Triad Today

As an animal lover, I am still trying to wrap my brain around the ludicrous sentence handed down to Caleb Dewald last month. Dewald, as you might recall, was found guilty of 10 counts of felony animal cruelty, then got off with a slap on the wrist. I’ll go into more detail about sentencing in a moment, but first, some background on who Dewald is and exactly what he did that was so cruel.

On June 29 of last year, the Forsyth County Sheriff’s office received a tip that Dewald was torturing and killing animals, then posting his evil deeds on social media. Among his sick crimes were: electrocuting squirrels; cutting off the ears and noses of other animals while they were still alive; drowning opossums; torturing rats; and, soaking squirrels with WD-40 and then setting them on fire. Dewald was 19 years old at the time. Old enough to know the difference between right and wrong, and old enough to be responsible for his actions. The Winston-Salem Journal’s Michael Hewlett reports that during court proceedings, Dewald could be seen on videotape narrating and laughing while he tortured the animals who were “clearly suffering.” Also, some of the videos had been recorded back when Dewald was a student at a private school in Kernersville, indicating that he was a serial torturer.  

Caleb Dewald was a 2020 graduate of the North Carolina Leadership Academy whose website proclaims that their mission is to “develop each student’s potential as responsible citizens…to foster a close relationship between home and school in order to reach each student’s full potential.” Unfortunately, the leaders of the Leadership Academy seemed to be asleep at the wheel when it came to making Mr. Dewald a responsible citizen. According to the Winston-Salem Journal, long before the 2021 incident, school administrators were “already aware that Dewald had a serious problem.” They told investigators that once when Dewald was searched for drugs and weapons, they found a journal which contained, “drawings and confessions regarding the killing and torturing of different animals.” However, typical of our failing justice system, Dewald’s journal was considered private property and returned to him without filing any charges. And that brings me to last month’s sentencing.

Dewald pleaded to 10 counts of felony animal cruelty and Judge Michael Stone gave him four consecutive SUSPENDED sentences and placed him on 30 months of supervised probation. Dewald also had to serve a whopping 4 days in jail within 30 days of the sentencing and was ordered to get a mental health assessment and continue with therapy. It’s important to note that here in North Carolina, animal cruelty is a Class H felony, in which each count carries a sentence of 25 months in jail. That means Caleb Dewald should be spending the next 20 years in prison, instead of being free to roam around and torture more animals during 30 months of probation.

Clearly, Judge Stone ignored the sentencing guidelines for heinous animal cruelty, but beyond that, the law needs to be changed so that such crimes are elevated to a Class B felony, which carries a sentence of 8 years in prison for each count. Some unfeeling people don’t agree with me. They don’t think animals can feel pain and that severe prison sentences should be reserved for crimes against humans. Let me point out some statistics that might cause those misguided folks to change their views on animal torture. 

According to the Humane Society, 71% of domestic violence victims reported that their abuser also targeted pets. In fact, pet abuse occurs in 88% of families under supervision for physical abuse of their children. Those statistics are consistent with a report by the Animal Legal and Historical Center, which revealed that 85% of battered women entering shelters say that pet abuse occurred in their families. And then there is the FBI study, which warns that children and teens who torture animals often grow up to commit violent crimes, and even become serial killers. Such was the case with Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, and Jeffrey Dahmer. Purdue University professor Gail Melson concurs, concluding in a recent report that, “Animal abuse is often the first sign of serious disturbance among adolescent and adult killers.”

Hewlett reports that PETA “wants the NC Leadership Academy to adopt a curriculum designed to prevent young people from committing acts of animal cruelty.” That’s all well and good, but by the time a serial animal torturer reaches high school, it’s a little late to tell him he’s doing a bad thing. Again, the best solution is to upgrade animal cruelty to a Class B felony. In the meantime, judges must enforce the most severe penalties allowed under current law. Also, parents, police, school officials, and anyone else who is aware of animal cruelty, must be held accountable for failing to act on that knowledge. 

The warnings from law enforcement and scholars are clear: people who turn a blind eye to animal abuse might also be turning a blind eye to violence against humans. That should mean something to everyone, whether you love animals or not.

 
 

Once upon a time, we could always count on nurses, firefighters, policemen, and doctors showing up for work, no matter what. That’s because they are life-savers, and life-savers are supposed to be there for us 24/7. Alas, though, times have changed. The pandemic has created shortages among the ranks of these brave and vitally important public servants, and those who remain on the job are overworked. The result is longer wait times in emergency rooms, and sometimes slower response time for 911 calls. Sadly, we humans have all come to live with certain inconveniences caused by staffing shortages and supply chain snafus. But when pets are in crisis, they don’t understand pandemic politics. They can’t call their congressman, or complain to the Better Business Bureau. All they know is that they’re in pain and need help. And that brings me to a growing problem in this country: a shortage of veterinarians and vet techs.

MSN.com reports that according to a study by Mars Veterinary Health, there are barely enough veterinarians right now to cover the current demand for pet medical care. The reason? A recent rise in pet ownership and a corresponding demand for veterinary care.

Veterinary clinics across the country are cutting back on hours of operation and some have closed altogether. Numerous sources cite the pandemic as the main reason for this crisis. CNN reported that Petfinder.com spokesperson Lorie Westhoff said inquiries about pet adoptions increased by 70% between March 2020 and March 2021. CNN also stated that Mark Cushing, CEO of the Animal Policy Group, said Millennials and Gen Zers alone are adopting pets, “at higher rates than their predecessors.” Meanwhile, according to the ASPCA, 90% of folks who adopted a pet during the pandemic kept their pet. 

In a perfect world, pet adoptions are a good thing, but in a post-pandemic reality, no good deed goes unpunished. In that same CNN article, Dr. Douglas Kratt, president of the American Veterinary Medical Association, stated that “client wait times now average 20 minutes, up from 11 minutes in 2019.” With all due respect to Dr. Kratt, he doesn’t live in the Triad, where wait times can be up to three hours for walk-ins, and over an hour even if you have a scheduled appointment. One statistic I do believe, however, is that half of all veterinary technicians tend to burn out and quit within their first five years. 

Certainly, being overworked and receiving inadequate pay are contributing factors to burnout, but so are the types of “patients” being treated. Jennifer Serling, president-elect of the Association of Veterinary Technician Educators, said in the afore-mentioned CNN article, “Unlike RNs and physician assistants, vet techs are responsible for providing care to multiple species that can’t talk and tell us what’s wrong. Unlike a hospital or a doctor’s office which has specialty nurses and doctors for everything, veterinary technicians are required to do it all.”

Not to make this a personal issue, but my family has been a victim of staffing shortages, including recently at the Triad’s leading emergency animal care hospital. Open 24/7, this is THE pet emergency facility that local vets refer their clients to. So, when one of our dogs was having a prolonged, after-hours asthma attack, my wife and I drove him to this ER mecca (I won’t mention what clinic it is, but they’re located just off Guilford College road, and their name starts with Carolina Veterinary Specialists). We arrived at 10:30 p.m., and, as instructed by the sign in the parking lot, I called the receptionist to let her know we were at the front door. Instead of checking us in, she said, “Sorry we’re not seeing patients tonight.” “But you’re a 24-hour emergency hospital,” I said. “We’re not seeing patients,” she repeated coldly. I asked why. “It’s a staffing shortage,” she said. “So, you don’t have a doctor inside?” I asked. “Yes, but the doctor can’t see patients because we don’t have enough staff. You’ll just have to bring your dog back in the morning.” Fortunately, our dog’s attack subsided, but what if it hadn’t? I don’t know if the hospital’s vet techs didn’t show up because of burnout or not. All I know is that no ER doctor of any kind should ever refuse to treat an emergency case, even if he’s the only one in the building. Speaking of which, not only is there a dearth of vets to meet demand now, what’s worse is there aren’t enough vets coming along in the pipeline either. 

In the MSN article above, Mars Veterinary Health stated that, based on the current demand for pet health care, 41,000 vets will need to enter practice over the next ten years. The problem is that only about 2,500 graduates become veterinarians each year, which means we’ll have a shortage of 16,000 vets by 2030. So, what’s the solution? For that, we can look to Arizona.

There, the state legislature just passed the Arizona Veterinary Loan Assistance Program, which will reimburse student loans up to $100,000 to veterinarians who graduate after January 2023. To receive the reimbursement, vets must work in Arizona for four years, with two of those years spent in a city, county, or nonprofit shelter. Other states like North Dakota now offer a variation of the program, and there’s also a federal Public Service Loan Forgiveness program available. It’s tax money well spent, and it’s welcome news to pet owners. Steve Farley, CEO of the Humane Society of Southern Arizona, stated that “Thanks to this budget appropriation, at least 58 new veterinarians will come to work in Arizona by the end of 2023. Moving forward, making this appropriation annual will save countless lives while growing our economy, a win-win solution to an intractable problem. This is a victory for animal lovers across the state and is a great example of the benefits that accrue to our residents when our leaders work together for the common good.”

Unfortunately, Arizona is too far for me to drive for veterinary care, so I just hope the North Carolina legislature will do more to alleviate our own shortage of vets and vet techs. Until then, a lot of pets in need of emergency care will, in the words of a local vet receptionist, “just have to come back tomorrow.”

 
 

Former Speaker of the House Tip O’Neillt used to say, “All politics is local”, which, in a broad sense, refers to the fact that every decision made in Washington affects every community, and that decisions made locally can affect what goes on nationally. In just under two weeks, that philosophy will be put to the test when voters in North Carolina decide to send either Democrat Cheri Beasley or Republican Ted Budd to the United States Senate, and, by so doing, determine the balance of power in our federal government.

Ms. Beasley is a former Chief Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court, and Mr. Budd is a three-term congressman from the 13th district. One is liberal and the other is conservative, and both are locked in a neck-and-neck battle that political pollsters say is too close to call. This weekend, Budd and Beasley will appear on an episode of Triad Today. My interviews with them were pre-taped and what follows are highlights of those conversations.

INFLATION

 

---

JL: Forty million Americans are living in poverty and 12 million children go hungry every day. What are your solutions for bringing down the rate of inflation?

CB: I’ve been all over the state, 100 counties, and the prevailing issue is rising costs. People are feeling it on everything from pain at the pump to prescription drugs, and everything else in between. We’re trying to get through the supply chain issue, but I also know that there are corporations that are price-gouging at a time when they are making record profits, and that’s just not right for North Carolinians.”
JL: So, if you get elected, you’ll want to go after those corporations, right?

CB: Well yes, there should be a penalty for them. It’s also important for us to focus on our made-in-America economy so that we’re making more of our goods in the state.

TB: Inflation is a 40-year problem. We haven’t had inflation this bad since the Carter administration, leaking into the Reagan administration. We know how to fix this. The problem is the ideology of the Left, the ideology of Cheri Beasley, the ideology of Joe Biden won’t allow us to fix it.

JL: What do you mean “fix it”?

TB: We’ve got to have more energy. That’s what’s driving this. I’m talking about fertilizer producers to produce our food. Diesel producers that need to put fuel in the trucks to get it to the grocery stores. Everything the Left wants to do makes it harder on those folks, which is driving up prices right now. Encouraging people not to come back to work, I mean that’s what they did for a while, and that’s a lot of what’s causing the worker shortage right now.

JL: And, gasoline prices are about to go back up because of what Saudi Arabia and OPEC did.

TB: Right, and so are heating fuel prices just on the edge of winter here in just a few months.

---

 

SAFE SCHOOLS

 

---

JL: Twenty-seven children have been shot at school just since January. What’s your solution for making our schools safe from gun violence?

TB: This is heartbreaking, and as a parent, we all want our kids to come home safely. You have to keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous individuals, and you can do that without infringing upon second amendment rights. We need to enforce the laws that are on the books, many of which aren’t being enforced, and we need to deal with mental illness, which is an increasing problem.

CB: We need universal background checks, we need red flag laws, and there is absolutely no reason to have weapons of war on our streets, and guns should not be in the hands of people who can’t use them responsibly, and who use them dangerously.

---

 

SOCIAL MEDIA

 

---

JL: As you know, Tik Tok is owned by a Chinese company, so one congressman wants to ban all Tik Tok apps on military bases as a matter of national security. Meanwhile, parents are concerned about the dangerous information being posted on all social media platforms. Would you like to see social media companies be regulated in the same way as broadcasters?

TB: How social media is being used is very concerning. We have to be very careful and make sure we look at this through the lens of national security, but at the same time protect our first amendment rights.

CB: There’s no doubt that young people stay on social media, and we have to be thoughtful about the kinds of things our young people are taking in. And I do think there have to be more regulations. We have to balance the protections offered by the first amendment with making sure we keep people safe.

---

 

Interviews with Cheri Beasley and Ted Budd can be seen in their entirety on Triad Today this Saturday at 7:30 a.m. on ABC 45, and Sunday at 11 a.m. on MY48. For more information about the candidates and their positions, visit TedBudd.com and CheriBeasley.com.

 
 

Eight years ago, Queen Elizabeth bestowed upon Angela Lansbury the title of Dame Commander, the equivalent of Knighthood for men. Accordingly, from that time forward, I included Angela’s new title on the envelope of every Christmas card I mailed to her. Of course, I knew Angela before she was a Dame, and back then there was nothing pretentious about her. The title didn’t change that. 

During Angela’s multi-faceted career, the British-born actress and singer won a slew of Tony awards and Golden Globes, and was even nominated for an Oscar for her first film at the ripe old age of 17. Her career on Broadway and in films and television spanned eight decades, playing everything from a teapot (Beauty and the Beast) to a demon barber’s assistant (Sweeney Todd), to the title role in Mrs. Santa Claus. It’s no wonder Geoffrey Rush called her, “The Living Definition of Range.” And, while theatre-goers remember her for landmark musicals like Mame and Gypsy, and film buffs revere her for her turns in Gaslight and The Manchurian Candidate, fans around the globe know her best as mystery writer-turned-sleuth Jessica Fletcher on the long-running CBS drama Murder, She Wrote. I on the other hand will always remember Angela for helping me win my wife Pam’s hand in marriage. More on that later.

For now, Pam and I, like millions of fans, are mourning the loss of dear Angie. She passed away last Tuesday. Angela Lansbury was 96 years old.

In 2006, my friends at the Television Academy asked me to produce and moderate an event that would celebrate women in television. I agreed, but insisted that we include Angela Lansbury on the panel, and also honor her with a special Academy presentation. Keep in mind that, by then, Angela had already been inducted into the Television Hall of Fame. Yet, ironically, a lot of high-brow Academy voters had neglected to award her even a single EMMY for her work on Murder, She Wrote. I considered that not just an over site, but a travesty, thus my insistence on creating a special award for her. And so, on March 30, 2006, I assembled a dozen actresses and women producers for an in-depth discussion about their careers. Among the participants joining Angela and me that night was Holland Taylor (Two and a Half Men), Melina Kanakaredes (CSI NY), CCH Pounder (The Shield), and Jeanne Tripplehorn (Big Love). By the way, every big star assembled on stage was in awe of Angela, so much so, that at the private pre-event dinner, not one of them would sit at her table for fear of intruding. That’s when I asked Pam to go over and keep Angela company, and the two of them had a wonderful time together, which ended with Angie serenading my better half.  

What follows are highlights from my exchanges with Angela during our “Women in Prime” event:

 

---

JL: Who was your role model or hero when you were growing up?

AL: Two people had a tremendous impact on my life as a child. One was my grandfather, who was very much a larger-than-life character. He was a politician, a great labor leader, and a great speechmaker, and as a child, I was taken to hear him speak. He spoke in the Albert Hall in London, and he could really rally the crowds because his heart was in the right place. He cared about his fellow man, probably more than anybody I remember in my childhood except possibly my father. However, his charisma was so extraordinary that I used to go home and practice making speeches, and it was one of the things that brought me out of myself because I was absolutely a very shy child. I hung on to my mother’s skirt. I was that kind of a child. So, I give him credit for bringing me out of myself by doing imitations of him.”

JL: How was it for you being a working mom early on in your career?

AL: It was very difficult. It’s easy for us as women to describe our problems as mothers and having children. How different it is for men. It certainly was in those days. Today, husbands are more prepared to take on more of the responsibility of being there at home when you can’t be there. So, it’s a different world in that respect. When my kids were growing up and I was working, I was torn. I went through all of those terrible moments of crying and saying, “I’m not going to go to New York for 6 months and do a play unless my kids can go with me”, and oftentimes they did. I hate to say this, but I think it was to their detriment because I had to pull them out of school and all those things.

JL: I think all of the early Murder, She Wrote episodes were written by men, and you were outspoken about the fact that you thought men didn’t always write for women the way they should. Did you ever get women writers?

AL: We never had women writers. We never did. I wanted to have women writers. But my brother was the story editor at the time, thank goodness because at least he knew what I was wanting to achieve in the way of helping Jessica to grow out of Cabot Cove, and at least put her foot in the larger pond, get out in the world and interact with more interesting people. He enabled me to do that, but we couldn’t go very far afield within that format.

JL: In 1987 you wrote Positive Moves: My Personal Plan for Fitness and Well Being, and I heard that the book was inspiring for a lot of women. Speaking of which, tell me about the feedback you’ve received from women who said you had a positive impact on their lives.

AL: I’ve had some wonderful feedback from the theatre roles I’ve played, and from the movie roles I’ve played, not so much with Manchurian Candidate. It took me years to live down THAT role (laughter). I started Murder, She Wrote when I was 59 years old, coming up to 60, and I got into television because I felt I hadn’t made any real money in the years I had been in the theatre and movies, and the time had come for annuity, you know [laughs]. You have to think about these things. And so, I got into television, thank God. But I was lucky enough to fall into an extraordinary role, a role model for women of my age. Women had never been represented in the way Jessica Fletcher approached her middle age, and for the first time, those women really counted for something. But the interesting thing was, it wasn’t just women that I heard from. It was also men. Middle-aged men and older men adored Jessica Fletcher, and to this day they still do. But with the women, the mail I got was just astronomical, and I still get it. It’s quite extraordinary. Women just decided they were going to be like Jessica Fletcher. They became writers. They pulled themselves together. They lost weight thanks to the book, and they became absolutely fascinated by what was possible for women of our age to attain. So, my feedback was tremendous.

---

 

At the end of our panel discussion, Academy president, Dick Askin came up on stage and presented Angela with a beautifully framed plaque that recognized her as a “Pioneer for Women in Television”. I then used the occasion to publicly thank her for helping me get Pam to the altar. I explained that, following our first meeting, Pam was none too impressed with me, nevertheless, I persevered. I had learned that her all-time favorite TV show was Murder, She Wrote, so, I packed up my entire VHS collection of Jessica’s mysteries and dropped the tapes off to Pam at work. Soon after that, she agreed to go out with me, and eventually, we tied the knot. Angela laughed and said, “What a wonderful story! I can’t believe it.”

There’s no telling just how many lives Angela Lansbury touched, and how many people she helped along the way, some without ever having known it. One example occurred several years into the making of Murder, She Wrote. As the story goes, guest star Van Johnson could see how the grueling production schedule was wearing on his buddy Angie. He told her she had made enough money and didn’t have to keep working and suggested she should just walk away. Angela told him she would not think of quitting because hundreds of people depended on her for a living. That was Angela in a nutshell. Always thinking of others. Always a team player. Always giving us all she had to give. 

Soon it will be time to mail out holiday cards again, and this year, for the first time in a long time, I won’t be addressing any of them to a Dame, and that makes me sad. Rest in peace, Mrs. Potts.

You can watch “Women in Prime” and other celebrity videos on www.JimLongworth.com.

 
 

You may not have heard of him, but John Selden made a lot of very profound statements. Selden was an English scholar who lived from 1584 until 1654, and among his many sayings is, “Ignorance of the law excuses no man.” Over the centuries, highway patrolmen, judges, and others in positions of power have popularized the phrase as, “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.” Selden also wrote a special idiom about hypocrisy, which he used when chastising preachers, and politicians who behaved one way but held everyone else to a different standard. Selden mocked their hypocrisy by saying, “Do as I say and not as I do.” Were John Selden alive today and had he watched coverage of hurricane Ian on TV, he would have certainly aimed his hypocrisy barb at the news media.

Storm after storm, TV reporters continue to put their lives at risk by trying to remain standing upright in the midst of dangerously high winds and torrential rains. It’s what media consultants used to call “reporter involvement.” I get it. Television managers want their anchors and reporters to get out in the community, appear at local events, and interact with viewers. That’s fine if your reporter is playing a pick-up game with kids or visiting a nursing home. But it’s not OK to put that reporter in harm’s way. 

Recently while hurricane Ian swept through Florida with 130-mile-per-hour winds, the National Weather Service announced it was, “an extreme threat to life and property.” But that didn’t deter the Weather Channel’s Jim Cantore from standing outside in the middle of a CAT 4 storm and getting struck by a fallen tree branch. Fortunately, Cantore was not seriously injured, but not all reporters have been so lucky. In 2018, a Greenville South Carolina TV anchorman and his videographer were killed when a tree crashed down on their SUV while covering tropical storm Alberto. Since then, countless other TV reporters have been hit by flying debris or knocked down by gusting winds.    

Despite the inherent dangers of covering hurricanes by standing in the middle of them, most television executives defend the practice of having reporters on the scene. Dan Shelley, president of the Radio and Television Digital News Association (RTDNA) told the Washington Post, “It’s important to show (the hurricane) in factual and vivid terms so people understand just what they are up against.” But Shelley’s declaration is exactly what John Selden would have a problem with. That’s because as the TV reporter is fighting off hurricane winds and wading through dangerously swollen creeks, he’s telling viewers to stay inside, i.e., “Do as I say and not as I do.”
 
 

Someone asked me the other day what was to blame for the ills of society, and I answered, “social media.” For one thing, not since the American Civil War has there been such divisiveness in this country, and most of it stems from the free flow of vitriolic misinformation and the charlatans who spew it on various blogs and websites. But social media platforms have also made it easier for all types of criminals to operate. Some are hackers, some are con men, and some are child predators, the latter of whom are often protected by people who hardly ever use social media, but probably should. First, the good news.

Last week President Biden signed a law that will remove the federal statute of limitations on civil suits brought by survivors of child sex abuse. That means men and women who had been reluctant to report their childhood abuse, can come forward at any age and any time, to seek justice. This is welcome news to the untold hundreds of thousands of children who are sexually abused every year in this country. Of course, it’s difficult to know exactly how many children are sexually abused, mainly because most abuse goes unreported. And that brings me to a shameful loophole in the law that exempts clergy from reporting incidents of child sex abuse that they learn about from predators during confession.  

Currently, 33 states allow this heinous exemption. Fortunately, North Carolina is not one of them. Our statutes require “[…any] person or institution who has cause to suspect that any juvenile is abused or has died as a result of maltreatment, to make a report to the county department of social services where the child resides, or is found.” The only exception to the law is granted to attorneys under limited circumstances. However, the statute makes it clear that no one else is exempt: “All other recognized privileges such as clergy…are explicitly excluded as a ground for the person’s failure to report.”  

Here in North Carolina, a member of the clergy who fails to report child sex abuse is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor, which carries a sentence of up to six months in prison and a fine to be determined by the Court. I suppose we should be grateful that our state lawmakers don’t entirely turn their backs on victims, but six months is not much of a punishment for shielding a dangerous predator.  

Among the 33 states that exempt clergy from having to report incidents of child sex abuse, several legislatures have recently undertaken efforts to close that loophole. Unfortunately, those efforts have failed. In Utah, for example, HB90 was defeated in large part because the Catholic church and Mormon leaders banded together and lobbied hard to preserve the sanctity of the confessional. Abused children be damned. 

If legislators in those 33 states are too weak to move against church leaders, then perhaps Biden could enact an Executive Order that would close the loophole under federal law. Until then, North Carolina lawmakers at least need to up the ante on punishment for clergy who protect child sex offenders. Such an offense deserves to be a felony, not a misdemeanor. In fact, given that clergy silence has allowed sexual predators to roam free and commit more crimes, we should charge those misguided men of the cloth with aiding and abetting.

I respect the sanctity of the confessional, and I’m all for keeping confidences when it comes to transgressions that don’t hurt other people. But if a predator confesses to his priest that he sexually molests children, then that priest is obligated to protect the victims, and prevent further abuses in the future. Any clergy who does otherwise is not fit to wear a collar.
 
 

Anyone who is a student of history or has ever been on a high school debating team knows that today’s televised candidate debates are not really debates. Whereas academic debate formats focus on one issue and allow participants to develop thoughtful responses, televised debates force candidates to address numerous issues in a race against the clock. In-depth discussion among candidates is a dead art and a thing of the past, and that’s too bad. I would love to have been around for the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858. That year, Lincoln was running against Democrat incumbent Senator Stephen Douglas, and each debate ran about three hours. That meant when honest Abe stood up to speak, he could talk for a full hour on the evils of slavery without being interrupted. Compare that with today’s televised debates in which candidates are forced to give short, soundbite answers to “gotcha” questions posed by journalists who love to hear themselves talk.

The first nationally televised presidential debate was in 1960 between Vice President Richard Nixon and Senator John Kennedy, and while it was more dignified than the Donald Trump-Hillary Clinton circus of 2016 (who can ever forget Trump inviting Bill Clinton’s alleged rape victims to sit in the audience?), it still ushered in an era in which TV debates were more about avoiding mistakes than engaging in positive discourse. JFK prepared for the match-up by getting a suntan and plenty of rest, while Nixon suffered through a knee injury, refused to wear make-up, and showed up looking pale and pasty with a five o’clock shadow. Americans who listened to the debate on radio thought Nixon scored the most points, but those who watched on TV said the more photogenic Kennedy won. The young Senator went on to win a narrow victory on Election Day, but it would be 16 more years before any major party candidates risked looking bad on TV.

Reagan made Jimmy Carter look bad in 1980 when he posed the question to viewers: “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” (they weren’t). And he responded to Carter’s criticisms by saying, “There you go again.” Four years later the master communicator buried Walter Mondale by making a joke about the former Vice President’s “youth and inexperience.” In 1992, George H.W. Bush made the mistake of looking at his watch and appearing bored and disinterested. And in 2012, Obama made Mitt Romney look silly when Romney said, “The Navy is smaller now than in any time since 1917,” to which Obama replied, “Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military has changed.” One could argue that candidates like JFK, Reagan, and Obama won their elections because they made their opponents look bad on television, therefore, debates serve a legitimate purpose. But most political pundits agree that TV debates very rarely change anyone’s mind.

Over time, TV debates have become an election year staple, but not just for presidential candidates. Those running for the House, Senate, and governor’s office have increasingly appeared on various local and statewide broadcast debate stages. Lately, however, there’s been more debate about debates than there have been actual debates. Here in North Carolina, Congressman Ted Budd recently made news when he refused to participate in a debate to be sponsored by the NC Association of Broadcasters. Budd’s critics tried to make a big deal of the NCAB snub, but if they thought he was afraid to debate or answer questions, they were badly mistaken. In fact, Ted has appeared on my Triad Today TV show numerous times, including a heated debate with then-opponent Kathy Manning. And later this week, he will face off against Cheri Beasley in a televised debate hosted by Spectrum News. Again, though, it’s unlikely that anything Budd or Beasley says at the Spectrum debate will result in anyone changing parties. Nor is it likely that a disproportionate number of undecided voters will gravitate to one candidate over another as a result of the debate. Perhaps things would be different if televised debates were real debates, with candidates having more time to speak, and with more camaraderie and less vitriol.

We almost had that leading up to the 1964 election. In 1963, President Kennedy and his friend Barry Goldwater (the presumptive GOP nominee in ’64) planned a joint whistle-stop tour in which the two rivals would ride the train together, and at each stop, stand out on the platform and hold an informal debate for the gathered crowd. It would have been a wondrous sight to see, but Kennedy’s life was cut short before he and Goldwater could realize their dream of a bi-partisan train trip. I wish candidates today would participate in whistle-stop debates, but I fear that will never happen. After all, who would operate the buzzer every time someone goes over his allotted 30 seconds?
 
 

Many years ago while visiting London, my wife Pam stepped off the curb and was almost run over by Prince Andrew’s car. Had she been underage perhaps Andrew would have stopped, but instead he just waved at her as he drove past. I too once had a brush with the royal family, and while it wasn’t life-threatening, it was life-altering. First, a few paragraphs to set the scene.

After working at various TV stations for ten years, I started a television production company in 1980 which allowed me to develop and distribute my own programs. The first couple of years, however, were lean ones, so I accepted freelance work from network broadcasters to keep the company afloat. CNN had just signed on the air and was always looking for news content, so I soon became a regular supplier of feature stories. Sometime during the last week of April 1981, I got a call from CNN to see if my crew could shoot video footage during Prince Charles’ upcoming visit to Colonial Williamsburg. Naturally, I said yes and began making plans to cover the big event.

Charles was to make a four-day swing through the east coast with stops in New York City, Washington, D.C., Norfolk (to inspect the USS Nimitz), and then on to Williamsburg, where he was scheduled to tour the Colonial Capitol and Governor’s Palace, and receive an honorary fellowship from the College of William and Mary. It may be hard to fathom now, but back then Charles was the world’s most eligible bachelor and a rock star of major proportions. Girls screamed at the Prince as he walked past Chandler Hall, where they displayed a hastily made banner that said “Hi Charlie!” It was as if the Beatles had come to town. They would have their hearts broken less than three months later, however, when Charles married Diana, but for that moment, he belonged to the screaming co-eds of William & Mary.

Unlike my other assignments for CNN in which I would write and narrate my own stories, on this day we were only responsible for shooting footage and assisting Kathleen Sullivan who would produce the package and appear on camera. Sullivan was the first female anchor hired by CNN, and one of the most stunningly beautiful women I had ever met. She was also a pretty good journalist, so I had no ego problems with playing a supporting role that day. Speaking of which, that day was Sunday, May 3. The weather was perfect for a royal visit, and for shooting video.

Back then the industry standard for recording video in the field was a 3/4 inch Sony U-matic cassette. Normally after shooting a story for CNN, we would hustle back to our offices in Petersburg to tape my voice-over and edit the package. There was no internet then, thus no way of emailing a video file. Instead, I had to take the finished tape to the airport and put it on the next flight to Atlanta. I always saved the raw tapes, and, for safety’s sake kept a dub (copy) of the completed package. Here’s where all this dull technical jargon begins to connect to what went wrong with my royal encounter.

For this assignment, neither I nor Kathleen would have to worry about putting tapes on a plane to Atlanta because she planned to drive to the CNN bureau in D.C. and have everything edited there. Since there would be no time to make dubs of everything in the field, I asked Kathleen to make sure she returned the raw tapes to me after the story was edited. She understood that our footage would have some historical importance, so she agreed to my request. Meanwhile, since Kathleen was acting as talent, it freed me up to take still photos of the occasion, so I strapped a 35mm camera around my neck and started snapping pictures as we followed Charles and Virginia Governor John Dalton around Colonial Williamsburg. Toward the end of the tour, the two men were about to enter the Colonial Capitol, and I had a chance at immortality.

Throughout the day, Charles had granted no interviews, nor posed for individual TV stations or networks, but I had an ace up my sleeve. I had worked with Gov. Dalton on a number of video assignments, and he was always obliging to me, so while all other photojournalists could only see the backs of the two men, I shouted out to Dalton, “Governor, turn him around for me”. Dalton complied, and now not only would I have some great video of Charles, but I would also be able to snap a potential Pulitzer Prize-winning photo destined for the cover of TIME magazine. I clicked off several shots, then Dalton and Charles turned back around and headed into the Capitol. My assignment had ended, and I was on cloud nine. I handed the video tapes over to Kathleen and reminded her to make sure no one at the D.C. bureau erased them before she could mail them back to me. She told me not to worry, and I trusted her because, after all, she was an anchorperson, and TV anchors are trustworthy.

Back at our office I realized that, during the day, I had tried to take about 50 photos on a roll of film that only had 24 exposures. In other words, I hadn’t kept track of how many times the shutter clicked, and so there were no photos of Prince Charles on that roll. So much for my Pulitzer Prize, but at least I would be able to relive that historic day once Kathleen mailed our raw tapes back to me. I called her the next day to make sure she had my correct address, and that’s when she told me the tapes had gotten lost and she didn’t know where they were. It was the last time I ever spoke to Kathleen Sullivan, and the last time I ever attempted to pose as a still photographer. 

Today my wife has a beautiful Wedgwood plate on display in our house, which has a personal inscription from The Duchess of York, whose husband had once tried to kill Pam. But nowhere in our house is a photo or video of England’s new king, who I once spent the day with. I feel badly about this entire incident, so perhaps Camilla will send me a plate to ease my pain. Long live the King, and to hell with Kathleen Sullivan.
 
 

Thanks to Judge Beryl Howell, we now know more about what was in the FBI search warrant served on Senator Richard Burr than we knew one year ago. That’s because on August 29, Howell ordered the Justice Department to release a less-redacted version of FBI agent Brandon Merriman’s warrant which allowed the agency to seize Burr’s cellphone. And what did Agent Merriman conclude after examining Burr’s phone and reviewing other information associated with the stock trade investigation? This statement was in his report: 

“I believe probable cause exists that Senator Burr used material, non-public information regarding the impact that COVID-19 would have on the economy, and that he gained that information by virtue of his position as a member of Congress.”

So why in heaven’s name wasn’t Burr formally charged with insider trading? Because federal investigators chose to accept Burr’s lame (and multiple) explanations of his sudden wealth. Burr’s initial statement in March of 2020 was that his decision to suddenly dump stocks was based on “CNBC’s daily health and science reporting out of its Asia bureaus.” But later when the FBI questioned him, Burr changed his story. According to the Winston-Salem Journal, we now know about his revised tale from the newly unredacted search warrant.

“Senator Burr explained that he was uncomfortable with a lot of things in the market…Burr discussed the fact that there has been a long bull market and that it was due for a correction…he also said that the surge of Bernie Sanders in the Democratic party’s nomination process was a risk to the market.” 

So, I guess Richard Burr had a crystal ball that no one else had, AND he was afraid that his investments would be devalued if Bernie Sanders snagged the Democratic nomination. Or maybe he just happened to watch CNBC’s Asian-based reporters after receiving classified briefings on COVID. If you believe any of that, then I have some swamp land I’d like to sell you. A simple review of the timeline suggests that Merriman’s conclusion about Burr’s stock trades is right on the money (pardon the expression). 

In January 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci briefed Burr about the seriousness of the spreading COVID-19 virus. Then, according to Reuters, three days later Burr, as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, began receiving daily COVID updates, and on January 31, he received a series of voicemails and text messages, which the Journal reported came from “an individual whose identity remains redacted.” Four hours later Burr, his wife, and her brother began to sell off stocks. During one eleven-minute period on February 13, the Burrs engaged in a flurry of stock trades which, by some estimates, netted them over a million dollars. Many of the stocks Burr unloaded were from the hospitality industry which he knew from private briefings would likely tank in a pandemic. It is important to note that just four hours after the Burrs completed their trading, U.S. Secretary of Health Alex Azar declared a national public health emergency because of COVID.     

Burr’s suspicious stock trades should come as no surprise to us. In fact, we should have known this was coming as far back as 2012 when he was one of only two senators who voted against the Stock Act. That act makes it illegal for any member of Congress to profit financially from proprietary information. Nevertheless, violations of the Stock Act are difficult to prove, as we have learned from Burr’s pandemic plunder. Richard Burr’s propensity for meteoric wealth building is also nothing new. Based on a report from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, when Burr entered Congress in 1994 his net worth was under $190,000. But, according to OpenSecrets.org, by 2018 Burr was worth over $7.4 million dollars. That’s an increase of 3,600 percent at a time when the income of average Americans rose by less than one percent. 

Over the years there have been proposals to augment the Stock Act. Elizabeth Warren, for example, has lobbied unsuccessfully to ban legislators from even trading stocks while in office. And earlier this year, a number of Democratic congressmen and senators attempted in vain to pass legislation that would have required their colleagues to put their portfolios in a blind trust. But if guys like Burr can slither out of violating the Stock Act, then they could do the same with any subsequent laws.

I can’t help but think of Martha Stewart, who in 2001, made a stock trade based on information from her broker’s assistant that the price of ImClone shares would probably decline because its CEO was about to retire. Martha dumped her ImClone stocks in order to avoid a loss that would have amounted to $45,000. For that, Stewart was convicted of obstruction, spent five months in federal prison, was given two years of supervised release, and had to wear an ankle monitor for five months. Moreover, her transactions had no bearing on the health of millions of Americans. The recently unredacted FBI warrants on Richard Burr is a hollow victory for transparency because the soon-to-be-retired Senator wasn’t held to account for the fortune he allegedly made from insider trading. Martha Stewart must be wondering why.
 
 

Last month, President Biden announced his plan to forgive a portion of student loan debt, and offer relief for some 45 million borrowers, over one million of who reside in North Carolina. Here’s how it works: If you took out a federal student loan, and you earn less than $125,000 per year (or less than $250,000 as a married couple), you could be eligible to have 10% of your debt forgiven. If you have a student loan and also received a Pell Grant through the Department of Education, you could get up to $20,000 of your debt forgiven (note that according to the White House, nearly all Pell Grant recipients come from families who earn less than $60,000 per year). It is an admirable initiative to be sure, but one that is fraught with questions about its legality, political motives, economic viability, and fairness.

FAIRNESS

First of all, is Biden’s plan fair? Right-winger Reed Rubinstein, director of oversight and investigations for the America First Legal Foundation told TIME, “This is such a slap in the face to everybody who did what they were supposed to do.” Translation? Millions of students honored the terms of their loans and worked hard to pay them back, and they are not eligible for one red cent of relief. “It’s also not fair to the untold number of Americans who never went to college,” said Alfredo Ortiz, CEO of the Job Creators Network. Moreover, if you took out a private loan, the Biden plan won’t help you either. One could also argue that it’s not fair to all of us taxpayers who expected to be repaid with interest for every dollar we loaned these students. Speaking of taxpayers, the student loan forgiveness program has one catch: recipients of relief must count the amount of debt forgiven as personal income. That means about 27 million low-income students could be on the hook to pay taxes on $20,000 of income. It doesn’t seem fair, but it’s a harsh reality and one that was best explained in a classic scene from Leave it to Beaver.

Beaver: So Wally, you’re really gonna make $10 a day?
Wally: Sure, and they’re gonna take withholding out of it.
Beaver: What’s withholding?
Wally: That’s money they take out of your salary to run the government with.
Beaver: Gee, I didn’t know they took money away from kids to run the government.
Wally: Sure, even if you’re a little baby and you have some money, they’ll come and take it away from you.

POLITICAL MOTIVES

In 2020, Joe Biden campaigned on how we needed to help students saddled with college debt. At that time, education debt topped $1.7 trillion dollars. But while debt was high, talk was cheap. During his first week in office, the President signed a record number of executive orders about everything but, you guessed it, student debt. Biden, who had spent most of his adult life in and around the Capitol, hinted that he needed Congressional support to enact a meaningful student debt forgiveness program, so he did nothing for two years. Then suddenly a little more than two months before the midterm elections, he announced his bold plan. There’s nothing like coming to the rescue of 40 million voters to motivate a politician.

ECONOMIC VIABILITY

Not everyone is a fan of Biden’s rescue plan for students. Alfredo Ortiz commented to TIME that, “A student loan bailout will further exacerbate inflation, increase the deficit, and lead to higher taxes.”

It begs the question, should Biden’s program be put on hold until inflation is under control? The answer would seem to be yes.

LEGALITY

President Biden is relying on the 2003 HEROES Act for the legal authority to launch his student loan forgiveness program. The Act gives the Secretary of Education authority to “change student financial assistance programs during a war or national emergency.” In this case, Biden claims the pandemic and its aftermath qualify as a national emergency. But critics like Third Way’s Vice President Lanae Erickson disagree. “It’s on shaky legal ground,” he told TIME’s Brian Bennett. 

Biden’s program is supposed to start in January, but anyone expecting to receive loan relief then may be disappointed if legal challenges ensue. Nevertheless, regardless of the pitfalls, controversies, and potential delays associated with Biden’s loan forgiveness program, the White House recommends that qualified borrowers visit www.StudentAid.gov/debtrelief to apply. Or, if you’re skeptical you can visit its companion website, www.ImFromTheGovtAndImHereToHelp.com.

 
 

Lawyers and police officers are supposed to know, enforce, and obey the laws. Here in North Carolina, Attorney General Josh Stein is both the state’s top cop and top lawyer, therefore, he, more than anyone, should be held accountable if he breaks the law. Instead, Stein is now trying to slither out of prosecution by arguing that the law he broke is unconstitutional. And it’s not a brand new law that he was unaware of. It is a state law that dates back to 1931. So why is Stein just now trying to get it changed? BECAUSE HE BROKE IT! That’s why.

The saga began in 2020 when Stein was running against long-time Forsyth County district attorney Jim O’Neill. That year, one of the hot campaign issues was the backlog of unprocessed rape kits on the local and state levels. Both sides exploited the issue for political purposes, but Stein crossed the line with a TV ad that accused O’Neill’s office of having “left 1,500 rape kits sitting on the shelf,” the implication being 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 claimed that Stein broke a 1931 law that “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” (source AP). Violators of the law would pay a fine and could spend up to 60 days in jail. 

Not surprisingly, a Wake County grand jury recently found that Stein should be indicted. But the very next day, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2 to 1, to override the grand jury, essentially preventing the law from being enforced until Stein’s team had time to try and prove that the law as written is unconstitutional. The panel is comprised of two Democratic judges and one Republican judge. The two Democrats sided with Stein, who is also a Democrat. So much for justice being blind. In their ruling, the two Democrat judges said that Stein’s TV ad was protected as free speech, thus his challenge to the 1931 law would likely succeed. Their decision will have the effect of running out the clock on O’Neill’s team because the statute of limitations expires next year.

In her dissenting opinion, the lone Republican judge on the panel wrote, “Stein’s campaign, the ad production company, and the woman who appeared in the ad, haven’t shown they are entitled to this extraordinary relief…the State will forever lose its opportunity to enforce the law if the grand jury proceedings are stopped.”

Clearly the dissenting judge doesn’t believe that free speech under the First Amendment protects lying and defaming, and I agree. But the sad truth is if we start enforcing the 1931 law every time a candidate lies in an ad, then the jails would be overflowing with politicians.

And so, boys and girls, the civics lesson we can all take from this story is very clear. The next time the police stop you for driving 80 mph in a 35 mph zone, just tell the judge he can’t fine you or take away your license because you and your attorneys are working to have the speed limit changed to 85 mph. Tell him Josh Stein said it’s OK.

 
 

In the summer of 1970, I was the public address announcer for Ernie Shore Field. It was a dream job for a high school kid who loved baseball because I got to be around and get to know all of the players on what was then the Winston-Salem Red Sox. That year the Sox won the Carolina League championship, and during every home game, I occupied a seat in the press box next to the legendary sports journalist Frank Spencer. Actually, it wasn’t much of a press box. What it was, was a small, rickety wooden shack that sat atop the stadium, and legend has it that sometime after my tenure, a strong wind blew the shack off its perch, and onto the ground below. Years later the Sox became the DASH and moved into a new stadium overlooking I-40. Ernie Shore Field, meanwhile, was renovated and became the home of Wake Forest University baseball. I mention all of this because I know a little something about why stadiums sometimes need to be upgraded, and because last week we learned that Major League Baseball (MLB) gave the DASH an ultimatum: either spend $5 million dollars to renovate Truist Field or else lose the franchise.

Keep in mind that, unlike Ernie Shore Field, which was built in the dark ages, the new DASH stadium didn’t open until 2010, so there’s no rickety press shack to replace. In fact, the twelve-year-old facility is in great shape, but MLB likes to throw its weight around these days, and given the number of minor league teams it has already closed down, the City of Winston-Salem has no choice but to comply.

So exactly what improvements is MLB demanding to be made? For one, the league wants clubhouse areas to be renovated for both home and visiting teams. The Winston-Salem Journal also reports that MLB wants improvements made to laundry and commissary areas, plus private locker rooms for female staff, coaches and umpires. They also want a second hitting and pitching tunnel that is protected from the elements, along with changes to the field, including adjusting the bullpen mounds, and a higher wall in the right field corner. No doubt the improvements will be a welcome sight to players and coaches, and they will increase the value of the stadium. But the improvements are not essential, nor will they enhance the fan experience. Speaking of fans, they’re the ones paying for the renovation, and that leads me to an insulting sticking point about this saga.

The $5 million dollars worth of upgrades to Truist stadium are being paid for through limited obligation bonds, which means the expenditure doesn’t have to be approved by voters. So much for democracy and transparency. And this isn’t the first time local taxpayers have been railroaded because of the same baseball park. Years ago, residents got stuck with paying $48 million dollars for construction of the stadium after private developers walked away from the project before it was completed. In a perfect world, the DASH stadium should have been built with private money, as was the beautiful Greensboro Grasshopper’s facility. In a perfect world, residents of Winston-Salem should have had a say about cost overruns and projected renovations from the get-go. But we don’t live in a perfect world. We live in a world where a greedy baseball league can bully, threaten, and extort our elected officials, and where residents have to pony up another cut of their meager wages, or else face having to maintain a vacated facility.

Fifty-two years ago, Winston-Salem’s minor league baseball team played in a well-worn stadium with smelly old locker rooms and no fancy area for pitchers to warm up in. And 52 years ago, I announced the proceedings from inside a rickety wooden press shack that teetered high atop the stands. Yet somehow a record number of fans attended our games, and the team brought home a championship trophy. Major League Baseball didn’t threaten us back then, and nobody worried about obligation bonds. Now as then, baseball owners depend upon cities like Winston-Salem to nurture future stars that will help keep big league coffers overflowing. In that sense, we’re more important to their bottom line than they are to ours. It’s something to think about the next time we receive an ultimatum from a bunch of rich guys.