Triad Today

Earlier this month, just as Congress was about to convene hearings on how former President Donald Trump planned and attempted a coup, another president was proudly announcing that a Trump ally would lead his university’s new law school. That proud president is High Point University’s Nido Qubein, and his pick to take the reins of a new law school is none other than former State Supreme Court Chief justice Mark Martin. Qubein’s announcement couldn’t have been more poorly timed, and his choice of Martin couldn’t have been more inappropriate, because Martin was allegedly actively involved in helping Trump overturn a legal election and subvert the Constitution.

Both the Washington Post and New York Times stand by their stories that Martin joined the seditious Trump bandwagon early on, first by co-authoring legal briefs to help five states spread the Big Lie and seek to overturn the 2020 election, then by allegedly advising Trump himself that Vice President Pence could refuse to certify Biden electors when Congress convened on January 6.

The Charlotte Observer spoke with several legal experts who said that Martin’s actions on Trump’s behalf “undermined faith in the country’s elections, weakened its constitutional democracy, and set the stage for the January 6 mob assault on the Capitol.”

And Duke law professor Jim Coleman told the Virginian Pilot, “I think it’s quite damaging to have a former chief justice of the NC Supreme Court being associated with these positions. It calls into question how he (Martin) and perhaps others approach the law – not based on principle, but based on the result you want to achieve politically.”

The Virginian Pilot also spoke with Norm Eisen, an expert on law and ethics at the Brookings Institution, and Eisen’s rebuke of Martin was even more severe. Said Eisen, “ All the lawyers who whipped up Trump’s followers into a frenzy based on the completely baseless belief that the election had been stolen, must bear a share of the responsibility for what happened on January 6.”

Martin’s defenders say that because of attorney/client privilege, he can’t comment on his involvement with, or his advice about Trump’s attempted coup. Hogwash. Every first-year law school student knows that there is a “Crime-Fraud Exception” to privilege, which states that the exception can apply if the client is trying to further a crime, or is in the process of committing a crime. We now know from the Congressional hearings that Trump was fully advised by his own people that his subversive schemes were illegal, yet he continued to pursue a seven-point plan to overturn the election. For Martin to play any role in helping to advance Trump’s plan doesn’t make him a counselor, it makes him an accomplice.

But perhaps the most disturbing thing about Martin’s involvement in advancing the Big Lie, is just how close Trump came to staging a successful coup, and doing permanent damage to our democracy. Just imagine what kind of country this would be if Mike Pence had decided to follow Martin’s alleged advice, and reject Biden’s electors on January 6.  I shudder to think.

HPU’s law school can’t open without first gaining approval from the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, and, given all we know about Martin’s alleged involvement with Trump’s attempted coup, SACS should hold off on approving Qubein’s new law school until more information is forthcoming. After all, it wouldn’t be appropriate for someone to teach students about laws that he allegedly broke.

The Forsyth County Republican Men’s Club and Conservative Women of Forsyth County recently threatened to stage a protest during Bookmarks Drag Queen Story Time event, in which “Anna Yacht” was scheduled to read to children ages 3 to 7. Ken Raymond, chairman of the Forsyth Republican party explained the rationale behind such protests, telling the Winston-Salem Journal’s Katelyn Oglesby, “Drag Queen Story Time is a tactic of militant gay leftists trying to separate children from their parents in order to indoctrinate them.”

Before I attempt to unpack Mr. Raymond’s theory, it might be helpful to understand that people of all ages, both conservative and liberal, have, for centuries, been entertained by men dressed up as women. In Shakespeare’s time, for example, only men were allowed to perform on stage, so when rowdy Globe Theatre audiences saw a “woman” enter from the wings, they knew that “she” was actually an actor dressed as a woman. It is also believed that the term “drag” derived from how Globe actors had to drag their long dresses across the stage. Later, even as women were allowed to perform on stage, many male comedians made a living by wearing women’s clothing. In fact, those early vaudeville comics inspired the first King of television, Milton Berle, whose most popular character was that of a flamboyant female singer. Such cross-dressing performances continued as a staple of TV and motion picture comedies, with superstars like Cary Grant, Tony Curtis, and Jack Lemmon making audiences howl over their gender-bending antics. In the latter half of the 20th century, Divine was the poster “girl” for the drag queen movement, and in recent years, RuPaul has turned drag into a media phenomenon and helped to spur widespread interest in local drag queen events. Those include storytelling activities at public libraries and public schools, and that brings me back to the Bookmarks protest.

First, I don’t agree that “militant gay leftists” are trying to separate children from their parents, at least not at Bookmarks. After all, there aren’t too many kids ages 3 to 7 who can drive themselves to a Drag Queen Story Time event. Moms and Dads who see such events as family-friendly, willingly allow their children to be exposed to the messages of tolerance being taught by drag queens. But that doesn’t seem to matter to legislators in Texas, Florida, and Arizona, who have recently introduced bills to prevent minors from attending drag events of any kind, which they describe as “inappropriate sexual content” for the children present. Nevertheless, it should be up to the parent to determine what is and isn’t appropriate content for his or her child, and in that regard, the aforementioned proposed laws seem to discount parental rights. However, just as some parents fight against state laws that censor content, others have the right to do the opposite, that is, to fight for the right to protect their child from certain content. And that brings me to Drag Queen Story Time events at public schools.

Between January and May of this year, New York City public school officials have paid the Drag Story Hour company over $200,000 to conduct 49 reading sessions at 34 different schools, most of them at the elementary level, and all of them without parental consent.

Some NYC residents are concerned over the amount of taxpayer dollars being spent for Drag Queen events, while parents are livid over having no advance warning or input about the events themselves. The tipping point seemed to be a reading session back in April at a school in Manhattan in which “Harmonica Sunbeam” encouraged kids to choose their pronouns and invent drag names for themselves. Speaking with the New York Post, City Councilwoman Vickie Paladino said: 

“We are taking hundreds of thousands of dollars out of the pockets of hardworking New York taxpayers to fund a program teaching little children about their gender fluidity? Not on my watch.”

There are also complaints from parents about more than just content and messaging, mainly involving scantily clad folks at Pride events in which drag queens happened to participate. Those associations have served to conflate various concerns and controversies surrounding story time activities, and fuel the rhetoric about the “militant gay leftist” agenda. Forsyth GOP Chairman Ken Raymond referred to Drag Queen Story Time as “perversion”, and based that on his having watched a video in which children were allowed to put dollar bills down the G-strings of drag queens. And recently a London library had to apologize when a drag queen showed up at a summer reading event wearing a “Rainbow Dildo Butt Monkey” costume.

Obviously, drag queens should never wear obscene costumes around little children, nor should they encourage kids to engage in well-meaning, gender-related learning activities without first obtaining parental permission. Aside from that, parents who wish to bring their offspring to a story time event should be allowed to do so without interference from legislators or political protesters.

Just as with murder and other heinous crimes, I suppose that sexual abuse of children has probably gone on since the beginning of time. But there is also evidence to suggest that such abuse was institutionally committed and protected at least as far back as the 11th century. In 1051, Peter Damian, a Benedictine monk published Liber Gomorrhianus, in which he detailed sexual abuses of minors by Catholic clergy. We also know that such practices were common throughout history, including those reported by Martin Luther in 1531. In his book Out of the Storm: the Life and Legacy of Martin Luther, author Derek Wilson recounted Luther’s report about how Pope Leo X refused to restrict the number of boys that priests could keep for pleasure. Leo was also determined to keep this institutionalized sodomy from public scrutiny, a practice that many of his predecessors successfully continued until an inordinate number of victims began to come forward in this century. 

According to a study by John Jay College of Criminal Justice, between 1950 and 2002, no less than 4,392 active priests and deacons were accused of sexual abuse by 10,667 victims. But the number of reported abuses kept growing with each passing year. According to records of the Holy See, in 2014, Silvano Maria Tomasi testified before a committee of the United Nations, reporting that between 2004 and 2014 alone, the church investigated 3,420 cases of sexual abuse of minors, resulting in 884 priests being demoted to lay positions. Three years later Pope Francis admitted the problem was so vast that the Vatican had a backlog of more than 2,000 cases of sex abuse by priests that needed to be investigated.

Just as the Catholic Church was finally having to deal with these horrific crimes and start to compensate victims, so too was the Boy Scouts of America, whose leadership had, for decades, kept the names of child sex abusers hidden from public view. In 2019, ABC News reported that as many as 12,254 boy scouts had been sexually abused by 7,819 troop leaders and volunteers. Then in 2021, NBC News reported that a total of 84,000 former boy scouts had joined a lawsuit against BSA, resulting in a settlement of $850 million dollars. 

Some news pundits wondered if scouting would survive the scandal, and if the Catholic Church was serious about transparency and reforms. Meanwhile, others of us hoped that the worst of these abuses and cover-ups was behind us. Then last month, the Associated Press published excerpts from a 288-page report by Guidepost Solutions, which claimed that two Southern Baptist Convention leaders (now retired) had maintained a secret list of “hundreds of pastors and other church-affiliated personnel who had been accused of sexual abuse.” SBC interim president Willie McLaurin immediately issued a public apology, saying, “We are sorry to the survivors for all we have done to cause pain and frustration. Now is the time to change the culture. We have to be proactive in our openness and transparency from now.”

McLaurin’s apology is a good first step, but we also need to bring to justice those who committed the abuses as well as those who covered them up. Meanwhile, no one knows for sure how many minors have been sexually molested by SBC employees, Scout leaders, or priests because not every victim reports the crime, plus, the number of those who do come forward is growing daily. What we do know, however, is that, according to the CDC, 91% of child sexual abuse is committed by someone who is known to and trusted by the child or the child’s family. The question now is, will victims ever again come to trust the institutions that caused them so much pain, and are those institutions serious about reforms that could help to rebuild that trust? I hope the answer to that question is “Yes.”

Artwork from The Partially Examined Life podcast

In 1787, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison penned a collection of essays that were published in what has since become known as “The Federalist Papers”. The focus of their essays was primarily to promote ratification of the Constitution, but some of what they wrote also served as a road map for how citizens could stay engaged in government and governance. For example, in Federalist #49, Madison wrote:

“As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter is derived, it seems strictly consonant to the republican theory to recur to the same original authority…whenever it may be necessary to enlarge, diminish, or new model the powers of government.”

One could interpret Madison’s statement as referring to the need for legislators and voters to amend the United States Constitution as needed, but, in a sense, I believe he was also foreshadowing the need for enacting local reforms and funding mechanisms, such as when, in 1949, North Carolina voters overwhelmingly approved a school construction bond 69% to 31%, or in 1996 when we passed a $1.8 billion dollar bond that would improve public school infrastructure. Then there was the Connect NC economic development bond in 2016, in which voters approved spending $2 billion dollars, much of which went for improving community college campuses. But for the most part, it has been up to voters in each county to decide when and how we should float bonds and spend taxpayer dollars on local school projects. And that brings me to last month’s school bond referendum, in which Guilford County residents voted to spend $1.7 billion dollars on school construction and maintenance projects.

The Guilford measure passed 61% to 39%, so obviously, county residents believed it was time to spend money on schools. But on election day, those same voters rejected a quarter cent increase in sales tax by a margin of 55% to 45%. Here’s where it gets confusing. In fact, I think James Madison would be scratching his head at the incongruity of those results. That’s because what Guilford voters didn’t seem to realize is that an increase in sales taxes would help us retire the debt on the bond that they just approved. Instead, county commissioners are having to set aside $50 million dollars of the next budget to help pay for the $1.7 billion dollar bond, AND much of that money will come from a hike in the property tax rate.

The ironic thing about voters approving the school bond, but not the rise in sales tax, is that the latter not only would help pay for the former, but levying taxes on the sale of goods is the most equitable revenue-producing system that we have. For example, if I can afford to buy a new lawnmower, and you can afford to buy a yacht, then we both pay sales tax at the same rate. The sales tax on my new lawnmower might be $20 and the sales tax on your new yacht might be $20,000. But if property tax rates go up and I’m struggling to make ends meet, I may not have enough money to pay the increase, much less buy my new lawnmower.

There are those who believe that Guilford County Commissioners will try and put the sales tax issue back on the ballot in November, but unless they do a better job of educating voters about the benefits of raising the sales tax rate versus raising property taxes, then as likely as not, the outcome of that referendum will be the same as the one before.

For the past 20 years, I’ve been calling for all schools to have armed officers with metal-detecting wands placed at every entrance, but I’m always told by politicians that my plan is impractical and would be too expensive. Yet less than a week after Congress allocated $40 billion, unbudgeted, to stop the carnage in Ukraine, we had carnage here at home, and once again, it occurred in a classroom.

What happened in Uvalde, Texas on May 24 was horrific.

After shooting his own grandmother, an 18-year-old male shot and killed 19 little children and two teachers at Robb Elementary School. We don’t know his motivation because he is no longer alive to tell us. We don’t know how long he had been planning to purchase two assault-style rifles. We don’t know if he had threatened violence before, or if he was making some sort of political statement. There is a lot about this tragic incident that we might never know. But we know what he did, and we know who he did it to, and that should be enough for our elected officials to finally take action. History tells us they won’t. They didn’t take action after Columbine or Sandy Hook, or Parkland, so why expect them to act differently now. Sure, there will be plenty of “thoughts and prayers” offered, but politicians aren’t likely to do anything now that will make thoughts and prayers unnecessary in the future.

Our kids used to have fire drills at school, now they have shooter drills. But, drills don’t prevent violence, they only react to it. Yes, we need tougher gun laws, including thorough background checks and a higher minimum age for purchasing those guns. Yes, we need more comprehensive mental health screenings and better inter-jurisdictional communication among law enforcement agencies. And yes, we need to put parents in prison who make guns readily available to their kids. But even if you outlawed the sale of all guns, keep in mind that there are already more guns in circulation than there are people in this country. Translation? Most anyone can get his hands on most any kind of gun. Regardless, reforms of any kind take time, so what we need right now is better school security.

Sure, I understand that my solution will cost a fortune, and it isn’t 100% foolproof. After all, armed officers stationed inside of a building can’t always stop shootings that occur outside of school buildings, but they can at least be in position to neutralize shooters quicker in those instances. Believe me, I’ve heard all of the arguments on the left and the right as to why more police and metal detectors aren’t the answer. But do we really want to tell parents at Sandy Hook, Parkland, and Robb elementary that school security costs too much money? We are the wealthiest nation in the world, yet it seems that our local, state, and federal governments have funds for everything except school security and that just makes no sense. It’s also sadly ironic that our elected officials love to argue about the sanctity of life before birth and then ignore the sanctity of life after birth.

A law enforcement official once told me that schools are like small communities, and that the children who comprise those communities deserve all of the same protections afforded any other community. Unfortunately, that’s not the case here in America, and now 19 more children are dead. But hey, school security would cost too much, wouldn’t it? Better to just do nothing and bury our heads in the sand. That’s what we’re good at. We’re also good at burying children. Too bad we can’t stop doing the former in order to stop having to do the latter.

During the final battle in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, Klingon General Chang incessantly quotes Shakespeare while Spock and Dr. McCoy try frantically to prepare a torpedo that will put the chatty villain out of his misery. “I’d give real money if he’d shut up,” said McCoy. And so, even centuries into the future, we humans are willing to pay for someone not to do something. In Dr. McCoy’s case, he was willing to pay Chang not to talk. This kind of self-inflicted, or reverse extortion is nothing new. 

During World War II, the federal government provided support to America’s farmers to help them ramp up crop production. After all, an army travels on its stomach. But, according to FarmingBase.com, patriotic growing soon exceeded demand and, by war’s end, we were left with an “oversupply for basic crops such as corn, cotton, tobacco, rice, peanuts, and wheat.” Soon, the government found itself paying farmers NOT to grow certain crops. Eventually price support became a political hot potato (pardon the pun), and folks who struggled to make ends meet, weren’t too happy about their tax dollars paying farmers (including large conglomerates) not to farm. That’s when the Feds started putting a spin on the compensation program. According to PBS News Hour’s Robert Frank, the justification was that retiring acreage would reduce fertilizer and pesticide run-off into the nation’s water supply. Said Frank, “The Federal government described the price support program as an environmental program rather than an ‘income maintenance scheme.’”

But agriculture wasn’t the only industry affected by the “pay not to play” system. For decades now, it has been common practice for top executives, TV anchorpersons, and others to be paid huge salaries in return for signing a non-compete contract. In other words, “we’ll compensate you extremely well now, so that whenever you leave, you can’t work for the competition.” And then there’s the more recent “catch and kill” scheme in which a newspaper or media outlet is paid to sit on a story that it owns, to the benefit of the person who paid them not to publish that story. The thought of an editor being paid not to publish something is offensive, but then, so is a city government paying a vendor not to vend, and that brings me to the Greensboro gun show saga.

For as long as I can remember, gun and knife shows have been held at the Greensboro Coliseum. But, given the rise in mass shootings and a growing feeling among many on the left that gun manufacturers and ineffective laws are to blame for the carnage, some venues across the country are being pressured not to book these weapons extravaganzas. To that end, last week it was revealed that the city of Greensboro has agreed to pay gun show promoter Rodney Sorrell, almost $400,000 NOT to hold his gun show at the Coliseum (or anywhere else within the city limits) for the next five years. 

Just as the Feds once put a spin on price supports, a Coliseum spokesperson did his part by telling the News & Record that not having gun shows would free up the facility for holding “youth sporting events.” Meanwhile, managing director Matt Brown says that the city can make more money from hosting other types of events. But invoking youth and new revenue streams amounts to nothing less than gaslighting the public, which was left out of the loop on the decision to pay a gun show not to show up. It’s also ironic and runs counter to local efforts to curb gun violence because in 2018, city council voted to designate gun show revenues to a program that rewards citizens for reporting illegal guns. 

Paying someone NOT to do something is always problematic for one reason or another. It’s also self-inflicted extortion. In this case, the City of Greensboro isn’t being extorted by the gun promoter. Rather, the city voluntarily offered Sorrell a fat paycheck when Matt Brown pointed a gun at his own head and said, “Please take our money.” Yes, our gun laws need to be more comprehensive, but we also need to be careful about canceling legal events, much less paying them not to occur. True, Mr. Brown has sole authority to deal with contracts, but he is still a City employee. Moreover, he is the City’s highest-paid employee, yet doesn’t seem to answer to anyone, including the taxpayers. Perhaps as we re-evaluate the way we regulate guns, we also need to re-evaluate the parameters of Mr. Brown’s autonomy before he pulls the trigger on any more deals.

Once upon a time, North Carolina was known for its outstanding representatives in Washington. Democrats like Sam Ervin and Richardson Pryor, and Republicans like Howard Coble and Jim Broyhill were widely respected for their integrity. Ervin got us through Watergate, Pryor helmed a committee that largely disproved the Warren Report on JFK’s assassination, and Broyhill and Coble were masters at reaching across the aisle to advance legislation for the common good. These men served the people and not themselves. They didn’t call each other nasty names. They didn’t carry loaded guns into airports. They didn’t chastise transgender folks while partying in ladies’ lingerie. And they never incited an insurrection or tried to overturn a legal election. Pardon the expression, but those were the good old days. Over the past two years, Senator Richard Burr, former Congressman Mark Meadows, and most recently, Congressman Madison Cawthorn have disgraced the memory of those giants who preceded them, and helped to set dangerous precedents for how politicians in our state should comport themselves. Their transgressions have been egregious, bordering on criminal and treasonous.

Burr’s alleged insider trading scandal made big news last year, but the truth is, he had been enriching himself at our expense for many years. According to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, when Burr entered Congress in 1994 his net worth was under $190,000, but, by 2018 it had grown to over $7.4 million dollars, according to opensecrets.org. That’s an increase of 3,600 percent at a time when the income of average Americans rose by less than one percent. How did he amass that fortune? In part by taking money from industries that he was elected to regulate, thus abdicating his duty to serve the public, such as when he opposed a bill that would have allowed us to buy cheaper drugs from Canada.

Not surprisingly, in 2012 Burr was one of only two Senators to vote against the Stock Act, which made it illegal for any member of Congress to profit financially from proprietary information. The Act passed overwhelmingly, but it took another eight years for the Feds to catch on to the reason for Burr’s opposition. In January 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci briefed Burr and other Senators about the seriousness of the spreading COVID-19 virus. According to Reuters, three days later, Burr as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, began receiving daily COVID updates. After those briefings, Burr coincidentally decided to unload nearly $2 million dollars worth of stocks, many from the hospitality industry, which he allegedly knew would soon start to tank. When news of Burr’s stock dumps came to light, he was excoriated by pundits on the left and right, with FOX News’ Tucker Carlson saying, “There is no greater moral crime than betraying your country in a time of crisis, and that appears to be what happened.”

Speaking of betrayals, that brings me to Mark Meadows. As a Congressman, Meadows served North Carolina’s 11th district from 2013 to 2020, at which time he then became President Donald Trump’s chief of staff. We now know from the release of hundreds of text messages and documents, that Meadows was working behind the scenes to try and overturn the results of the 2020 election. He wholeheartedly enabled and supported Trump in what has come to be known as “The Big Lie”, that is, the theory that Biden only beat Trump due to massive voter fraud. Yet despite evidence (from various state election officials and the rulings from over a dozen courts) that no fraud existed, Meadows persisted in helping to plot a strategy for keeping his boss in the White House by any means necessary, including having Vice President Pence refuse to certify legally appointed electors. There is no proof yet that Meadows personally planned or otherwise helped to incite the insurrection, but during the attack on our nation’s Capitol, he was at best complicit in Trump’s refusal to send help once the violence began. Clearly, what happened on January 6 (and before) was both sad and dangerous, two words that also describe Madison Cawthorn.

Cawthorn became the youngest member of Congress when he succeeded Meadows in the 11th district. He is also a liar and a criminal. He has broken the law on several occasions by carrying a loaded gun into airports, and a knife into a school board meeting. He’s also been cited for driving without a license. In other words, he does whatever he wants to do. He also says whatever he wants to, even though what he says is not true. For example, Cawthorn, who is wheelchair-bound, gained sympathy from voters by saying that a tragic car accident prevented him from getting into West Point. But later it was discovered that the Academy had rejected him before the accident even took place. Many of Cawthorn’s numerous prevarications are also just plain weird. He recently said that a number of Congressmen attended sex and drug parties, then when challenged to name names, admitted he had lied. And speaking of weird, after making transphobic and homophobic statements, photos emerged of Cawthorn wearing ladies’ lingerie, and posing nude with a male friend. Cawthorn also sided with Putin over Zelensky, and he used fiery rhetoric on January 6, which his critics believe helped to incite the violence that occurred. [Editor: five hours after this article was posted, results from North Carolina’s 11th District primary showed that Cawthorn had lost his bid for re-election in 2022.]

Burr, Meadows and Cawthorn have individually and collectively succeeded in lowering the bar for any North Carolinian who runs for public office. Theirs is a legacy of shame, but one that is also not totally without merit, because from now on, we can’t do any worse.

Whenever there is a large number of candidates vying for the same office, political pundits like to refer to it as a “crowded field”, which often implies that those candidates are all bunched up in the polls. Not so with North Carolina’s race for U.S. Senate, where a dozen or more hopefuls are entered in each of the major party primaries, and the front-runners have commanding leads.

With less than a week to go before the polls open, former State Supreme Court Chief Justice Cheri Beasley enjoys an insurmountable lead over all contenders. According to a WRAL-TV poll from April 14, Beasley has a 33-point advantage over her nearest competitor. Translation? Barring any last minute, self-inflicted wound (which I refer to as “Pulling a Cal Cunningham”), Judge Beasley will be the Democratic nominee.

Over on the GOP side, Congressman Ted Budd enjoys a double-digit lead over former Governor Pat McCrory, with former Congressman Mark Walker trailing way behind. But unlike the Democratic primary, which seems all over but the shouting, the Republican contest could offer some last-minute surprises. To understand why, it might be helpful to recap the politics and polls that got us to this point.

Prior to serving as Governor, McCrory was a seven-term mayor of Charlotte who was known for his ability to bring disparate groups together to achieve common goals. Hoping to take his moderate approach to Raleigh, McCrory was blindsided by his own party on more than one occasion, the last time being when he tried to stop them from passing HB2. Ultimately McCrory signed off on the so-called “Bathroom Bill”, but only as a stop-gap measure until the matter could be properly adjudicated. Nevertheless, he became the first Governor in modern history to be thrown under the bus by both parties at the same time over the same issue.

Fast forward to 2021 when early polls showed McCrory with a huge lead over Budd and Walker. His lead narrowed by January when a Civitas poll put him just 5 points ahead of Budd. Then in March, a Vitales poll showed Budd erasing McCrory’s lead, and overtaking him by 32% to 29%. Budd’s surge was due largely to Donald Trump’s endorsement, and his momentum continued into the first week in April, when an Emerson College poll put Budd at 36% and McCrory at 22%. Meanwhile, Walker who dropped out of, then re-entered the race, saw his numbers dwindle across all polls. Walker went from 12% to 9%, and is now polling around 7%. On April 14, WRAL released its latest poll, showing Budd dropping to 33% and McCrory rising a point to 23%.

McCrory’s television ads reflect his desperation, as he tries to convince voters that he is more conservative than Budd or Walker. It’s an ironic twist, considering that as a moderate he tried to stop HB2, stabilized and vastly improved the state’s economy, and built up a much-needed rainy-day fund that came in handy during Hurricane Matthew. Still, there’s no indication that Pat is getting a significant bump from his TV ads. Budd, meanwhile, continues to grow his war chest and avoid debates with McCrory and Walker. The question is, will Budd’s lead hold, and is it enough to win the primary next week and avoid a run-off.

Here in North Carolina, the threshold for winning outright is 30% plus one vote. Clearly, Budd currently meets that threshold, but the fly in the ointment may be a large block of voters that no one in the media is talking about. Right now, about 35% of likely Republican voters are undecided. If an overwhelming majority of them should cast their ballots for McCrory and Walker, then Budd could fall under the 30% threshold, and that would trigger a two-man run-off next month between Budd and McCrory. Here’s where it gets crazy. Sources tell me there is bad blood between Budd and Walker. Meanwhile, Walker and McCrory have been playing nice, and showing up for joint appearances sans Budd. That tells me Walker is likely to throw his support behind McCrory in a run-off, and that could give McCrory just the edge he needs to defeat Budd.

As of the time this article is being posted, the primary is only six days away, and that’s plenty of time for any number of upsets and permutations to occur. Absent that, Judge Beasley and Ted Budd are headed for a showdown on November 8.

Mothers are special. They give us life. They nurture us. And, they shape the way we think and act. TV Moms are special too. They are our imaginary surrogates, and they remain a fixture in our childhood memories. In May of 2008, I paid tribute to some of those small screen surrogates when I produced and moderated “A Mother’s Day Salute to TV Moms” for the Television Academy. In attendance that night were: Cloris Leachman who was the original Mom on Lassie (and later played Ellen DeGeneres’ mother on The Ellen Show); Diahann Carroll who played a single mother on Julia; Marion Ross, the matriarch from Happy Days; Tichina Arnold from Everybody Hates Chris; Holland Taylor from Two and a Half Men; Bonnie Franklin from One Day at a Time; Catherine Hicks from Seventh Heaven; Marjorie Lord from The Danny Thomas Show; and, Meredith Baxter, who played Michael J. Fox’s mom on Family Ties. Also appearing at the event were real-life children of those TV Moms, as well as actors and actresses who played their on-screen offspring. In celebration of this Mother’s Day, here are some highlights from that special evening, beginning with recollections from those TV Moms about their own mothers.

Meredith: My Mom, Whitney Blake, was an actress (Hazel), but she did not push me to acting. I actually wanted to be a singer and I even sang with Mom for a while. Then I went into acting just to get out of the house.

Bonnie: Mom made sure that all five of us kids had singing and dancing lessons. She wanted me to have poise and grace, even at age four.

Tichina: My Mom was a stage Mom. My first acting role was as a doll in a children’s play, and while all the other moms were waiting off stage, saying how great their kids did, my Mom said, “Oh my God. That was awful!” Mom is my best critic [laughs].

Holland: My mother was a reserved woman, and did not interfere in her children’s affairs, and did not heap praise on the kids. Mom died just before I started Two and a Half Men, and a few months after she passed away, I took a hike up in the Hollywood canyon, and I heard my mother’s voice. I saw a pale hologram of my mother’s face on the sky, and it was an image of her at her best, around age 37. And she said, “Hi Honey.”

Marion: My mother was Canadian, and she and my father had that immigrant spirit, believing that you can be anything. My Mom died when I was 40, and as soon as she died, I became her.

Diahann: My Mom was very middle class and very old-fashioned. She and my father thought anything having to do with show business was out of the question, because show business was for “racy ladies”.

Cloris: My mother was quite magical, and a darling little woman, standing only five feet, one inch tall. We never had any extra money because Daddy was always putting all of the money back into the Leachman lumber company, so Mamma had to be creative with money. I learned that from her. She also told funny stories and I learned that from her too.

Later in the evening, the TV Moms’ on-screen and real-life kids praised their respective role models.

Jasmine Guy, who played Diahann Carroll’s daughter in It’s a Different World, told Diahann, “You taught me a lot about growing up as a woman, a woman in this business, a mother, and an actress. Thank you for having my back in so many ways.”

George Englund, the son of Cloris Leachman, said, “How would I describe Cloris? An unusual mother [laughs]. She’s great.”

Academy Award nominee Anne Archer (Fatal Attraction) said of her Mom, Marjorie Lord, “I was always proud that my Mother was so elegant. There was a beauty about her, an inner beauty that radiated in everything she did, and it’s something I carried with me.”

The late Erin Moran (Joanie from Happy Days), said of Marion Ross, “This woman was such a mentor to me. I was able to do my first play only because of her. You’re my best friend and my second Mom.”

Commenting on Holland Taylor’s character in Two and a Half Men, Jon Cryer said, “I don’t think there’s enough representations of sociopathic mothers on television, so thank you Holland [laughs].”

Charlie Sheen followed Cryer, saying, “I have an amazing Mom in real life, but if I had to have a substitute, it would be you. I love you.”

Tyler James Williams paid tribute to Tichina Arnold, his Mom on Everybody Hates Chris, by saying, “Any part of comedy that you will ever see me do is because of Tichina. She challenged me to become a better actor and a better comedian.”

Tichina herself added, “Once you become a Mom on TV, that’s it, you’re always a Mom.” Truer words were never spoken, and they also apply to our real-life Moms.

Happy Mother’s Day!

You can view the entire “Mothe’s Day Salute to TV Moms” program on Jim Longworth’s website.

For those of you old enough to remember the debate over single-sex education, and how VMI fought to remain an all-male institution, you’ll recall that a number of prominent women joined that fight. While producing a 1993 documentary about the value of single-sex institutions, I interviewed a number of highly successful women, all of who had either attended or managed an all-female college. Cynthia Tyson, then president of Mary Baldwin College told me, “Women increase in their self-esteem in a single-sex institution, and that leads to higher achievement for them when they go out into the world of work.” Others, like attorney Anita Blair, told me that girls and young women have different developmental needs from those of boys. Several years ago, former Girl Scout CEO Lane Cook told me that those developmental differences still exist, saying, “Girls thrive in an all-girl-led environment.”

The bottom line is that girls and young women still need and deserve to be led by strong female role models. It’s why an increasing number of companies now support STEM programs and activities just for girls, such as Inmar’s girls’ robotics team. It’s why Big Brothers, Big Sisters still recruits adult females to mentor young girls. Yet with all the emphasis on nurturing girls, our society is falling short when it comes to women’s sports.

Who’s the most successful coach in women’s college basketball? A man. Who did Greensboro College just hire to coach women’s soccer? A man. But wait a minute. Didn’t Title IX make things better? Just the opposite according to a 2019 report by The Institute for Diversity and Ethics and Sports (TIDES). In 1972, just prior to Title IX, “women held 90% of the head coaching positions for women’s teams.” But as big money started pouring into women’s sports, more male coaches were attracted to the salaries being paid to lead women’s teams. As a result, TIDES reports that today, women now hold less than half (40.8%) of the head coaching jobs for women’s teams. That figure improves to 61% if you only count Division 1 teams, but it still raises the question: Why aren’t ALL women’s teams coached by women?

Speaking at a 2017 Digital Leadership Summit for Women in Sports, Holly Warlick, former University of Tennessee women’s basketball coach said, “We’ve got to understand that there’s a lot of women who are not coaching that are really, really good…a lot of young kids coming out right now, I think, will make great coaches. But it’s hard to get in. We gotta give them that opportunity.”

Perhaps the way to improve the odds on those opportunities is for the NCAA to adopt a variation of the NFL’s Rooney Rule, where college athletic directors would be required to interview and seriously consider a woman for every job opening in women’s sports.

And while the hiring situation among the college ranks is disturbing, I am also alarmed by the dearth of women coaching youth sports. I recently corresponded with Alex Kerman with the Sports and Fitness Industry Association, and he confirmed that of the 6.3 million adults who coach youth teams up to age 14, only 30.7% are women. But how can this be in an era when the public and private sectors alike are touting the importance of adult female role models for girls? There is no empirical evidence to back me up, but I have to believe that just as young women can benefit from female mentors in STEM programs, so can they also benefit from female leadership in sports. That’s why I encourage women to volunteer to coach local youth sports teams, and why I urge the NCAA to adopt a proactive stance on the hiring of women as head coaches for women’s teams. Girls interested in athletics at all levels deserve to be coached by someone who looks like them and understands their developmental needs.

North Carolina made national headlines back in 2010 when the General Assembly passed “Susie’s Law”, so named for a puppy that was rescued in Greensboro after having been set on fire and abandoned by her owner. Thanks to “Susie’s Law”, anyone convicted of cruelty to animals can face up to two years in jail. Of course, to us animal lovers, two years is not nearly enough time for an abuser to spend behind bars, but it’s better than no time at all. Unfortunately, stricter sentencing doesn’t seem to discourage really sick people from doing really sick things to animals.

Last year an individual snuck into Martin Luther King Park in Statesville and proceeded to use ducks for target practice. He also beat some of the ducks over the head and cut the feet off of others. A total of 43 ducks were tortured and killed that night. Then there was the 19-year-old Winston-Salem man who was arrested for electrocuting squirrels, and cutting off the ears and noses of other animals while they were still alive. Perhaps there’s no way to stop this kind of behavior, but I wish the General Assembly would at least re-classify animal torture from a Class H felony to a Class B felony, so that these sick abusers might stay locked up for eight years instead of two. Having said that, I am also concerned about another form of abuse which is on the rise, and that is animal neglect.

Here in the United States, an animal suffers some form of abuse every 60 seconds, and each year, more than 10 million animals die from abuse. One such case involves a High Point woman who was charged with animal cruelty last month. Police discovered the woman’s dog locked in a crate. It had been starved to death. Also last month, a Lexington woman was arrested on charges of felony cruelty for failing to care for her dog after it had been struck by a car. The dog suffered a broken back in the accident, and the woman was advised by a Davidson County Animal Control officer to get the dog to a veterinarian. Instead, she let the dog suffer. Neither of these women deliberately tortured their pets, but neglect is still cruel, and it is still abuse.

I suppose it’s tempting to profile all animal abusers as low-life, uneducated sickos, but that’s not always the case. Take, for example, NFL superstar quarterback Michael Vick, who, along with his dog-fighting buddies, tortured and killed a number of pit bulls at his Virginia farm. Vick is far from a low-life criminal. He was college-educated and quite wealthy. Or how about the upper-crust millionaires who run their doped-up racehorses into the ground, then sell them for dog meat? And then there’s the Iredell County Commissioner who operates Zootastic Park in Lake Norman. He has repeatedly been cited and fined for all sorts of neglect, including last month for allowing several of his animals to suffer from frostbite, and earlier for allowing maggots to eat into the flesh of three wolves. These folks, like Vick, certainly don’t fit the profile of the local redneck who gets off on torturing animals. And that brings me to a story that CNN broke earlier this month about a form of animal abuse that goes on at the highest levels of government.

The US Army’s Public Health Command recently reported that horses belonging to the storied Caisson Platoon have been seriously neglected for years. These highly trained horses serve at military funerals, and escort the caskets of presidents and other dignitaries. They also provide security for Washington D.C. “in time of national emergency or civil disturbance.” But behind the scenes, the 60 Caisson Platoon horses suffer from poor quality feed, moldy hay, parasites, and a host of other unspeakable conditions, including having to stand in their own excrement “in tiny mud lots scattered with gravel and construction waste.” Two of the horses died in February of this year, and during an autopsy, one of them was found to have 44 pounds of gravel and sand in his gut.

When questioned about the neglect, Col. Patrick Roddy, who commands the Old Guard unit (which includes the Caisson Platoon horses), blamed the neglect on lack of adequate space and funding. No doubt Roddy’s assessment is correct, but he, and everyone else who had anything to do with oversight or caring for the horses, should be dishonorably discharged and prosecuted for animal cruelty. The Caisson Platoon horses are a national treasure, but then, so are all animals. They all deserve the best possible care, and they all deserve the swiftest possible justice for their abuse.

After numerous complaints from residents, a series of public hearings, and a study of decibel levels, the Kernersville Board of Aldermen last week approved a new noise ordinance which they hope will end the conflict and debate over loud music in outdoor venues. Unfortunately, the new ordinance falls short, not so much for what it does, but for what it doesn’t do. More on that in a moment.

This latest action grew out of complaints registered last year by local residents who live near the Brewer’s Kettle, a popular nightspot that features an outdoor stage. Two of the original complainants, Sheila DeFoor and David Dyson have spoken publicly about how the loud music from Brewer’s Kettle has impacted their quality of life. The Kernersville News reports that DeFoor said, “I can’t even go out in my yard at night, and if I go in my house, it’s an echo chamber.”

The new ordinance sets limits on decibel levels and hours of operation according to the type of district in which the music venue is located. For example, higher decibel levels are allowed when outdoor music is played in an industrial or commercial district than when occurring in a residential/institutional/mixed-use district, the latter of which is at the heart of most complaints. In the mixed-use district, music played at a decibel level of 60 is now allowed from 7 a.m. until 10 p.m., Sundays through Thursdays. But that time limit expands on Fridays and Saturdays when bars can play 60 db music from 11 p.m. until 7 a.m. That means folks like Ms. DeFoor and Mr. Dyson might have to wait until Sunday night to get any sleep. “It’s not right,” said DeFoor. No, it isn’t.

To make matters worse, residents who complain too often about loud music can actually be cited for registering “nuisance” calls to the police. That doesn’t deter Ms. DeFoor, who said, “I guess you’d better prepare a jail cell for me, because I am going to keep calling as long as the bar keeps playing music outside and driving us nuts inside our own home.”

Now to what’s NOT in the new noise ordinance. City Manager Curtis Swisher’s original proposal to the Board included a section that gave a little more consideration to residents. It limited the times that loud music can be played “if a commercial business has an outdoor entertainment area, or has an opening to the outside, and there is a residential property line within 300 feet of the area from which the noise originates…” But three Aldermen (Joe Pinnix, John Barrow, and J.R. Gorham) killed Swisher’s recommendation. Doubling down, Gorham said, “It shouldn’t have any time limits on it if someone is within the decibels.”

As far as I know, Aldermen Gorham, Pinnix, and Barrow don’t live next to a bar, and thus, can’t identify with complainants like DeFoor and Dyson. Clearly, then, Swisher’s consideration of property lines should have been included in the final ordinance. Absent that, the real problem now is one of monitoring and enforcement. Kernersville doesn’t have a special squad of “decibel police,” so it will be up to residents to notify authorities of music that is disturbing the peace. But if people become fearful of being cited for calling the police too often, then how will police be alerted to violations of the ordinance?

The new ordinance is supposed to be reviewed later this year, so hopefully then, the aldermen will do the right thing and ban the playing of outdoor music at any commercial establishment located in a residential/mixed-use district. For now, it’s obvious that the Kernersville Board didn’t choose to listen to those most affected by the noise. Maybe they just couldn’t hear the complaints over all the loud music.