OK, time for another episode of “Ask BWA.” Thanks for sending in actual questions so I don’t have to, you know, make most of them up. Let’s get started.
Dear BWA: Why isn’t the policeman who shot and killed that cellphone tower worker being prosecuted?
–Compassionate Carminative
Dear Compash: The DA said there is no evidence that would merit prosecuting Officer Anthony Payne for killing Wayne Furr. Furr, a father of two, was an AFL Communications technician working inside a cramped, loud cellphone substation during the early morning of July 20 when he was shot three times by Payne. Although Furr’s truck, with his company’s logo and phone number on it, was parked outside, the officer did not call the company to see if they had sent anyone to work at the substation. Payne entered the building, where, he said, Furr pointed a gun at him and didn’t obey commands to put down the weapon. Numerous people including co-workers described Furr as a straight-arrow type, easygoing and helpful. A police internal affairs investigation is still going on in the case, even though tower industry employees throughout the Southeast, as well as some local media, suggested an independent investigation by the SBI would have more credibility and would do more to maintain public confidence in the police.
After the internal investigation is finished and Payne is exonerated — why pretend it could end any other way? — the decision may be appealed by Furr’s family to a Citizens Review Board. In its nine years of existence, however, the board has never supported a complainant’s appeal. So, Compash, to answer your question more succinctly, prosecuting a police officer for killing a civilian would go against local tradition.
Dear BWA: As a longtime reader, I demand to know where you stand on the most important community issue of our time.
–Rarin’ To Go
Dear Rarin’: I assume you mean the state of our public schools, right?
Dear BWA: Godamighty, man, are you friggin’ clueless? The Panthers’ fight song! What do you think of the Panthers’ fight song?!
Dear Rarin’: Oh yeah, of course, the fight song. Well, I’d say the old tune the Panthers are trying to revive, “Stand and Cheer for the Panthers” (hear it here: www.charlotte.com/multimedia/charlotte/KRT_packages/archive/misc/0815newcheer.mp3), is pretty piss-poor, like something from a bad Ronald Reagan movie, all peppy-rah-rah and neat-o in a kitschy, 1940s way. No surprise, though, since it’s the same old song former quarterback Steve Beuerlein said made him feel embarrassed when he ran out onto the field as it played. Why Panthers management wants to thrust the song’s decaying corpse under the noses of fans again is a mystery.
What song should replace it? I’d go for Gary Glitter’s “Rock and Roll Part 2” (you know, “DAHH-da, [hey!] da-DAH da-DAH”), except that the NFL has now told its teams to stop playing it because Glitter was sentenced to three years in prison in Vietnam for having sex with 10-year-olds. Glitter should be doing way more time than three years for child molestation. Even so, it’s ridiculous to try to ban his music. The NFL’s move is the same kind of PC silliness we saw when radio stations stopped playing Cat Stevens songs after he converted to Islam. What amazes me is that so many people think musicians, or any artists, are obliged to be great human beings, too. The fact is, if we banned art by jerks and criminals, most museums, theaters and music venues would close within a year. Composer Richard Wagner? Ferocious Jew-hater. Italian painter Caravaggio? Murderer. Author Ernest Hemingway? Asshole par excellence. Soul legend James Brown? Nutcase druggie wife beater. All I’m saying is that if fans — including NFL fans — want to go on enjoying music, movies, books, what-have-you, it might be a good idea to stop romanticizing artists and learn to keep creative folks’ public talents and private lives in separate categories.
Dear BWA: Why do you anti-war types support Islamic fascists? Don’t you know they’re the new Hitler?
–Ms. Super Patriot
Dear Ms. Super: Actually, I’ve yet to hear of anyone in the US who is against the war in Iraq and also supports Islamist terrorism. In fact, the central point of most criticisms of Bush’s war is that it’s creating more and more terrorists every day, making us less safe than we were before. That and, you know, the fact that the invasion was completely illegal by any traditional standards of international relations. The Hitler comparisons being slung around by Bush and Rummy are obvious attempts to intimidate critics but are just nonsensical. Bands of Islamist terrorists are hardly a match for the danger posed by Hitler & Co. The German Fuehrer was the head of an organized state that, at the time, had the most vigorous economy — and the largest army — in the world and was invading other countries that had not attacked it. Hmm, wait a minute. Does that sound familiar?
Send “Ask BWA” questions, comments or love offerings to: john.grooms@creativeloafing.com.
This article appears in Sep 13-19, 2006.
