NO good deed goes unpunished, the saying goes. So it should have come as no surprise that a column I did recently trying to spread around a little good cheer managed instead to stomp on a number of toes. Carl column set free
bad feelingsI'm talking about the column I did on Carl Richie, the procurer of lap dancers who recently was paroled from a 10-year prison sentence.
The point of the column was mainly to commend Carl and his mother for keeping their heads during this Kafkaesque episode. And, to admit that I had shamelessly used Carl's case to show how wacky the court system can be. Like, how is it that a British nanny who kills a baby gets only six months in the slammer while a guy who does nothing but provide lap dancers on Kauai gets 10 years? Or why we allow convicted rapists short prison terms and hammer someone like Carl who works the hazy side of the prostitution laws?
Both Carl and his mother took these columns to be supportive of his early release, which was fine. But, as I said in my original column, my motives weren't that pure.
SINCE I received letters from Carl and had talked to his mother in the past, I automatically assumed that it was she who called me to tell me of his parole one morning a few weeks ago. It wasn't. It actually was one of Carl's supporters, Faye Kennedy. After she told me of Carl's parole, I quickly hung up and delivered the message to the city desk so we could get the story in our second edition.
A week or so later, I wrote the column about Carl and his mother, unfortunately identifying the caller as his mother. It doesn't really matter who was the first to tell me of Carl's parole. The point of the column was that Carl and his mother had managed to keep their sense of humor throughout the ordeal, while some of Carl's supporters had been a little more adversarial in their efforts to get him released. I specifically was referring to conversations I had had with Richie supporters who complained that they had been unable to get the governor to release Carl. I called them "shrill," which, in retrospect, probably wasn't the right word.
The net effect of that seemingly harmless column was to tick off a lot of Carl's supporters, who decided I was trying to take all the credit for his early release, while calling all of them names.
Mama said there'd be days like this.
OK. Here's the deal: I had nothing to do with getting Carl released. Honest. I thought I had made that clear in the first column.
From what I have been told, Faye Kennedy deserves most of the credit, along with Carl's attorneys, for getting him out of the joint. Way to go, Faye. For the record, I'm sorry that I mistook you for Carl's mother when you called. In the rush to make our deadline, I jumped to a wrong conclusion. But by praising Carl's mom for supporting her son, I did not intend to belittle your efforts. Honest. The fact is, I wasn't writing about everyone else who worked on his behalf.
Those of you out there who worked for Carl's release who thought I called you shrill, sorry, I was talking about someone else. I could run a long list of names of people who I don't think are shrill, but I'd probably leave out a name or two and those people would think I was calling them shrill. Let's just say that everyone who called me thinking they were the ones I said were shrill were wrong. That doesn't mean the people who didn't call are shrill. You know, I don't think I'll ever use the word "shrill" again. It causes just too much damn trouble.
So, does that cover it? Now, who's getting out of prison this week that I can write about?
Charles Memminger, winner of
National Society of Newspaper Columnists
awards in 1994 and 1992, writes "Honolulu Lite"
Monday, Wednesday and Friday.
Write to him at the Honolulu Star-Bulletin,
P.O. Box 3080, Honolulu, 96802
or send E-mail to charley@nomayo.com or
71224.113@compuserve.com.
The Honolulu Lite online archive is at:
http://starbulletin.com/lite