Triad Today

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?

 
 

Hall of Fame baseball player Johnny Bench once told me that you’re never too old to have heroes. One of mine is Barbara Johns, and I’m proud to say that soon a bronze sculpture of her will stand in the U.S. Capitol, replacing a statue of Confederate general Robert E. Lee.

Barbara Johns wasn’t just a participant in the civil rights movement, she triggered it. Barbara made her mark before Rosa Parks boarded a bus, before Dr. Martin Luther King marched, and before the Greensboro Four sat at the lunch counter. Barbara led a national movement for equality, and she did it at the ripe old age of 16.

In 1951 Barbara Johns was a junior at R.R. Moton High, an all-Black school in the Prince Edward County, Virginia town of Farmville. She was an exemplary student who enjoyed English, history, French, and music, and was a member of the debate team. Barbara was mature beyond her years and had a sense of social justice that was inspired by her uncle, The Rev. Vernon Johns, who, at the time was pastor of Dexter Ave. Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama. (He would be succeeded in that role by Dr. King in 1952.)

Built in 1939, Moton was a small brick structure designed to hold 180 students. But by 1951, over 450 children were crammed into the school. Not only was the building over-crowded, it was also woefully inadequate for learning. There was no library, no cafeteria, no gym, and no science lab. To alleviate the overflow of students, the Prince Edward school board had several tar paper shacks erected adjacent to the main building. On rainy days, water poured through the leaky roofs, and on cold days students had to make do with a small stove. The stove was riddled with holes and hot coals would often pop out onto the floor. By contrast, just down the road stood the all-white high school, which had the best of everything. In those days, the concept of separate but equal was a cruel joke. Schools were separated by race for sure, but they were sure as hell not equal.

I began researching the Moton school saga about 30 years ago. Barbara had passed away by then, but I connected with some of her family and friends and was able to get a copy of Barbara’s unfinished manuscript soon after it was discovered in 1999. In it, Barbara wrote of the long walks she would take in the woods, contemplating the conditions of her school and of her dreams for a better one. 

 

---

I imagined that a great storm came through and blew down the main building and splattered the shacks to splinters, and out of this wreckage was a magnificent building, and the students were joyous. Then the reality would set in, and I would acknowledge that nothing magical was going to produce a new school.” I prayed to God, “Please let us have a new place where we won’t have to keep our coats on all day to stay warm. God, please help us. We are your children too.

---

 

Barbara then wrote about a defining incident that convinced her to take action.

 

---

One morning I was rushing around helping my brother and sister get down the hill to catch the bus, but I had forgot my lunch. I ran back up the hill to retrieve it, but in the meantime the bus had left. Later, the white school bus drove by. It was half empty and would have to drive past my school to get to the white school, but they wouldn’t let me ride with them. Right then and there I decided something had to be done about this inequality.

---

 

The action Barbara took would help trigger a national movement to provide an equal education for all students. On April 23, 1951, she enacted a carefully devised plan. First, she got the principal out of the building on a ruse, then she enlisted the aid of seven other students to deliver bogus notes to every teacher, advising them to have their students assemble in the auditorium. Barbara then addressed the student body and convinced them to stage a walkout. On the second day of the strike, Johns and a large group of students marched to the superintendent’s office where Barbara asked why Black students couldn’t just attend school with whites. The superintendent said that integration was against Virginia law, but promised that a new school was in the works for the Moton students. He lied about the new school. Even worse, he punished the protesting students by taking all of their buses out of commission. The strike lasted for two weeks, during which time Barbara received death threats. 

Barbara wrote to the NAACP and asked for help. Soon after, two attorneys arrived in Farmville to meet with Barbara and other student leaders. Eventually their case was folded into Brown v Board of Education, and by 1959, Prince Edward County schools were ordered to desegregate. But the racist county school board refused to comply, and they got around the law by closing all of their public schools, and then opening a makeshift private academy just for the white students to attend. Black students in the area became known as the Lost Generation because they were without a school for five years. Finally, in 1964, all public schools in Farmville were reopened when the Supreme Court ruled that Prince Edward’s racist scheme violated the 14th Amendment by denying Black students equal protection under the law. Still, it would be another 20 years before the county’s schools were fully integrated. Nevertheless, the state of public education had changed forever, and, in large part, we all have a 16-year-old girl to thank for it. 

Barbara Johns was a visionary and an activist, and if there was a Mt. Rushmore of Civil Rights leaders, she would be on it. For now, we’ll settle for having her likeness in the nation’s Capitol.

(The original Moton school has since been restored and today serves as a museum and a venue for community events. For more information or to make a donation, visit MotonMuseum.org)

 
 

Once upon a time, there were only three TV channels to watch, and in the late 1970s, no show was bigger than Laverne & Shirley, a sitcom starring Cindy Williams and Penny Marshall as roommates who worked at a Milwaukee beer factory. The series was a spin-off from a Happy Days episode in which Fonzie had arranged for Laverne (Marshall) and Shirley (Williams) to double date with him and Richie (Ron Howard). By its third season, Laverne & Shirley was the number one show in the country, and its stars became cultural icons.

I caught up with Cindy last April and we talked by phone about her then-upcoming one-woman show, “Me, Myself, and Shirley”, which she performed at High Point Theatre. The show was a big hit and we stayed in touch after that, but I wondered why I didn’t get a response to my most recent email. Now I know why. Cindy had been in bad health the past few months, and on January 25 she passed away at the age of 75. The following are highlights from our conversation back in April.

 

---

JL: Do you remember the first time you performed on stage?

CW: Yes, it was in the first grade, and they had a talent show, and I sang “Hickory Dickory Dock”, and I had total stage fright, but I did it.

JL: Do you remember who won the talent show?

CW: No, but I’m sure it was some ne’er-do-well first-grader [laughs].

JL: When did you first realize that you wanted to act professionally?

CW: It was in high school. I had wanted to be a nurse, but I didn’t have an academic brain, so I entered a talent show at school, and the drama teacher, Mr. Kulp, said, “If you have an elective, I’d like to offer you a spot this coming semester to be in ‘Play Production’” so I did. That’s when I thought I’d like to be able to earn a living from acting. I just loved it so much.

JL: Over the years, various cast and crew members on Laverne & Shirley say that they had to work long hours because you and Penny would often do re-writes on the script. What drove you to work so hard on that show?

CW: We had a litmus test, which was if the script made Penny and me laugh out loud, then we figured it would translate to the audience at home. When it didn’t, we would re-write it, or try and put things in that made it funny. Once we got the show on its feet and started moving around, we would add things, add lines, and ad lib. The whole cast would.

JL: Even in the late 1970’s, there were certain things you couldn’t do or say on television, thus the reason for you and Penny using the phrase “Vody-O-Doe-Doe,” instead of saying “having sex”. If Laverne & Shirley were on the air today, would using more graphic language make the show better or funnier?

CW: No, it wouldn’t. When audiences of today laugh at graphic language, they’re usually laughing out of nervousness, not out of joy.

Also, we had a censor back then. He was a born-again Christian and the nicest guy, and he wouldn’t let us get away with anything. That’s how we came up with “Vody-O-Doe-Doe,” which made the audience laugh out loud, because they know what Shirley did. It’s much more fun when everybody is thinking the same thing at the same time. Instead of saying someone is showing pornography, we’d say, “They’re showing dirty pictures,” and the audience would laugh because it’s much more fun. We used innuendo and attitude in a fun-loving way.

JL: Moving from comedy to drama, I went back recently and watched the episode you did on Law & Order: SVU in which you played an evil woman who was trying to kill her little granddaughter. You also played serious roles in such films as “The Conversation” with Gene Hackman. Do you prefer doing drama over comedy, or wish you had done more?

CW: I’d like to have played more middle-of-the-road parts, but I didn’t have a chance because no one was going to cast me after Laverne & Shirley I remember going up for this big part, and I went in, and the producer said, “I’d love to cast you, but I can’t. You’re just too recognizable as Shirley Feeney.” And it’s the truth, and I understand that. Look, it’s a blessing that I got to play that character and it became so popular with people, so I never regret that.

JL: Do you remember when you first realized you were famous?

CW: I guess it was in the second season we were in New York City and they had asked us to be in the Thanksgiving Day parade, and we were on this float, and we saw all these people push past this barrier and they were running toward us. So we looked behind us to see who it was they were running toward, and we were going to join them [laughs]. It must be somebody big. Then all this security came up and we realized it was for us. That was the first time we realized the popularity of the show. Penny and I had this same glitch in our personalities where we thought, “we can’t possibly be the popular girls.” We never took show business seriously, and I think that’s part of the reason that Laverne & Shirley kept our feet on the ground.

JL: The road to success hasn’t always been easy for you. You had to wait tables at a pancake house, and you had all your scenes cut from your first film, but eventually became one of the most famous people in the world. What is it that anyone from any walk of life can learn from your journey?

CW: It can all be accomplished, but you have to always stay yourself. You have to keep your sense of humor. If you get knocked down, you have to get right back up and just keep going. God played a big part for me. I would talk to God and I’d get brave again. You always have to stay brave, and have faith in yourself and in all the beautiful things around you. You’re not always going to be invited to the party, you’re not always going to get the job, and you can’t let that deter you from what you want. If somebody else gets the job, you bless them and say “it wasn’t meant for me.” There was a point where I thought I’d be back to waiting tables, and I was OK with that, and it’s right before I got Laverne & Shirley.

JL: I know you get a lot of fan mail, but I wonder if you realize how much pleasure and even comfort you’ve given to people over the years. There must have been times when someone had just lost a loved one, or lost their job, and they turned the TV on and watched Laverne & Shirley and you had an impact on their lives.

CW: Thanks Jim. Yeah, people still come up to me and say, “You got me through a very bad time in my life, and made me laugh at a really bad time.” I love people, and want to comfort them.

JL: So in a way, I guess you did become a nurse.

CW: Yeah, in a way I guess I was a nurse. But doing the show was such a blessing for me and such a privilege.

---

 

Fans of Cindy feel the same way whenever we watch her on screen. Cindy Williams left us way too soon, but she left us oh so much.

 
 

If you were a kid growing up in Winston-Salem during the late 1950s and early 1960s, you knew who Billy Packer was. At first, he was the fearless guard who, in 1962, led Wake Forest to its only Final Four appearance. The team was ranked as high as #3 in the nation that season, and Billy ended his stint with the Demon Deacons scoring over 1,300 points and averaging 82% at the free throw line. Billy also initiated the first official scrimmages between Wake and Winston-Salem State at a time when Black players and white players weren’t allowed to compete against each other.

Later, after his playing days were over, Billy served as an assistant coach for the Deacs. Then, in 1972 he was asked by C.D. Chesley (the broadcasting pioneer whose C.D. Chesley Company was the first to broadcast ACC basketball games on a regular basis) to fill in as an analyst on an ACC game being broadcast from Raleigh. The next year he was hired as the main analyst for ACC broadcasts and remained in that position until 2008. Billy knew the game of basketball inside and out and he was the best analyst in the business, so it’s not surprising that NBC came calling in 1974, and asked Packer to work their Final Four broadcast. He stayed with the Peacock network until CBS lured him away in 1981, and he continued to call Final Fours until 2008. In all, he worked 34 straight NCAA Final Four tournaments.

Although Billy was born in New York and later made his home in Charlotte, generations of Winston-Salem natives considered Billy as one of our own. That’s because even prior to his achieving national prominence, Billy was always active in the area. He even showed up one evening at my nephew’s recreation league banquet to hand out trophies, and he was a fixture at the new Stratford Road Putt Putt course in Winston, where he served as play-by-play man for televised matches. Only Billy Packer could make Putt Putt sound exciting.

I only worked with Billy briefly in 1974. I had just been hired by WFMY-TV, and he was contracted to produce and host a series of segments about ACC basketball. I ran studio camera for Billy and came to know him as a super nice guy, and the most prepared and knowledgeable basketball analyst in the history of television.

Several years ago, I called Billy and invited him to be a guest on my Triad Today TV show, but he declined. “Thanks Jim, but I just don’t get up to Winston that often anymore,” he said. I was disappointed, and I regret not having the opportunity to interview him, but I understood. Billy Packer passed away last week at the age of 82. He was an original. He was the best at what he did. He was a legend. He was one of us.

 
 

In 1999 Columbine was an anomaly, but within a decade, school shootings were becoming almost commonplace. Gun-toting students and former students have acted out their rage in places like Sandy Hook, Parkland, and Uvalde. But while school massacres continued to grab headlines, single-victim shootings have often flown under the media radar. Some confrontations were initiated by high school gang members, but increasingly gun violence in the classroom is being perpetrated by younger and younger children, and that brings me to the recent incident at Richneck Elementary school in Newport News, Virginia.

On Friday, January 6, 25-year-old Abigail Zwerner was conducting her first-grade class when a six-year-old male student pulled a 9mm semi-automatic Taurus handgun out of his backpack and deliberately shot her. The bullet went through her hand and into her chest. Though critically wounded, Zwerner managed to move the other students to safety while another school employee restrained the young shooter until police arrived. The gun, as it turns out, belonged to the boy’s mother who, despite her attorney’s denial, had not properly secured the weapon. Had she done so, her small, young son wouldn’t have had access to the gun. Speaking of that irresponsible woman, she later said that her son has a disability that requires a parent to be with the boy at school every day. But guess what? She wasn’t with him on the day of the shooting.

There’s a lot to unpack from this incident, and its impact on the national debate regarding everything from gun safety and parental responsibility, to the mainstreaming of mentally disabled children into traditional classrooms, to juvenile justice reforms. But rather than dwell on the Newport News shooting specifically, I want to focus on what is being done (and what should be done) to prevent such incidents in the future.

First of all, we must all recognize that what happened at Richneck Elementary is indicative of a growing trend in America. Noted researcher David Riedman recently told AP correspondents Ben Finley and Denise Lavoie that people are shot, or guns taken away, at schools “almost every day.” According to Riedman, there were 302 shootings on school property last year, and while he says he knows of only four cases where kids under age six have shot someone at school, that’s four too many. The fact is that more and more guns are showing up at schools these days, while the age of the students bringing those guns to school seems to be getting younger and younger. Despite this trend, local, state, and federal officials refuse to invest in comprehensive security measures at every school.

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, as late as 2020, less than 2% of public elementary schools performed random metal detector checks on students. Meanwhile, only 2% of elementary schools required students to wear clear backpacks, and only 54% of those schools had security staff on-site once a week. Yet, every time I question elected officials about the need for metal detectors, security staff, electronically locking doors, and other devices, I’m given the same answer, “There’s just no money for that.”  Funny, but we can spend hundreds of billions of dollars in Ukraine, and billions more on pet projects of congresspersons, but there’s just no money that can be allocated to keep our kids safe in school. Politicians who spew that bilge aren’t just short-sighted, they are criminally negligent. Fortunately, the Newport News shooting has awakened some officials to the problem of school security. Virginia Delegate Mike Mullin, for example, is lobbying for state monies to make Richneck more secure. And, last week, the Newport News school board voted to place 90 walk-through metal detectors in schools across the district. Meanwhile, parents attending a recent public hearing have called for two security officers to be assigned to each elementary school.

Parents, teacher unions, politicians, and school board members in Newport News are to be commended for finally getting woke to the need for more security measures. Unfortunately, their enlightenment may not spur reforms across the country so long as eggheads like Amanda Nickerson have a say. Nickerson, a school psychology professor at State University of New York, Buffalo, told the AP, “Metal detectors and clear backpacks are more likely to cause young children to be fearful and feel criminalized.” Hey Amanda, go ask parents at Sandy Hook, Parkland, and Uvalde if they would have minded if their murdered children felt criminalized by metal detectors and clear backpacks.  

Yes, there will be a significant cost involved in making every school safe. It will cost money to install metal detectors and electronic locking doors. It will cost money to hire additional officers. And it will cost money to supply clear backpacks for children who can’t afford them. But we’re the richest nation in the world, and we can find the money if we want to. Otherwise, we’ll continue to put our children at risk, and while we argue about the price of security, some of those children will pay the ultimate price for a lack of it.

 
 

On November 14 of last year, a Texas woman loaded her four children into the car and went for a drive. The children ranged in age from 8 months to 6 years. None were wearing seat belts and the baby was not in a car seat. Suddenly one of the unlocked doors flew open, hurling the 8-month-old infant onto the highway where he was struck and killed by oncoming traffic.

A similar incident occurred last month in Kentucky where a Mom crashed the car, killing her 8-year-old child and injuring an 11-year-old. Neither of the kids were wearing seat belts.

And, that same day, a Greensboro man ran a red light on Freeman Mill Road and crashed into a car that was turning onto Randleman Road. His 4-year-old niece was killed. She was not wearing any kind of restraint.

I wish I could say these three tragic incidents were isolated and rare, but I can’t. The truth is, nationwide over 60,000 children are injured each year in motor vehicle accidents, and that includes over 600 fatalities. Here in North Carolina, car crashes are the leading cause of unintentional death for children. Even more tragic is that most of these deaths could have been prevented. According to the North Carolina Department of Insurance, nine out of 10 children are unrestrained when riding in a vehicle. Given that statistic, one would think that child restraints are optional. Just the opposite. In fact, child safety seats are required in all 50 states. But even if a parent wasn’t aware of the law, wouldn’t common sense prevail? Parents are instinctively supposed to protect their children. They shouldn’t have to be told by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that car seats reduce the risk of fatal injury by 71% for infants, and by 54% for toddlers (ages 1 to 4). It shouldn’t take the death of a child to make someone a more aware and more responsible parent. We also shouldn’t let negligent parents off with just a slap on the wrist, and that brings me to enforcement.

Just as penalties for drunk drivers vary from state to state and county to county, so too do punishments for parents who endanger their children by not having their toddlers secured in car seats and their children buckled up in seat belts. Fines are often left to the discretion of local judges and are dependent upon a variety of circumstances. 

Following the Freeman Mill road crash, for example, the Greensboro News & Record reported that police officials issued a public reminder about car restraint laws, which include that children younger than 8 years old and who weigh less than 80 pounds must be properly secured in a child restraint or booster seat. Children younger than 5 years old and less than 40 pounds must be in the rear seat. And, when a child reaches age 8 regardless of weight or weighs 80 pounds, he must wear a seat belt. Yet parents who violate these regulations will probably only have 2 points added to their driving record and pay a fine of less than $250. The exception is if a child dies as a result of the violation, in which case prosecutors could charge the parent with endangerment. But even that crime has no strictly prescribed penalty and could result in a sentence of as little as six months in jail. Meanwhile, a parent who is drunk while driving, and crashes their car resulting in the death of a child might only serve seven days behind bars. 

Clearly what we need is for Congress to enact legislation that would make it a federal crime to cause the death of a child due to lack of a proper restraining device. That might not prevent some parents from breaking the law, but the severe penalties that it would carry might make others think twice about refusing to put their toddler in a car seat before pulling out of the driveway.