Triad Today

Philo Farnsworth is widely considered to be the principal inventor of television. He was not only a genius, he was also a visionary, and he shared that vision with his wife Pam one afternoon in 1926, while the couple was driving up the California coast from Los Angeles to San Francisco. In his book, “The Last Lone Inventor”, Evan Schwartz recounted that conversation, in which Philo told Pam that “Television would become the world’s greatest teaching tool. Illiteracy would be wiped out, and viewers would be able to watch news as it happened.” Philo also told Pam that television would bring about world peace. 

Pride of authorship aside, Farnsworth believed that his invention had value and he was right. Fortunately, he didn’t live long enough to see how that visionary value would be abused. Farnsworth died in 1971, the same year that 27-year-old Jerry Springer resigned from Cincinnati’s city council after it was discovered that he had paid prostitutes for sex. It was a harbinger of sleaze to come. Twenty years later, Farnsworth started spinning in his grave when Springer launched a talk show that was anything but a great “teaching tool”. Unlike Philo’s invention, Springer himself once admitted that his show had “no real value”. And yet, The Jerry Springer Show lasted for 27 years, and by 1998 he had bounced Oprah Winfrey (whose show had value) from atop the ratings. Jerry Springer died of pancreatic cancer on April 27. He was 79 years old.

Springer was not the first television personality to broadcast valueless content. Joe Pyne did it from 1964 to 1969, followed by Sally Jesse Raphael, Geraldo Rivera, and Morton Downey Jr. in the 1980s. And when he started his show in 1991, Jerry had competition from the likes of Maury Povich and Jenny Jones. But it was Springer who elevated trash talk TV to an art form, by presenting such themes as, “Stop Pimping My Twin Sister”, “I Married a Horse”, “I’m Happy I Cut off My Legs”, and “I Cut off My Own Genitals”.

Early on Springer defended giving a forum to every kind of dysfunctional weirdo imaginable, and he refused to accept responsibility for the brawls that ensued or the cumulative effect his shows would have on viewers. Commenting for his best-selling video, Too Hot for TV, Springer said, “Television does not create values. It’s merely a picture of all that’s out there — the good, the bad, and the ugly.” Strictly speaking, Jerry’s assessment was correct, but by giving a voice to those who comprise that “picture”, he propagated and popularized their dysfunction, thus lowering the bar for what is acceptable in a broadcast setting. And that brings me back to value.

In 1957 the Supreme Court determined in Roth v United States that for something to be considered obscene, the material must be utterly without redeeming social value. Clearly, there is absolutely no redeeming social value to interviewing someone who married a horse or pimped someone’s twin sister. So, how then could a bona fide obscenity like The Jerry Springer Show have remained on air for so long?

One reason is money. Springer and the TV stations that aired his show made lots of money. The other reason is viewership. Not only did Jerry’s show appeal to less-educated people, it was also a guilty pleasure for highbrow folks as well. As professors Charles McCoy of SUNY-Plattsburgh and Roscoe Scarborough of University of Virginia noted in a 2015 article for TheConversation.com, “Many cultured viewers feel quite badly about watching trashy television, but they can’t seem to stop themselves. It’s like being unable to look away from a car crash.”

Nevertheless, I believe that Springer’s chair-throwing, cursing, brawling TV show had a long-term negative impact on the nature of public discourse in our country. Today it has become commonplace for folks to air their dirty linen on TV, or to berate a store clerk, or to yell, “Liar!” at the President of the United States. True, Jerry Springer isn’t responsible for our values, but he made it fashionable for us to act like assholes whenever we felt the need to do so.  

Springer often referred to his show as “stupid”, “camp”, and “an hour of escapism”. But in later years he also came to grips with his legacy, seeming to be apologetic, if only in a joking manner. Appearing on David Yontef’s podcast, “Behind the Velvet Rope”, Jerry said, “I just apologize. I’m so sorry. What have I done? I’ve ruined the culture. I just hope Hell isn’t that hot because I burn real easy. I’m very light-complected and that worries me.”

What Philo Farnsworth invented had real value. What Jerry Springer did with that invention had, in his own words, “no real value”. May both men rest in peace no matter where they are now.

 
 

As both a print journalist and a broadcaster, I am compelled to comment on the recently resolved defamation suit involving Dominion Voting Systems and FOX. To recap, Dominion filed suit against FOX for broadcasting numerous lies about the integrity and accuracy of DVS tabulations during the 2020 Presidential election. Though Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump by more than 7 million votes, FOX hosts like Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter told their viewers that the election had been stolen in part due to rigged vote counts by Dominion.

That FOX News and its on-air personalities defamed Dominion was never in question, but during pre-trial discovery, attorneys for Dominion learned that the talking heads at FOX had admitted privately that the election had not been stolen. It was also revealed that the reason for their duplicity was purely monetary. Murdoch did not want to lose viewers and revenue, and both would have happened had his News folks told the truth on air. At any rate, the damning and mounting evidence put FOX attorneys in a precarious position. Dominion was seeking $1.6 billion dollars in damages, and likely would have been awarded that amount by a jury, so FOX cut a deal to pay DVS $787 million dollars and avoid a lengthy trial. It was believed to be the largest such settlement in a defamation action, and it seemed to send a warning to purveyors of fake news everywhere. Unfortunately, the victory was hollow for several reasons. First, because FOX News is not likely to alter its behavior. As Angelo Carusone, chairman of Media Matters for America, told CNN, “My warning to everybody is FOX News is about to burn brighter and hotter as a result of this.”

Second, is the problem with transparency, or lack of it. We’ve all seen TV courtroom dramas in which a guilty party is offered a plea deal, but only if he agrees to publicly allocute to his crimes. Yet when the Dominion deal was negotiated, there was no requirement that FOX News personalities go on air and admit to having lied about DVS and the so-called rigged election. That means there’s no real closure in the FOX defamation case. In other words, gullible FOX viewers will never be told by their idols that the 2020 election was not stolen, thus the votes they cast in the future will continue to be based on lies. 

hird, and most importantly, I’m concerned about the damage that FOX has already done, not so much to Dominion, but to our democracy. Donald Trump was a frequent call-in guest on FOX News programs, including leading up to the January 6 insurrection. Together, the former President and his lap dog anchorpersons spewed and reinforced “the Big Lie” to such an extent that they inspired and encouraged viewers to rise up and revolt in protest over the stolen election. Trump himself may eventually be indicted over his role in inciting thousands of violent insurrectionists to storm the Capitol in hopes of preventing the 2020 votes from being certified. But what of FOX News? Now that they have admitted privately to defaming Dominion, why shouldn’t they be charged with aiding and abetting Trump’s failed attempt to overturn the election by obstructing the work of Congress? And what of the hundreds of injured police officers and of those who died as a result of the insurrection? Shouldn’t FOX News be charged as an accessory to those assaults?

Paying out $787 million dollars is chicken feed to Rupert Murdoch plus his insurance will cover part of it anyway. Nevertheless, it’s hardly a fitting punishment for the multiple and far-reaching offenses that FOX News has committed against the electorate. Perhaps then prosecutors will go out on a limb and charge Hannity, Carlson, and Coulter with personally perpetrating hate crimes. Or maybe the FCC will revoke the network’s license to broadcast. But don’t hold your breath that any substantive penalties will be meted out. Unfortunately, as it stands now, these despicable, lying personalities are going to get away with heinous behavior, which almost resulted in the overthrow of our government. They tried to steal something precious to us and we stopped them just in the nick of time. The question is, will we be able to stop them again if there’s a next time?

 
 

Kathy Manning is currently serving her second term in Congress representing the 6th district of North Carolina, and Ted Budd has switched chambers and is now our state’s freshman senator.

Manning is from Greensboro and Budd was born in Winston-Salem, but their political views couldn’t be further apart. During the Easter break, they both taped a special edition of Triad Today, which airs this weekend. Here are some highlights from our conversation.

 

---

JL: We had a couple of bank failures earlier in the year. Are the banks OK? And is our money safe?

KM: Your money is safe. The banks are OK. The Treasury Department did the right thing. It has insured that all depositors will get their money, and also, the heads of those two banks that failed were fired, which I think sends the right signal.

TB: I think we did the right thing to stop the bleeding and stabilize the system. Bottom line? Yes, they’re safe. What we really saw, though, was those in charge of regulating and managing not doing a very good job of either.

JL: There have been over 130 mass shootings this year so far, and that includes school shootings where over two dozen little children have been injured or killed.

TB: Ultimately no matter where you stand on the 2nd Amendment, we want people to come home safely each and every day. We don’t want to have these incidents. Now, we go about this very differently. We want to protect the 2nd Amendment, but at the same time, we want to make sure we keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous individuals. Bottom line? We don’t have a device problem, and it’s very frustrating when people run to limit a device when ultimately, we have a people problem. We have to deal with the criminal element. We have to deal with mental illness, and so let’s focus on those things, which will really make a difference.

KM: Congress took a big step last term. We passed the bi-partisan Safer Communities Act. It’s the first piece of major gun legislation that has been signed into law in 30 years. That Act has done a number of things to keep our communities safer. You mentioned school shootings, so this Act has allowed for enhanced background checks for people under the age of 21, and we know that a number of school shootings actually happen because of shooters who are under the age of 21. This Act also allows us to look into juvenile and mental health records for people under 21 who are trying to buy a gun, and that is a step in the right direction. It also provides funding for gun violence reduction programs, and there is funding in that Act for mental health treatment for school children, and mental health training for first responders. All this won’t solve the gun violence problem, but it is moving in the right direction.

JL: Are you for cuts to Social Security? How do we keep the system solvent?

TB: You’ve got to protect it. Especially for those who are either currently in retirement or who are approaching retirement. You also have to protect the fiscal soundness of our nation. But you can’t allow fear-mongering that people often do about Social Security and the benefits these people have worked their whole life for. Again you have to make sure our nation is economically strong, and that goes back to inflation. Some people feel like they’re getting a cut in social security benefits because the cost of groceries, medical, and gas is increasing.

KM: I am NOT for cutting Social Security. We’ve all paid into Social Security all our lives, and those are benefits that we’ve earned.

JL: So then how do we make sure it remains solvent?

KM: I have signed onto a bill called the Social Security Trusted Promise Act. It is a bill that addresses some things which helps to shore up the Social Security trust fund, and we will continue to work on issues that make sure Social Security is there now and for the future.

---

 
The entire interview with Budd and Manning can be seen on a special edition of Triad Today this Saturday at 7:30 a.m. on abc45, and Sunday at 11 a.m. on MY48. Triad Today also streams on WFMY News 2+.

 
 

So far this year there have been over 130 mass shootings and dozens of children injured or killed while at school, yet federal and state legislators are frozen in their tracks, incapable of enacting reforms that would prevent such carnage. Republicans refuse to ban assault weapons; Democrats think we can solve the problem if we stop selling guns altogether. Both positions are untenable. Meanwhile, neither political party is willing to re-route pork funding or foreign aid dollars to local schools for installing electronically locking doors and metal detectors, and for hiring armed officers. Sadly, classroom massacres are becoming commonplace and I hold out little hope that our elected officials will ever change their stripes. Clearly, we cannot keep our kids safe at school, but at least there is a move afoot to keep them safe when surfing the Internet. 

We’re all familiar with the serious consequences that befall children who spend a lot of time online. Some are the victims of stalkers and predators. Others are bullied by their peers, often to such extremes that the victim elects to commit suicide. There’s even a recent incident in which a pre-teen was blackmailed after having been coerced into sharing a nude photo of himself. And of course, there are the problems that result just from spending too much time online. In those cases, kids don’t develop social skills, don’t exercise, participate in team sports, don’t date, and don’t focus on their studies. That’s why a growing number of state legislatures are passing laws to reform and curtail the amount of time spent online by minors.   

Last month, for example, Utah Governor Spence Cox signed a bill that will require children to get permission from their parents in order to access social media. Yahoo! News’ Mike Bebernes reports that the legislation also established a late-night curfew on social media for minors and requires companies to provide parents with complete access to their child’s account. 

Meanwhile Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders last week signed a new law that will require parental permission before a child can open a social media account. And, according to a report by Roll Call’s Gopal Ratham, starting next year, California will require tech companies to design apps that default to privacy and safety settings to protect children’s mental and physical health. 

Other states are also jumping on the reform bandwagon including Connecticut, Louisiana, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, and Texas, where legislators are drafting bills that would require age verification of minors and seek parental consent for children to go online.

Naturally, these reforms are being met with opposition from those who say such policies violate a child’s First Amendment rights. According to Bebernes, those critics are concerned about privacy rights, especially for LGBTQ children, “whose online communities may be their only source of support.” 

With all due respect to critics of these new legislative initiatives, such reforms and constraints are a necessary step toward pushing for the FCC to eventually regulate the Internet in general, and social media platforms specifically. After all, broadcasters have been regulated for over 80 years, so it’s high time that other communication mediums receive the same oversight, especially when it comes to protecting our children.

 
 

Some people just never learn. In a recent column I warned Democrats that if they persisted in condoning, promoting, or flaunting far-left-wing agendas, they would push moderates and independents to vote for far-right-wing candidates in next year’s elections. But no sooner had the ink dried on my column, than Forsyth Tech hosted a Gay Pride event in which a simulated sex act was performed for all to see. Even worse (if that is possible), some who witnessed the pornographic display were 14 and 15-year-old children who attended Early and Middle College classes on the Forsyth Tech campus.

According to a report by the Winston-Salem Journal’s Lisa O’Donnell, “a drag performer straddled a student who is sitting in a chair.” The “performance,” which took place at a campus restaurant, was recorded and posted on a social media channel called Libs of TikTok. 

Later, the Winston-Salem Forsyth County Schools issued a statement apologizing for allowing students to be exposed to an “inappropriate dance,” and saying, “That performer’s dance was not something students of that age should have been able to access or witness.”

But the nature of the dance itself is only part of the problem. According to the aforementioned statement, “Middle College and Early College administrators knew of the event and a drag performance, but were not aware that there would be an entertainer performing in a manner that was not appropriate for underage students.”

According to O’Donnell, had the school district known about the dance, it would have limited access to the event. Am I missing something here? I mean, why is a taxpayer-supported educational institution hosting Gay Pride drag queens to begin with? And why didn’t the Middle College administrators keep their kids away from Forsyth Tech that day? Perhaps I’m mistaken, but I thought community colleges were supposed to be focused on preparing students to enter the workforce, not preparing them to enter each other.

But here’s the best part. Rather than issuing a public apology and firing a bunch of people, Forsyth Tech released a statement in which it threw public school officials under the bus.

“Our shared campus and educational experience provides Winston-Salem/Forsyth County high school students access to all Forsyth Tech facilities and events unless high school administrators decide access should be limited. They were aware of this event and knew it featured a drag performance, and, to our knowledge, they didn’t limit access.”

So much for the spirit of brotherhood between two local educational entities. And all this comes on the heels of a recent shooting at Forsyth Tech while local high schoolers were on campus. In that incident, a student shot himself in the hand. In the pornographic drag queen incident, Forsyth Tech shot itself in the foot and helped to push otherwise moderate parents into voting for a host of right-wing wackos in next year’s election. Thanks a lot Forsyth Tech.

 
 

Once upon a time, about 60 years ago, there was a 6th-grade teacher at Brunson Elementary school who kept order in the classroom by tossing chalk-dust-filled erasers at students who weren’t paying attention. Kids who were downright disruptive faced a different punishment: they were made to get down on all fours and push a piece of chalk around the perimeter of the room with their nose. As a class clown, I experienced both punishments. When I told my parents about the teacher’s unconventional methods they laughed and said that I probably deserved it. The infamous disciplinarian’s name was Bob Montague, and he was the best teacher I ever had.

During that year over six decades ago, Mr. Montague broadened our intellectual, academic, and creative horizons in ways that we could only fully appreciate years later. In order to teach us the importance of civics, he made us compete in a weekly college bowl-type contest in which the only way you could score points (and a good grade) was to read the local newspapers cover to cover, and have a working knowledge of current events. He took us on a field trip to Washington D.C. to learn about government. He helped us produce our own version of The Sound of Music which we performed in front of the entire school and various community boosters. He taught us arts and crafts, and made us read about the cultures of other lands. He encouraged questions and discussion, and made sure we had plenty of time to exercise at recess. Mr. Montague also had a great sense of humor and loved to laugh. And yes, he found creative ways to mete out discipline.

Yet for all of Bob Montague’s inspiring instructional methods which helped to shape and improve our minds, if he were teaching today, he would have already been fired and perhaps sued for throwing erasers at class clowns and making bad boys push chalk around the floor with their nose. I was put in mind of this last week when reading about a teacher at Smithfield Middle School who was forced to resign because she put painters tape over the mouths of students who were disruptive in class.

The teacher in question was Dawn Felix who had just started working at the school in August. Her offenses were discovered when 11-year-old Brady Webster sent a selfie of his taped-over mouth to his mom Catherine who, in turn, posted it on Facebook. Mrs. Webster and other parents complained to the school principal and the Johnston County Sheriff’s Department investigated the matter. Despite the fact that the Sheriff determined an assault charge was not warranted, Ms. Felix subsequently turned in her resignation.

Could Dawn Felix have used less dramatic methods to discipline rowdy students rather than duct-taping their mouths shut? Absolutely. But in this era of cancel culture, I fear that any unconventional action she might have taken to maintain order in the classroom would have still resulted in her dismissal. Having said that, let me be clear about something. If Ms. Felix was abusive, intolerant, or incompetent, then I say good riddance to her. But if her worst offense was using tape to maintain classroom discipline, then I’m sorry she threw in the towel. There’s a shortage of teachers in this state as it is, and we can’t afford to lose good ones just because they expect students to pay attention and show respect for others. 

When I was Brady’s age I got hit with erasers and had to push chalk around the floor with my nose, and the man who thought up those weird punishments helped to shape my life and career in ways that I could never repay. There’s no room in our schools for teachers who are mean and abusive, but there’s also no reason to chase away teachers who show tough love to their students now, so that those children will be successful and respectful later on.

 
 

If the Earps and Clantons were alive today, they wouldn’t hold their gunfight at the OK Corral. They’d just meet up at Hanes Mall. After all, the mall is conveniently located, it’s spacious, and you can have your unencumbered confrontation night or day, inside or outside. I don’t mean to make light of the violence which has occurred at Hanes Mall in recent times, nor do I mean any disrespect to the victims who have been killed or injured. But my sarcasm is born out of a sense of anger and frustration over a problem that continues to go unchecked.

Granted, malls are not what they used to be, and the pandemic didn’t help matters. But despite bankruptcies, closings, and vacant storefronts, malls are still a strategic gathering place, and these days, that’s all it takes to attract crazies and criminals. Of course, mall violence is not a new phenomenon. The Inquisitr provides us with a timeline for some of the major shootings, which include: seven people wounded at a Tacoma Washington mall in 2005; five people murdered in 2007 at a mall in Salt Lake City; eight people killed later that same year at a mall in Omaha; two people killed at the Arundel Mills Mall in Maryland in 2011; and the following year three people were killed and four wounded at a mall in Wisconsin. Again, these are just a few examples and don’t address the numerous shootings that have occurred over the past 10 years involving one or two victims, such as the 19-year-old boy who was shot last December in the Mall of America in Minnesota.

Closer to home, Hanes Mall’s gun woes have escalated over the past three years. In August 2019, a man was shot to death just outside of BJ’s restaurant. In January 2020, a teenager was shot just outside the Forever 21 store in a gang-related incident. And, less than a week later, another teen was shot in the face during a fight near J.C. Penney’s. It gets worse. Over the past year, Hanes Mall has been the scene of gun violence no less than three times, including the most recent incident, which occurred earlier this month involving a shoot-out between an unidentified man and several juveniles in a van.

In his December 19, 2020 article, Winston-Salem Journal correspondent Scott Sexton reported that police were called to Hanes Mall two to three times a day to deal with everything from shoplifters to runaways. That raises the question, “Why not have police stationed at Hanes Mall all the time?” The answer could lie in either Hanes Mall being required to hire an armed security force 24/7, or the Winston-Salem Police Department setting up a full-time sub-station at the mall. In either case, the security force would have to include parking lot patrols. Meanwhile, the mall should be required to install metal detectors at the major entrances and have them manned by a member of the security team. One way or another, Hanes Mall would have to pony up big bucks and so would taxpayers. But an investment in mall security could pay off down the line, with people feeling safe enough to return to their once-favorite place to shop.

 
 

Denim Bradshaw, a student at Walkertown Middle School, died on January 28 from injuries he sustained while competing in a local bull riding event. He was only 14 years old. Out of respect for the dead, I held off writing this column until now because what I have to say is going to upset some people. For one thing, I’m angry that a senseless so-called sport caused the senseless death of a young boy. I’m angry at the promoter and the parents for allowing a child to ride a 2,000-pound animal. And I’m angry because we’ve gone far too long without a law that bans minors from competing in what some injury specialists call the most dangerous sport in the world. Truth is, I probably would have delayed writing this column even longer, except that this weekend the Hallmark Channel is launching a new drama series titled Ride, which romanticizes the world of bull riding. It’s time to speak out.

First of all, bull riding, unlike other rodeo events like calf roping and barrel racing, has absolutely no relevance to the day-to-day activities of a working ranch. According to the American Cowboy website, bull riding originated in Mexico during the 1500s, and evolved from bullfighting as an entertainment event. In those days, competitors would ride the bull until it stopped bucking or until it collapsed. Today as then, there is nothing natural or honorable about bull riding. Riders may think it’s macho to stay on a bucking bull, but there’s nothing macho about the treatment of the bulls and other rodeo livestock. PETA reports that in most events, electric prods, spurs, and over-tightened bucking straps are used on the bull. Fans think it’s exciting to see a bull bolt out of the gate, but what they don’t know is how much pain the bull is in from the prods and straps. Nevertheless, today bull riding is the fastest-growing sport in America, attracting over 20 million fans just to the professional rodeos alone. And it’s a profitable hobby for wannabe cowboys. In fact, Professional Bull Riders Inc. (PBR) pays out over $9 million dollars to riders each year.

Now to the danger. According to Sports Medicine Reports, 100% of all bull riders have been injured at one time or another, and 26% of those injuries are severe enough to keep riders out of work for at least three months. Those lucky enough to heal from the initial injury are usually saddled with long-term effects such as degenerative joint disease, severe arthritis, and CTE. Others don’t survive their injuries, like 22-year-old Amadeu Campos Silva who was killed at a PBR event in Fresno last year. In all, 20 other professional bull riders have died since 1989, but that statistic does not include amateur events, like the one Denim Bradshaw competed in earlier this year which was sponsored by the King Fire Department, and run by Rafter K Rodeo company who is based in Union Grove. Young Denim, in his first competitive ride, was bucked off and fell to the ground where the bull trampled on his chest. Denim went into cardiac arrest and was dead on arrival at the hospital.

The organizer of the King rodeo wrote in a statement, “Denim adventured into the world of bull riding and fell in love. The boots, the cowboy hats, and those big belt buckles. He loved it all.”

Denim’s mom, who, according to Rafter K, had signed a notarized waiver making her aware that serious injury or death were possible, freely allowed her son to ride the bull, then, after the boy’s death commented, “He loved every second of it. I’ve never seen him so happy as I had seen him last night before (the ride)…You did it…I’m so proud of your braveness and your courage…Our sweet 14-year-old boy lost his life during what was the most exciting moment of his short life…None of us could believe that this first ride would cause his death.”

Meaning no disrespect to the rodeo promoter or to Denim’s mother, but are you f**king kidding me???? I loved toy cowboy pistols as a kid, but my parents didn’t then buy me a real one and let me go play with it. If they had, I could have gotten killed. Put another way, most bulls weigh more than some automobiles, and we don’t let 14-year-olds drive cars. Kids that age are just too young and immature to control such a large, dangerous object.

Anyone who allowed Denim Bradshaw to get on that bull should be charged with child endangerment, and State legislators should pass a law that bars anyone under the age of 18 from competing in any rodeo, whether amateur or professional. I am saddened by the death of young Denim Bradshaw for many reasons. Most of all because it was preventable.

 
 

When my fellow liberals complain to me about right-wing nut jobs who keep getting elected and then ask me, “What can we do to defeat these extremists?” My answer to them is, “Dial back your own extremism.” If you’re liberal, ask yourself why folks like Donald Trump, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and our own Lt. Governor Mark Robinson came to power? It’s because they were able to tap into the anger that common folk have for liberal agendas. I’m not saying that any of us liberals can reform far-right extremists who hate Gays, Transgenders, Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, and anyone else who isn’t white and Christian. Those idiots are hard-core misfits who still think Trump is the real president. But, if we use some common sense, we might be able to pry well-meaning conservatives away from the clutches of the haters. If not, then Democrats could lose the White House and the Senate next year, and have no chance of controlling the majority of state legislatures. Here are just a few examples of rhetoric and policy that we liberals need to tone down until after the 2024 elections:

First of all, Democrats don’t need to defend everything Biden does or says. For example, it’s not going to help us elect liberal candidates next year by yelling at a reasonable conservative who doesn’t think we should be sending money and weapons to fight Russia. Keep in mind that, until recently, Ukraine couldn’t even get into NATO because it was so corrupt. But now, Biden is proud to be giving away resources that we can’t spare. To add insult to injury, Uncle Joe pledged to “protect Ukraine’s borders.” That left even the most moderate Republicans asking, “Hey Joe, what about protecting OUR borders?” MAGA may have been commandeered by Trump to stand for White supremacy, but there’s nothing wrong with liberal candidates and their followers embracing an “America First” stance if they want to win over moderate voters next year. 

Another issue that angers mainstream voters involves Transgender policy initiatives. The overwhelming majority of taxpayers believe that there are only two genders: male and female, yet most liberals want to use tax dollars to cover the costs for government employees to have gender reassignment procedures. Well-meaning conservatives also don’t like it when teachers get suspended or fired for refusing to use politically correct pronouns. Meanwhile, the left keeps pushing for Trans males to be able to compete in women’s sports, even though female athletes (both Gay and straight) oppose it. And God forbid, if a moderate Republican individual utters a word in opposition to the Trans agenda, they get shouted down and unjustly labeled transphobic. As a result, those non-transphobic Republicans end up voting for actual transphobic candidates.

Then there’s the matter of public safety. Conservatives who don’t even like or want to vote for right-wing nuts, go nuts themselves when liberals call for de-funding the police. Yes, there are bad cops who abuse their power and deserve to be prosecuted, but if you want to weed out the far-right wackos from government, please don’t go around saying that all cops are bad. Generalizations and stereotypes are never constructive, but right now they are downright destructive. That’s because police and sheriff’s departments all over the country are dealing with unprecedented shortages of officers, and that poses a danger to everyone.

 
 

Bonnie Bartlett Daniels is admittedly not a household name, but several generations of households have seen her work in hundreds of films and television episodes. The staged-trained actress from Wisconsin pops up everywhere, on TV shows like Little House on the Prairie, St. Elsewhere, Boy Meets World, and Better Call Saul, and big screen box office hits like Twins, Primary Colors, and Dave. Along the way she’s won two prime-time Emmys, raised two sons, and been the better half to award-winning actor Bill Daniels for 72 years. Bill, who starred in 1776, St. Elsewhere, and Boy Meets World, was also the voice of KITT on Knight Rider, and he’s responsible for giving Bonnie the affectionate title, “Alice Actress”. The two have played husband and wife on-screen in three different TV series, and made history when they both won Emmys on the same night for the same show.

I first got to know this power couple back in 1997 when I was helping to promote TV Land’s re-airing of St. Elsewhere, and on one of my trips to L.A., they made sure that I had a hot meal after a long day of jet lag. Bonnie is 93 (Bill is 96), and last month she finally got around to publishing her autobiography, Middle of the Rainbow. I spoke with Bonnie recently about the book, her career, and her marriage.

 

---

JL: Why did you write the book, and why now?

BB: Well, it had to be now. It couldn’t have been earlier because my mother and father were still alive. I was so afraid of hurting somebody or betraying somebody, so I had to wait until I could be thoroughly honest about everything, and that’s how I feel now. At my age, I can tell everything that happened.

---

 

And for Bonnie, telling everything meant writing about being sexually molested by her father at an early age, and then, years later, raped by a fellow actor at the beginning of her career. 

 

---

JL: You go into detail about the molestation and rape. Was writing about those incidents painful, therapeutic, or both?

BB: Both. I am still dreaming every night about them. All the feelings come back again, but hey, it has helped me tremendously to go through it all again and write about these things.

JL: Who was your favorite actress growing up?

BB: Mae West, Jean Harlow, and Carole Lombard. I loved all of those blondes. I didn’t really want to be them, but I used to imitate them. I entertained the family by doing imitations of those very brassy gals.

JL: Of course, you’d want to imitate brassy women.

BB: Oh yes, but I wasn’t like that at all.

JL: Other than entertaining the family, what was the first time you remember performing in front of an audience?

BB: The first time I remember being appreciated was in junior high school. We had a speech class and I got up and played all the parts from Pygmalion, and the kids in class loved it, and they laughed and thought I was wonderful. Well, that was enough for me because I always wanted attention and I always wanted to be liked. So, I thought, “OK, I’m pretty good. I can do this stuff.” So as soon as I got into high school, I did every play they had, and I was good. I could do everything from playing young girls to old ladies. 

---

 

Bonnie went on to perform in numerous productions at Northwestern University where she met and fell in love with Bill. Over the years whenever the lovebirds have worked together, their acting has looked effortless.

 

---

JL: Have the two of you always been in sync as actors because you’re that way in real life?

BB: We always have been. When we were at Northwestern and I realized I was “smitten” with Bill, as he says. [laughs] I remember calling a boy back home to tell him that I couldn’t see him anymore. I was crying and upset after the phone call and was getting ready to go on stage. Bill didn’t know what was going on, but he saw me crying, so he came over and sat there and put my make-up on for me. It was so sweet of him. We’ve just always been there for each other. 

JL: You and Bill have stayed together through a lot of ups and downs over seven decades of marriage. If you were writing an advice column, what advice would you give to young women who are thinking about getting married?

BB: It’s different for everybody. There are marriages that I think the women are crazy to stay in, and there are marriages where, if they worked a little harder, they could make it. One thing, though, is not to let yourself get bored with each other.

---

 

Of course, it’s hard to get bored when both spouses are constantly working, and Bonnie has always been in demand as one of Hollywood’s most enduring character actresses, supporting scores of leading men and women. Just for fun I dropped a few names and asked her to give me her first reaction.

 

---

Jamie Lee Curtis: “An amazing woman, articulate and funny.”

Robert Duvall: “Scary, no like.”

John Travolta: “a wonderful man, very loving.”

Denzel Washington: “An amazing talent, but a little stand-offish.”

Bob Odenkirk: “special, different, nice, but off the beaten trail.”

Mark Harmon: “A terrific guy and a terrific carpenter.”

Kirk Douglas: “I won’t say anything, but I like Michael.”

William Shatner: “There’s nobody else like him.”

George Clooney: “Handsome, but he bites his fingernails, and that was a turn-off.”

Tim Allen: “Funny, helpful, and we both loved hot fudge!”

---

 

And, what’s my reaction when someone drops Bonnie’s name? Well, I’ve known Bonnie for 25 years, and I’ve come to appreciate not just her talent, but also her toughness. She is a survivor of personal traumas and professional challenges. And she is relentless. That’s why my favorite passage in her book is about the time when she and her parents were driving to Des Moines. Bonnie was three years old and she had been acting up in the car. Her father threatened to put her out and make her walk if she didn’t settle down. She didn’t and he did. Left by the side of the road, three-year-old Bonnie watched as her parents drove away. They eventually turned around and retrieved her, but, in the interim, she just kept walking up the highway. She never panicked or cried. She just kept walking.

 

---

JL: That sort of describes you in a nutshell, doesn’t it? No matter what happens to you, no matter the situation, no matter what you’re given to work with, you just keep going and you move on.

BB: That’s right. [laughs] That’s absolutely right. You ask me to do something, and I’ll do it. That’s the kind of kid I was.

---

 

And that’s the kind of woman she became. That’s why, to use Bill’s words, I’m smitten with her.

Middle of the Rainbow is available from BearManor Media or Amazon.com.

 
 

Late last month just after announcing her run for president, former South Carolina Governor and UN Ambassador Nikki Haley opened a can of worms when she proposed that politicians over the age of 75 be required to undergo a competency test. Under the proposal, Haley, who is just 51, would not have to prove her competence, even though she once excoriated Trump for not disavowing white supremacists, then willingly accepted a position in his administration. Seems like an opportunistic, brown-nosing hypocrite with poor judgment should be required to take a competency test despite her age. But I digress.

Haley’s proposal came on the heels of President Biden reporting for his annual physical. Uncle Joe is now 80 years old, and if he wins a second term, he’d be 82 at his inauguration and 86 when his successor is sworn in. Biden passed the physical with flying colors, but his increasingly slurred speech, forgetfulness, and slow gate are becoming more and more of a concern for Democratic strategists who worry that their leader might not be up to the rigors of another campaign.

Surprisingly, one thing Ms. Haley has not yet suggested is an amendment to the Constitution that would establish maximum age limits for anyone serving in an elected federal office. Such an amendment would be consistent with existing law. After all, the Constitution already requires a minimum age for serving in the House (25), Senate (30), and as president (35), so why not establish a maximum age for each? Moreover, unlike subjective competency tests, which could be open to interpretation, maximum age limits would be clear-cut with no shades of gray hair. Still, this kind of amendment would, no doubt, be vigorously opposed by the same folks who oppose term limits. Their belief is that voters should have the right to re-elect whoever they choose and that any sort of limit on terms or age would infringe on that right.

Such a libertarian view of politics is all well and good in theory, but not when it adversely impacts the rights of others. For example, because there were no term limits or age limits in Congress, South Carolina senator Strom Thurmond, an avowed white supremacist, was allowed to serve until his death, at the age of 100. On the flip side, despite advancing age and serious health problems, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg refused to retire at a time when President Obama could have appointed a like-minded civil rights champion to succeed her. Instead, she died in office at 87 and gave Trump a clear path to fill the Court with right-wing, activist judges. Roe v. Wade advocates are probably wishing that term and age limits had been in place years ago.

Of course, any discussion of age limits invokes fears of ageism. That’s why in 1967, Congress passed the “Discrimination in Employment Act”, which prohibited companies from forcing someone to retire who still wanted to work past 65. The Act did, however, allow for exceptions to the rule, such as mandating retirement if an employee could no longer effectively perform his or her job. And that brings us back to Nikki Haley’s proposed competency tests for politicians over the age of 75. If those tests could be administered fairly and objectively, and if an elderly candidate couldn’t make the grade, then that’s something the public needs to know before they go vote. Whether or not the results of such a test should automatically disqualify a candidate, however, is another matter altogether. That’s why, in the end, establishing term limits or maximum age limits (or both) for federal office holders would be preferable to Haley’s flawed testing scheme.

 
 

If you lie to the police, you end up in jail. If you lie to your spouse, you end up in divorce court. And, if you lie to the IRS, you end up broke. Yet according to a recent ruling by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, you can lie and get away with it if you’re running for public office. I’ll come back to that moronic ruling in a moment.

During President Biden’s recent State of the Union address, representative Marjorie Taylor Greene yelled out, “Liar!!” Not that Uncle Joe hasn’t fibbed in his life, but it’s just not good form to interrupt the President of the United States, much less call him a liar. Moreover, the woman doing the shouting doth protest too much. Greene, the poster girl for white trash, spreads lies as freely as a farmer spreads manure. The only difference is that Green’s lies carry more of a lasting odor. Who could ever forget her claim that the 2018 California wildfires were started by Jewish space lasers? She also said that Nancy Pelosi had “Gazpacho” police spying on members of Congress. Of course, Greene meant to say Gestapo, but you can’t blame her because English is a second language for Marjorie. Greene said a plane didn’t hit the Pentagon on 9/11, and that monkeypox is a sexually transmitted disease. She claimed that global warming is good for humanity, and she still believes that the 2020 election was stolen.

But just when we thought Congress had hit rock bottom with Greene, we were introduced to George Santos, or should I say, Anthony Devolder. “Santos” has lied and continues to lie about anything and everything, including that he graduated from NYU and was a star player on the Baruch College volleyball team when they beat Yale. The problem is Baruch never played Yale during the time Santos says he attended, and, in fact, he never attended Baruch or NYU. He says he worked for Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, but he never worked for either company. He said he is Jewish, but he’s Catholic. He said that his grandparents fled the Holocaust, but they were born and lived in Brazil, and he claims his mother was working in the South Tower on 9/11 and eventually died from exposure to toxic debris. Actually, she was in Brazil at the time of the attack. Santos said he owns more than a dozen rental properties, but in truth, he owns none. He claims to have produced Spiderman on Broadway and that he was once mugged. Neither is true. I could go on, but why bother.

Unfortunately, Greene and Santos occupy positions of responsibility and power, and they vote on legislation that can affect all of us. Also unfortunate is the fact that politicians like them never get punished for lying, either during their campaign or anytime afterward. How many times have you heard a media pundit say, “There’s no law against lying.” Well, that’s sort of a lie itself, at least here in North Carolina, where a liable law actually exists. It was passed in 1931, but hardly ever heard of until last year. 

The saga began when Democrat Attorney General Josh Stein was running for re-election against Forsyth D.A. Jim O’Neill. The hot-button issue of their campaign was the backlog of unprocessed rape kits on both the state and local levels. Stein crossed the line when he ran a TV ad that accused O’Neill of having “left 1,500 rape kits sitting on the shelf.” The implication was that O’Neill’s failure to test those rape kits in a timely manner allowed rapists to roam free and rape more victims. O’Neill charged that Stein had violated the 1931 liable law which, “makes it a misdemeanor to knowingly circulate false, derogatory reports about a candidate with the intent of hurting that candidate’s chances in the election.”Violators of the law could pay a fine and spend up to 60 days in jail.

A Wake County grand jury was poised to indict Stein, but the very next day, a three-judge panel voted 2 to 1 to grant the Attorney General an injunction so that Stein could have time to prove that the 1931 law he broke was unconstitutional. The two who ruled for Stein were fellow Democrats. The dissenting judge believed that lying and defaming was not protected speech. Nevertheless, the injunction kept the Wake County D.A. from sending Stein to jail. On February 8 of this year, a federal appeals court in Richmond slammed the door shut on O’Neill’s case. Said O’Neill, “Josh Stein won a ruling today that changes the law in North Carolina so that politicians running for office can now openly lie to the public and make any outrageous claims they want, all in an effort to get re-elected.”  

Stein’s TV ad helped him defeat O’Neill last fall, and now our Attorney General has his sights set on the Governor’s mansion. And so, boys and girls, this lesson in civics teaches us that it’s OK to lie, and that if you ever get caught breaking a law, just ask the judge not to punish you so that you’ll have time to change the law that you broke. Ain’t America a great country?