Arizona Republic from Phoenix, Arizona • Page 39

1 Sunday, June 12, 1994 The Arizona Republic C3 'Shoot first, worry later' is scary idea uring an otherwise pleasant lunch last week, the conversation somehow turned to guns. At one pont a friend I v. DAVID BRQDER Washington Post Writers Group STEPHEN TUTTLE Special for The Arizona Republic And firing multiple shots down and across busy without much regard to what is on the other side of the intended target, or what might drive through their line of fire, is very frightening, indeed. Even worse, the Salmans have already stated publicly they are perfectly prepared to do this again and sound quite anxious to have the chance. All to protect a 12-pack of beer.

As frightening as the Salmans should be to everybody, even worse were the two jurors who felt obliged to claim their 15 minutes of fame with post-trial interviews. Beth Bohnsack of Phoenix explained her not guilty verdict by stating she was "sick and tired of crime." Why, she's even afraid to run at night, she intends to get a gun, and if anybody comes into her home, she intends to "blow them away." Well, Ms. Bohnsack, we're all sick of crime, it's a shame you feel afraid at night and you certainly have every right to protect yourself in your home. Now, perhaps, you could explain to all of us just exactly what any of that had to do with the facts of the Salman trial. It seems very unlikely a judge's final instructions included anything to suggest the jury should make a decision based on personal fears rather than the facts presented at the trial.

Another juror, Phoenician Frank Dugger, went even further. When Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox went to bat for the Sanchez family, constituents who had come to her, and suggested the Salman cousins be retried, Dugger felt obliged to "issue a statement." He said Wilcox should examine her ethics, that another trial would be a waste of taxpayers money and that Wilcox had "lost the ability to determine right from wrong." Well, isn't that special? It is apparently inappropriate for an elected official to represent a constituent, but it is perfectly acceptable for a juror to defame that elected official. I have been a frequent critic of Wilcox, but she is absolutely correct on this issue. The Salman cousins need to be retried. And if, as Dugger suggests, they won't be convicted if they are tried 100 times, then perhaps we should try them 101 times.

In the meantime, both Bohnsack and Dugger should pray to God that neither they nor any member of their families happen to be innocently driving by the next time the Salman boys decide that beer is more important than life. Bullets don't care whether you're sick and tired of crime or not. Steve Turtle is a Phoenix writer and political consultant. His column appears every other Sunday. Will women candidates be tough? asked, "Why are people like you so afraid of law-abiding citizens having guns?" A simple.and reasonable question.

We are not the least bit afraid of safety-minded, law-abiding citizens having guns. They pose no threat to us. We're not even particularly afraid of the little chunks of sub-human flotsam who fire randomly into a home, completely oblivious to what their bullets might find. Like, say a 4-year-old girl's head. Because we recognize the odds of that happening to us are astronomical.

So just exactly what, or who, are we afraid of? Start with those high caliber convenience mart cousins, John and Frank Salman. Surely you remember the Salman cousins. They were on duty at thejr father's convenience store in 1992 when a group of young men entered the facility, grabbed as many 12 packs of beer as they could and bolted. One of those young thieves, 18-year-old Larry Sanchez, was subsequently shot and killed as he fled by one of the Salman boys. That's about all we know, factually.

Beer was stolen, one of the thieves was killed as he fled. Larry Sanchez was 1 10 feet away, across a major street and apparently fleeing when he was killed. The Salman cousins raised the self-defense issue, claiming, conveniently enough, that Larry Sanchez had a gun. The fact is that no such gun was found, but 10 of 12 jurors thought the Salmans had acted reasonably, resulting in a mistrial. So why is this frightening? It has to do with attitude, a kind of shoot first and worry about the consequences later attitude.

According to the Sanchez family, as reported in The Phoenix Gazette, the Salmans have never expressed any regrets about the death and were actually laughing as they left the courtroom after their trial. II nil. 1 1 IUM I. JlllllMiLUilin i.ni.i.m.iipjiiuui. mm mmm-mm i wmm CHILDREN OF Pi mm Idealists without ideals, they are disillusioned without any illusions ill! I'll '11 mm mm w.a mmL aMm ..,,,3 noV mmm I 'yMy1 begin adulthood, perceive themselves as history's discards.

The boomers got the best jobs, they claim, while they are destined merely to fill in "The Gap." Idealists without ideals, they have become disillusioned without ever having any illusions. For them a good graduation gift is the family used car and "plastic," now in the form of the parental credit card, becomes their ticket to ride. One generation came and it's not quite time for the other to pass away. But what happened in the interim? Baby boomer parents, like Benjamin, were embarrassed by crass wealth. So they tried to transform material goods into social good.

They refused to lavish things upon their children. Instead they overwhelmed them with opportunity. Nothing was spared for the sake of the child. And never could these parents be accused of uttering that archaic phrase: "Get a job!" What benefit could their child possibly derive from menial work? Responsibility was secondary to personal fulfillment. Above all else, these parents wanted their children to be happy.

It never occurred to them that happiness cannot be given but only discovered. What has become of these children, graduates into Generation They do not seem rebellious. They seem alienated from all things great and small, especially small. Herein lies their uniqueness. Rather than being the orphans of history, they are its heirs.

As such, they already possess the future they believe has been denied to them. But instead of seizing the moment, they are hung up by the common day. For By Susan Weiner Special for The Arizona Republic It has been more than 25 years since Mike Nichols introduced us to The Graduate, a film that captured the creed of the baby boomers. The movie's hero, Benjamin, (played by Dustin Hoffman), just home from college, hesitates to celebrate his own achievements. Instead he stares vaguely into the camera and informs us of his condition.

"I'm just worried I guess, about my future. I want it to be different." With these words he transforms the question "What do I want?" into a life's work. And so the "me" generation was born. Benjamin has fulfilled everyone's dreams. His family and friends smile proudly upon him and reward him with tokens of society's approval, a shiny red sports car and "plastics" the password to success.

But like most young people he rebels against the values of his elders and attempts to redefine them. He chooses honesty, not hypocrisy, and personal happiness, not money. His story ends as he and his true love ride steadfastly into the future. Their children could be today's graduates. Like almost everything pertaining to these twentysomethings, it is not entirely clear whether they have a defining movie, let alone a defining moment.

But thus far, the leading candidate seems to be Ben Stiller's Reality Bites, a romantic comedy that lacks any hero at all. Rather it focuses upon the subculture of white middle-class kids, children of the baby boomers who, as they they nudge toward age, even death challenges them. They want to learn about How We Die so that they may be Embraced by the Light. They consider themselves explorers of the last frontier. Some might say such enthusiasm is excessive.

Perhaps that is what members of Generation think. Their pessimism may be interpreted as the ultimate act of rebellion against the optimism of their elders. If that is so, they would do well to channel their resistance into action. For there is no having without doing. AIDS and unemployment are but the newest form of our oldest plight: the human condition.

We have no choice but to try to solve these riddles or be riddled by them. Each generation considers itself lost until it has the good fortune to find itself. Until then, everyone must participate in its discovery. Generation can learn a lesson from The Graduate: When reality bites, bite back. Susan Weiner, of Florida, writes columns on education, women's issues, politics and American culture.

them, everything is problematic, from the folding of a sweater to the unfolding of a relationship. They seem unwilling to move forward, paralyzed by the very problems that should provoke them to solutions. Contrary to popular belief, even baby boomers got the blues. How quickly one forgets that although they were born into the prosperous post-World War II world, they came of age during the Civil Rights struggle, the Kennedy assassination and the Vietnam War. Their maturation only proves the rule; no gain without pain.

What was their response to the errors of their era? To an unprecedented degree they tried to repair the world they found. Undoubtedly this was their uniqueness. Never before has a generation expressed such unbounded optimism. Since that time equal opportunity and peace have become political watchwords. What could not be accomplished in the public domain was applied to the private domicile.

How to books proliferated. Just a glance at any bestseller list tells the tale. Boomers are not babies any more, and as This is a story of three women, four men and an issue. Together, they could write the biggest headline of the 1994 election. The three women are Texas Gov.

Ann Richards, up for re-election, and the Democrats who are running for governor in two other key states, Kathleen Brown, the California state treasurer, and Dawn Clark Netsch, the Illinois comptroller. "The four Republican men are their opponents, California Gov. Pete Wilson, Illinois Gov. Jim Edgar, George W. Bush, the Republican nominee for governor of Texas, and Don Sipple, the campaign consultant who numbers the other three among his clients.

The issue is crime, which Sipple says is "the predominant issue." What a revolution Before exploring Sipple's contention, pause for a moment to consider the change in American politics that has made women the Democratic candidates and either favorites or very slight underdogs in what may well be the most important elections of this year. What a revolution! California, Texas and Illinois are not only three of the five, most populous states but the key battlegrounds in most presidential contests. It is no accident that as they seek to give Republicans a leg up on carrying California, Illinois and Texas in '96, all three of Sipple's clients are pushing their differences with their women rivals on crime. "My instinct," he said, "is that the voters' agenda would tend to favor a male candidate." In poll after poll, focus group after focus group, "women candidates have the advantage on issues of education, the environment and health care. Men are rated more highly on jobs, fiscal management and, most dramatically, on crime." The reason is pretty clear.

Voters want tough action against criminals, and they think the guys are less likely to flinch. In Illinois and in California, the point is easily made. Edgar and Wilson favor the death penalty; Netsch and Brown do not. Both women say that despite their personal feelings, they will carry out capital punishment in cases prescribed by state law. But Edgar and Wilson who have been placed on the defensive on many other issues are clearly not going to let their opponents slide off this one.

Edgar's very first ad of the general election, which went up last week, hit Netsch for votes in the state senate "against mandatory terms for crimes committed with a gun (and) life sentences for criminals convicted of three serious felonies." "She'd like to duck the death penalty issue," Edgar said, "but as governor you can't stand aside. The final (clemency) appeal is to the governor. The governor appoints the pardon and parole board. If you have strong feelings about capital punishment, those have to come into play." When I asked her about Edgar's tactic, Netsch readily affirmed that "I have been consistent in my opposition to the death penalty," and added that "among the thousands of votes I've cast in the legislature, I'm sure they can find some that look strange" on other crime issues. In California, Wilson has an even easier time playing the crime issue against Brown, because both her father, Edmund G.

Brown and her brother, Edmund or Jerry, as he was known, also balked at imposing the death penalty when they were governor. Wilson will not let voters forget that Jerry Brown appointed Rose Bird as chief justice of the California supreme court and under her, every single death penalty appeal was granted. Kathleen Brown, he reminds voters, would have the same appointive power as governor. Case is harder In Texas, the case is harder to make. Richards supports the death penalty and brags that crime is down 18 percent since she came to office.

The motorcycle-riding governor may appear tougher than the gentlemanly son of the former president. But Bush said, "I get a terrific response when I ask my audiences if anyone feels safer than they did three years ago. No one does." Bush is hammering hardest on the need to crack down on juvenile crime, which is on the rise. Sipple said he warns his clients that voters will reject "simplistic solutions" to crime or other problems. But in all three states, his clients have clearly decided that crime is the hot-button issue that can best throw their women opponents off-stride.

And it's hard to judge how much is real and how much is hype. Edgar, for one, acknowledged that the crime statistics in Illinois show the problem slowly abating. "But the visibility of crime," he said, "is so much greater. You have to go 10 or 15 minutes on the evening news before you get past it." That fact may make these key races tough for women candidates. Does North Korea offer Clinton's finest hour? resident Clinton's staff will tell you that Roosevelt, Eisenhower, even Bush lived in simpler times; that foreign STEFAN KALPER Special for The Arizona Republic optimizes its capabilities, and the North knows it.

Time is critical. It would be a great mistake for unprepared U.S.South Korean forces to be attacked and have to scramble to defend and probably lose Seoul, regroup, reposition and counterattack. The loss of men and confidence would be very high. Rather, Washington must exploit North Korean's fear of the U.S. military's non-nuclear technical capability as seen in the Gulf to influence Pyongyang not to attack conventionally or otherwise.

Ours can only be a failure of will and vision. If the president takes one lesson from Normandy, perhaps he will remember the Blechley factor: toys were scarce in England for six months before the invasion because most of the "elves" were making 3-foot straw and burlap paratroopers to be released as diversions; actors found employment as generals appearing in odd places to confuse German planners; fields were dotted with balloon tanks; fake weddings were announced for men that didn't exist, etc. What does it all mean? It means detailed forward planning, a multidimensional progrm, full personal involvement by Clinton. Most of all, Kim-Il Sung must understand that the U.S. is willing to act.

The alternatives are miscalculation and war, or a new tyrant's peace in a world of uncontrolled nuclear weapons. This could be Clinton's -finest hour. Let's hope so. i Stefan Halper, a former White House and Department official, writes his column from Washington. Communist Party Chief Jiang Jemin, when he said to me last year "South Korea is our favorite concubine, but Pyongyang is our wife." In any case, sanctions are what nations do when they can't do anything.

There is, in fact, no example of sanctions bringing down a regime and there is virtually no chance that sanctions will topple or even destabilize this regime. The question now is what exactly are Clinton's objectives? He has failed in his previous public commitment to deny the North nuclear weapons material. Now he is constrained to limiting the future production and deployment of these weapons. To do that he must employ the full range of political-military resources, just as the objects of his rhetoric did a generation ago at Normandy. Clinton and his crack staff face a tough enemy themselves.

They must, if they can, make it clear that war means the total destruction of North Korea and its leaders. There should be no further mumbling about talks until the military infrastructure is in place, which should proceed immediately. Washington should twin its continuing U.N. diplomacy with the announced deployment of additional Patriot missiles, laser-guided anti-artillery weapons, high visibility joint exercises (Team Spirit) with Seoul, and the deployment of one or more carrier battle groups off the Korean coast. Overhead intelligence collection should be maximized.

The 37,000 U.S. troops should be increased to a full corps of 100,000 because that is the number at which the U.S. military policy today is more complex. Maybe. Regardless, they identified their enemies clearly, described their perfidy, challenged them and defeated them.

They understood the nature of power and the use of war as an instrument of national will. They also understood the cost of a tyrant's peace. Clinton glides from the French killing fields, complete with 9,000 plus American graves to Oxford, where he dodged his government's call, to get the degree denied him 25 years ago. We can only hope Normandy's lesson isn't denied him as well. The lesson is that success is found not in brute force, deception or sound policy alone, but in all three.

And it isn't achieved without taking calculated risks, as the allies did on D-Day, to gain their objectives. Today Clinton confronts just that dilemma in North Korea where the regime, is openly developing nuclear weapons. In the process, they are destroying the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) by creating a new category of affiliation in which they neither adhere to nor withdraw from the treaty. The current crisis marks the failure of an 18 month worldwide effort to bring North Korea back into compliance with the NPT and, more fundamentally, to control the development and sale of nuclear materials and weapons. It is a challenge that demands leadership, which falls on Clinton.

As D-Day historians point out, success relied heavily on extensive planning that combined the strength of the invading force with the deception of eccentric Oxford Dons shuffling quietly through the hallways at Blechley, the apparent country estate neai London, that, in fact, was a super secret intelligence facility. Now, well into a game riddled with reversals, threats and retreats, we find little forward planning and less credibility in what Clinton says, meaning the chances for miscalculation and confrontation are high. The U.N. Security Council is considering imposing sanctions on North Korea which Pyongyang has repeatedly stated is an act of war. China, a key Security Council member, doesn't want instability on its northeast border.

Moreover, profitable trade and a long friendship with Pyongyang will prevent the enforcement of sanctions, even if Beijing abstains from the vote. Beijing's attitude was summed up by Chinese President and I.