair reader. My other two children decided that they, too, would prefer to be educated at home.

All three of them are making progress, more progress than they were making when they were in school, and one of my sons is reading the literature of the Ancient Greeks, and comprehending well the material. (For the record, I am a graduate of the Baylor School of Chattanooga, and we did not read material that was as challenging as my 14-year-old son is reading now as a home schooler.)

Even though the teachers’ unions claim to be “protecting the children,” the only people they want to protect are themselves. When parents are able to take control of the education of their children, they also are taking power away from the teachers and their unions, and they don’t like that. Of course, they try to stuff the “we care more about your children than you do” rhetoric down our throats, but many of us are not buying it.

I sincerely hope that the Roemikes are able to defeat this effort by Obama and his henchmen to destroy their family. To be honest, I like the idea of a concert pianist living in East Tennessee, and I eagerly await the day when he plays “Rocky Top” at a performance! Until then, I hope that he and his legal allies can defeat the efforts of our government to deport him, his wife and his children back to the country that gave us Hitler.

—Dr. William Anderson

However, on Sept. 10, the Times editorial page truly stepped over the line (which I admit is not hard for someone like Austin) from simple criticism to outright smearing Wamp by likening him to George Wallace and others who sounded the old “states’ rights” line in order to freely engage in racial discrimination against black Americans. To make sure that no one thinks I am exaggerating, here is what the editorial said:

It wouldn’t be a stretch for a politically attuned listener to imagine Mr. Wamp has begun channeling old-style Dixiecrats. His fiery defense of states’ rights recalls strategies of such race-baiting legends as former Alabama Gov. George Wallace, Mississippi Gov. Ross Barnett and South Carolina’s governor and senator Strom Thurmond, who once led the segregationist States Rights Democratic Party as the Dixiecrats’ presidential candidate.

Not that Mr. Wamp is literally rehashing the racist positions of these governors. He is not advocating actions akin to those, say, of former Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus, whose 1957 challenge of the court-ordered integration of Little Rock’s Central High School caused then-President Eisenhower to send in the 101st Airborne to escort the first black students; or Gov. Wallace, who in 1963 stood on the steps of the University of Alabama’s Foster Auditorium in a grandstand attempt to turn back federal authorities who demanded he step aside to allow the court-ordered desegregation of the university.

But he need not say anything racist to strike the ‘states rights’ chords that still resonate with so many of the older right-wing of his party in the run-up to the GOP primary 11 months from now. It’s enough when he invokes a stiff defense of states’ rights, as he did as his annual political rally-barbecue Monday at former County Commissioner Harold Coker’s farm:

“Part of the reason I’m running for governor is because states are going to need to declare their sovereignty, stick together with other governors to protect freedom in our states, and be willing to meet the federal government at the state line, whether it’s environmental regulations, the speed limit, gun laws, whatever the federal government’s doing that’s onerous.”

In other words, Zach Wamp really is a closet racist using “code words” in order to appeal to Republicans. Now, before I go any farther, I must point out that the old “states rights” crowd in Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi consisted of Democrats. In that day the real election was the Democratic primary, as Republicans were entirely irrelevant.

Furthermore, I do not recall the Times editorialists objecting when Democrats in states that did not politically support President George W. Bush appealed to their own version of “states’ rights.” When the City of San Francisco declared that it would not obey U.S. law on immigration, there were no editorials in the Times equating San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome with George Wallace.

However, when Wamp runs on a platform of something other than making the State of Tennessee nothing more than an administrative district for the federal government, the newspaper calls him a racist. That’s right, Harry Austin and Wes Hasden, who never could beat Wamp from 1994 to 2008 in Congressional elections — and goodness knows, they tried their hardest — have decided to use the ultimate smear in modern politics: declare that Zach Wamp is little more than a closet Klansman.

Of course, that is not Wamp’s only sin, according to the Times’ editorial. It seems that he had the temerity — the gall — to vote against the Holy “Stimulus.” (I liken the “Stimulus” to someone maxing out his credit cards to fund a big party after he finds out he has lost his job. It was and is utterly irresponsible, no matter what Paul Krugman claims.)

And, yes, after the bill was passed and it was clear that some of the newly printed money was coming to Tennessee, Wamp was able to secure some of it for the Third District, which apparently is a Crime Against Humanity, according to the Times. So, he is damned when he does and damned when he does not, which passes for “fairness and consistency” with that newspaper.

Now, I have had my disagreements with Wamp. I never supported any of the wars of the Bush administration, and I wish he had voted against the final bailout bill last year. The Republicans of 2006 became everything they had stood against when Zach first was elected to Congress in 1994. However, I also think Zach is a decent sort and I believe he would be an effective governor of Tennessee — certainly more effective and more decent than anyone that Austin or Hasden would insist upon running the show in Nashville.

In 1999, the Times praised President Bill Clinton for killing thousands of Serbians in order to permit a Serbian province to secede (and where the residents were conducting an “ethnic cleansing” campaign against Serbians who lived there). As long as a Democratic president was supporting a version of “states’ rights” in a foreign country, the Times was there to be a cheerleader for genocide.

But let Zach Wamp raise issues that are quite real in which Washington is spending recklessly and driving the U.S. economy into the ground (and, thus, following the path set by President Bush), and suddenly he is a racist, a Klansman, a speaker of “code words.” In other words, the editorial writers for the Times were acting true to form in partisan fashion, just as the dogs in Pavlov’s laboratory salivated when the bell rang. It is time that someone called them to account for their reckless and dishonest statements.

—Dr. William Anderson

Just as sad as those 444 days is President Obama’s stance on Iran’s continued hatred of the U.S. Rather than speak of forming a relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran based on mutual interests and mutual respect, our president should give speeches that reflect the feelings of the majority of Americans and freedom-seeking people everywhere.

Today’s Iranians are a brave people, opposed to the theocratic regime that delights in using its fist of power to hold the Iranian people themselves hostage in their own land. The Iranian people desire the freedom to chose their own leaders and trade freely with the world outside their borders. Shame on an American president who not only encourages the Iranian rulers to torture and kill their own citizens by his lack of anger regarding the assaults perpetrated on our interests, but also says he would like to form a working alliance with the theocrats. What would he have us do? Submit to an Iranian authority that openly seeks the death and destruction of Americans? How many more attacks must there be on our people and property before President Obama comes to realize the full extent of the evil that exists in Tehran? Has he never heard of the horrors of Beirut, Khobar Towers, TWA 847, Sept. 11 and the jihad against the West — all financed and led by Tehran and Hezbollah fighters trained by Iran? For over 30 years, Iran has repeatedly reminded us that they hate us and cannot be trusted.

President Obama has not stood up to the current regime in Iran. He will not loudly declare that his presidency will be one of strategically planning the support of the Iranian people’s uprise and overthrow of their despicable rulers who relish the blood of innocent Westerners. To do so would take great courage and a conviction Obama does not possess. He seems to actually believe that talking to terrorists will change their hard fist of dominance into a friendly hand of peace and cooperation. Obama is a fool, playing a fool’s game. If he continues to insist on this unwise foreign policy, the American people will pay a heavy price of blood and destruction. It sends a message to the rest of the world’s petty dictators that America fears taking a strong position against the murderous rule of despots. This absurdly weak approach will only invite the rise of still more American enemies. It is helping to strengthen Iran’s resolve to use violence against us while it finances and trains still more terrorist organizations. Has Obama not heard them declare jihad against us? Their true goal is to impose sharia law at all costs.

Just as our nation once had to fight for its ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the Iranian people will have to continue their fight. For now, they will receive little from us beyond the prayers and words of encouragement of the American people.

Hopefully, President Obama will eventually be persuaded that our country should not recognize the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran. I am not optimistic that will happen. As long as murdering dictators rule Iran, the U.S. is in grave danger — and that is the most unacceptable point in this discussion.

—Jayne Andrews

However, now that two of the defendants have been tried and convicted, I believe that I can speak my peace about this horrible event that so much of the national media has ignored. There are many things about this case that conflict me, even to a point where I am not sure I can express everything I have been thinking about it.

First, and most important, I have been an advocate for defendants for many years. Much of my expertise and my advocacy have been directed toward the federal criminal system and “white collar crime.” However, I also have written on state cases in which poor, black defendants have been railroaded, such as Cory Maye in Mississippi.

I believe that every person should have the right to present a vigorous defense; indeed, as I have found in the federal system, all too often innocent people are so boxed in by prosecutors that they find they cannot risk a defense at all. Noted attorney Harvey Silverglate writes:

“Prosecutors are able to structure plea bargains in ways that make it nearly impossible for normal, rational, self-interest calculating people to go to trial. The pressure on innocent defendants to plead guilty and “cooperate” by testifying against others in exchange for a reduced sentence is enormous — so enormous that such cooperating witnesses often fail to tell the truth, saying instead what prosecutors want to hear.”

Second, I believe that the system only works when judges and prosecutors actually seek justice, not try to feather their nests or advance their careers, which is endemic in the federal system. However, I will say emphatically — emphatically — that this was not the case in the Christian-Newsom murder trials. Indeed, I think the people in charge did their best to ensure fair trials.

The convictions of Letalvis Cobbins and Lemaricus Davidson came after the prosecution demonstrated without any reasonable doubt whatsoever that these men were heavily involved in the execrable event. In the Davidson case, what made matters even worse was the obviously-false defense that his attorneys, David Eldridge and Douglas Trant, presented. As pointed out earlier, I strongly believe that a defendant has a right to a most vigorous defense; I do not believe, however, that a defendant has the right to make up and present an obviously-false story, and his attorneys, who were under the rules of conduct of the Tennessee State Bar, did just that, and it was reprehensible.

Keep in mind that the sum total of the defense was this: Christian and Newsom were drug addicts who went to the Chipman Street address to purchase drugs. While there, Christian voluntarily engaged in sex with Davidson and the others, but during the stay, the “drug deal went bad.” However, by then, Davidson already had left the house and had nothing to do with what happened later.

In trying to prop up their ridiculous case, the attorneys presented the following twisted syllogism in their closing arguments:

• Even if someone takes drugs, evidence of those drugs can leave the system over a 24-hour or so period;

• No drug residue was found in Channon Christian’s body;

• Therefore, Christian was a drug user.

As one who has had some training in logic, I must admit that this one got by me when I was learning the Aristotelian syllogism. Of course, the defense also was trying to play to another false argument, this time using the language of statistics. Their attorneys’ argument went as such:

• In statistics, one cannot prove a negative;

• There were no drugs found in Channon Christian’s body;

• Therefore, since the absence of drugs cannot prove she did not do drugs, she must have done drugs.

If anyone believes that to be reprehensible, I will be glad to concur. Why did the judge permit the defense to engage in this kind of conduct? I suspect that he believed that no matter what the attorneys did, Davidson was going to be convicted, and he was not going to do anything that might give his legal team a basis for a successful appeal. Unfortunately, the families of Christian and Newsom had to listen to defense attorneys claim that their children were dope fiends and utterly degenerate, but I also believe that by using this defense, the attorneys sealed Davidson’s fate after his conviction is appealed.

Readers of my work know that I have little good to say about prosecutors. I never will have a smidgen of respect for federal prosecutors, as the Department of Justice (sic) is little more than a pit of careerist and ambitious vipers who would sell their own grandmothers for a conviction.

However, I do believe that the prosecution team in the Christian-Newsom trials, and especially Takisha Fitzgerald, have done an honorable job. I listened to her speak to the jury, and I could not fault her logic nor her passion in this case. My sense is that the family members of the victims have taken to her, as she has been the voice that they could not give. I have no comment about the judge except to say that he did a good job in protecting himself from being a judge with a high-profile verdict overturned.

I cannot even place myself in the shoes of the Christians and the Newsoms. I cannot imagine the torture and agony their children went through, and for what? So Letalvis Cobbins, Lemaricus Davidson and their friends could show the world they could brutalize people beyond any sense of reason or sanity.

This leads to one last point: punishment. One side of me agrees that execution is appropriate in certain cases, yet I have watched prosecutors elsewhere engage in outright lies and fraudulence just to get someone on death row. Read the works of Radley Balko about the fraudulent testimony of so-called expert witnesses in Mississippi and Louisiana and they will make one lose all confidence in the honesty and integrity of prosecutors in those states.

Thus, while I believe that while Davidson deserves the sentence the jury imposed, nonetheless I cannot be confident in any government to carry out this kind of state-sponsored killing. Because so many prosecutors have decided to play fast and loose with the truth, I simply believe that no prosecutor should have capital punishment as a legal weapon. How many times have we seen people on death row exonerated, but the prosecutor, guilty of misconduct, pays no price at all?

I believe, therefore, that because governments at all levels refuse even to place mild sanctions on prosecutors who engage in wicked misconduct, we cannot permit them to seek to kill other people because the chances of innocent people being executed is too great. No, I don’t believe Davidson is innocent, nor do I believe the prosecution engaged in misconduct. But I do believe that prosecutorial misconduct is out of hand, and because no one seems interested in dealing with it, I cannot agree that prosecutors should be able to seek execution for anyone.

—Dr. William Anderson