Triad Today

This past weekend, Winston-Salem Mayor Allen Joines appeared on Triad Today to share his thoughts on a wide range of topics affecting the City that he has presided over since 2001. We began by talking about job growth.

JL: What’s the current state of the City’s economy?

AJ: Well Jim, last year we created more jobs in our community than we have in decades. We’ve got a goal of creating 5,400 net new jobs per year for five years in a row, and if we do that, we’ll be one of the top 50 metro areas in the country. Last year we created 5,300 new jobs, so we’re feeling good about that. Also, unemployment is low, and we’re making progress in our entrepreneurial development programs, so I feel like we’re moving in the right direction.

JL: Let’s talk about Renfro, a sock manufacturing company with headquarters in Mt. Airy. Both the City and Forsyth County have offered Renfro hundreds of thousands of dollars in incentives to relocate over 200 jobs to Winston-Salem, but, to be clear, you didn’t recruit them.

AJ: That’s a good point, Jim. We don’t fish in other people’s pond around us here. But they indicated to me that they needed to move. They said where they are now they can’t attract the talent they need for a growing corporate headquarters, and they were going to move to one place or another. So I said, “We’d love to have you in Winston-Salem.”

JL: So, are they coming to Winston-Salem?

AJ: They haven’t made a final decision, but I think it will come fairly quickly, and I’m feeling very positive about it.

JL: Bring us up to speed on what’s going on with the Whitaker Park site.

AJ: As you know, R.J. Reynolds donated 1.7 million square feet of space to a non-profit we created. We’re making great progress there, for example, we were able to keep Cook Medical here in the community, and they’re going to invest about $55 million dollars, and probably grow their workforce from 650 to 1000 jobs. We also just announced that Chris Harrison, a developer from Baltimore, is going to do about an $80 million dollar project, with residential, hotel, and retail going in there.

JL: It was on this program last year that you announced a new program to reduce poverty in the City. How’s that going?

AJ: We’ve seen poverty rates come down from 26% to 21%, and I won’t take credit for that because we’ve only been in business for about a year, but we’re moving in the right direction. And, we’ve got a lot of other really neat programs that we’re going to make some major announcements about in the next two to three weeks, one which will help with young people graduating from high school, and being able to go to college, hopefully for free.

JL: Your friend, Mayor Nancy Vaughan is having a problem with gun violence in Greensboro, so now, her city council is allocating a half-million dollars to an anti-violence program. In the wake of similar violence in Winston-Salem, is that something you’re looking into, or have you done so already?

AJ: We’re looking at a number of things. We’ve got a task force that we’re operating within the police department, and we just received a large federal grant for something called a “shot locator”, in which we’ll be locating monitors all around various parts of the community, so that if a shot is fired, it triangulates where it was, and we can get immediate response to it. There are also some other things we’re looking at in terms of social programs as well.

JL: It sounds like Winston-Salem is doing pretty well, so what challenges still lay ahead?

AJ: As always you can’t ever let up. We need to keep pushing hard because the worst thing you can do is to sit on your laurels.

Syndicated media critic R.D. Heldenfels once proclaimed that 1954 was television’s greatest year, in part because of its literate, live dramas and innovative comedies. But 1954 was great for another reason. It was the year that 19-year-old Diahann Carroll made her TV debut, winning first prize by singing on the talent show, Chance of a Lifetime. That led to a supporting role in her first motion picture, Carmen Jones, and a starring turn in the Broadway musical, No Strings, for which she won a Tony Award. In 1974, Diahann snagged an Oscar nomination for her dramatic performance in Claudine. Along the way she would also become a Vegas headliner, author of two books, and founder of a group that helped disadvantaged women. But Diahann was best known for her role as a single mom and registered nurse in 1968’s groundbreaking Julia. It was the first primetime program to star a woman of color in a professional career, and it won her a Golden Globe. In 1976, she starred in her own variety series, and in 1984 she joined the cast of Dynasty. Diahann also appeared as Jasmine Guy’s mother in A Different World, and her last regular series role was in support of Matt Bomer on White Collar, from 2008-2014. In 1997, Diahann was diagnosed with breast cancer, but stayed free of the disease for 22 years until it returned several months ago, and took her life on October 4. Diahann was 84. She is survived by her daughter Suzanne and two grandchildren.

I first met Diahann Carroll in 2008 when she participated in my “Salute to TV Moms” event at the Television Academy. Our discussion that night was wide ranging, and began with Diahann talking about her parents.

Diahann: My parents were very middle class, and very old fashioned, and anything having to do with show business was out of the question. They said that was for ‘racy ladies’. I even did the thing my father hated most, I performed in nightclubs, where he said, “They even pluck their eyebrows!” This man was really old fashioned.

I also asked Diahann about how she shaped her character and the scripts on Julia, including the time when producer Hal Kanter wanted Julia’s son Corey (played by Marc Copage) to idolize John Wayne.

Diahann: I said, “Hal, are you crazy? You can’t do that with this little black child. Do you know any black people, Hal?” And he said, ‘I know you now’, and I said, “then you see what a pain in the ass I am.”

On that evening, I surprised each TV Mom by reuniting them with some of their co-stars. Appearing for Diahann were Marc Copage and Jasmine Guy.

Jasmine: You are so elegant, warm, and down to earth, and you’ve taught me a lot about growing up as a woman, a woman in this business, a mother, an actress. Thank you for having my back in so many ways.

Copage: Miss Carroll, I’m very lucky to have had the opportunity to play your son for three years. Having grown up without a real mother, you filled that void.

The day after Diahann passed away, I reached out to some of our friends who had worked with the great lady, among them was Marc, who echoed his thoughts from that evening 11 years ago. “Diahann was the only maternal figure I knew, and during that first season on Julia, I would beg her to take me home with her at the end of the day’s shooting. I took to her as if she was my real mother…I will greatly miss her.”

Joan Collins, Diahann’s diva rival on Dynasty, emailed me, and wrote, “I’m shocked and saddened to hear of Diahann’s passing. We had such fun filming Dynasty, and I have great memories of our time together.” And Linda Evans said, “Diahann was a powerful woman with the tenacity to follow her dreams. I admired her, and enjoyed working with her.”

And my friend Matt Bomer, star of White Collar, told me, “We were all so blessed to know and love Diahann. She possessed a grace and elegance that you just don’t see very often anymore. She was wickedly funny, self-deprecating, and lovely in every way. She was also a profound inspiration to me, and helped to give me the courage to be my most authentic self.”

Truth is, it was easy to be inspired by Diahann Carroll because she excelled at everything she did, and because she did those things on her terms. She even answered questions on her terms. During the “TV Moms” event, I asked all of the ladies if they had ever been asked to pose nude. After several of the actresses responded, I started to move on to another topic, when Diahann, said, “Jim, you didn’t ask if I had ever been asked to pose nude.”

“Were you asked?” I said.
“Yes,” she replied.
“Well what happened?” I asked.

“That’s all I’m going to say about it,” Diahann said with a mischievous smile on her face. I’ll always remember that smile.

Recently, PBS aired an eight-part, 16-hour documentary by Ken Burns, titled Country Music. For those of you who loved the mini-series and want to own it, you can purchase a DVD set for $66, or buy the Blu Ray for $86. For those of you who didn’t get to watch Country Music., I advise you to save your money.

In addition to getting some of his facts wrong, Burns was also guilty of omitting a number of country music pioneers who made a significant contribution to the industry. Instead, he used his time to expound on how country music is a blended art form which derives its roots from Europe and Africa, and how the country sound has inspired a number of rock bands and folk singers. That’s OK, and I get that Bob Dylan was friends with Johnny Cash, but the time spent on those kinds of anecdotes would have been better spent recognizing giants of country music who Burns left out, like Carl Perkins, Tennessee Ernie Ford, and Glen Campbell.

Carl Perkins is widely recognized as the King of Rockabilly, but you’d never know it from Burns’ film, in which Perkins received just two quick mentions as a guitar player for Johnny Cash. In truth, Cash, Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis, and Perkins were part of the original Sun Records gang, but it was Carl who was the master songwriter and picker of the four. Carl wrote and recorded “Blue Suede Shoes” in 1955 which sold millions of copies, and when he and Elvis went on tour together it was Perkins who the audiences screamed for, not Presley. If you want to talk about people who shaped and influenced country music in the latter half of the 20^th century, and had an influence on other musical genres, just ask Paul McCartney who said, “Without Carl Perkins, there would be no Beatles.” How did Burns miss that?

Fourteen years before Loretta Lynn sang about being a “Coal Miner’s Daughter”, Tennessee Ernie Ford recorded “16 Tons”, a ballad about being a coal miner. It was the number one hit song in the nation in 1955, and sold over two million records in its first two months. A year later, his first album of country gospel hymns hit the Billboard charts, and stayed there for 300 consecutive weeks. Ford has three different stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, and in addition to having a rich baritone voice, he was also an accomplished comedic actor, who went on to host his own primetime network show from 1956-1961. The Ford Show was must-see TV, and, despite blowback from his sponsors, Ernie insisted on ending each show with a gospel tune. In Country Music, Ken Burns led viewers to believe that Johnny Cash was the first country star to host a primetime series, and that the Man in Black insisted upon including gospel songs on each show. Sorry Ken, but Ford was the groundbreaker, not Cash, whose short-lived TV show didn’t premiere until 1969.

Speaking of getting the facts wrong, Burns failed to mention Glen Campbell, whose variety series bowed a year before Cash’s, and whose hit songs, (like “Gentle on My Mind”) made him the most successful country crossover artist of the modern era. Waylon Jennings once paid tribute to Campbell during a CMT special, in which he thanked Glen for always offering a spot on his show to country western singers whose careers were in a lull. Campbell is also acknowledged as one of the greatest guitarists of all time, so I am baffled by the Burns snub.

There are many other stars who should have merited at least a mention in Burns’ film, among them, Arthur Smith, whose “Guitar Boogie” sold 3 million records in 1945, and whose Charlotte recording studio was the first of its kind in the Southeast. But Smith is also famous for his groundbreaking lawsuit against Warner Brothers, who stole his “Feudin’ Banjos” and retitled it “Dueling Banjos”, which became a number one hit from the movie Deliverance. It was bluegrass music’s first major intellectual property fight, and Smith won big.

For me, Ken Burns’ Country Music was more notable for who it left out than for who it included, and, to quote a Barbara Mandrell song, that’s a crying shame.

When the CEO of a company resigns, it doesn’t usually make the front page. But it’s a different story when that resignation involves the state’s largest health insurer, serious criminal charges, and corporate cover-ups. Thus is the saga of Patrick Conway, who had served as president and chief executive officer of Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina since October 2017, before stepping down last week amidst a flurry of troubling developments.

On June 22 of this year, Conway reportedly became intoxicated, then loaded his two children into the family car, and went for a drive. After being pulled over by police for side-swiping a tractor trailer along Interstate 85 in Randolph County, Conway refused to take a breathalyzer test, so he was arrested for reckless driving and driving while impaired. He was also charged with two counts of child abuse, and his license was revoked for 30 days.

Early last week, after sitting on this information for over three months, the Blue Cross board finally decided to go public. Did they fire Conway? No. Did they dock Conway’s pay? No. Instead, the BCBS board issued a statement in which it praised Conway’s service to the company, saying, “Patrick’s strong leadership will continue to be an asset, and he will remain as president and CEO.” Are you kidding me? What leadership? You mean the kind of leadership in which a father endangers the lives of his own daughters and puts other motorists at risk? More likely, the board was referring to the kind of leadership in which a man spends his days figuring out how to increase our healthcare premiums, raise our deductibles, and deny our claims, so that he can improve the company’s bottom line.

In response to the Blue Cross board’s announcement, state Insurance Commissioner Mike Causey sent a letter to BCBS Board Chair Frank Holding, in which, according to Tribune News Service, he called the charges against Conway, “alarming.” Causey also wrote, “What is even more alarming is the appearance that the board and executive team worked to hide the arrest from the public’s attention…then was almost dismissive of the troubling charges when reported in the news media. One would expect the board and executive team to be much more accountable, responsible, and transparent to their policyholders and to the public at large.”

But Causey’s outrage grew when he began to learn even more details about the June arrest, which had been withheld from him by Big Blue’s board. For one thing, he wasn’t told of the accident, only the charges. Then came disclosure by WRAL-TV of the actual police report in which Conway told the arresting officer, “You had a choice. You could have let me go. You don’t know who I am. I am a doctor, a CO of a company. I’ll call Governor Cooper and get you in trouble.”

Causey then issued a new statement, saying “the Blue Cross board misrepresented to the Department of Insurance the actual arrest – telling me that [the arrest] was without incident, and was a routine arrest…the arrest was anything but routine…I cannot move forward with any type of trust and confidence in the CEO at BCBS NC.” Causey’s words were handwriting on the wall for Conway, who announced his resignation that same day.

Perhaps if Patrick Conway had worked in the mail room at Blue Cross, instead of the executive suite, then the charges against him wouldn’t have had as much public relevance. But the CEO of a health insurance company who endangers the health and lives of others, doesn’t deserve a second chance. Neither, by the way, does the Blue Cross board, who, along with Conway violated the company’s own Code of Conduct. According to the Blue Cross website, that Code requires “ethical and lawful conduct for every employee and member of our Board of Trustees.” So much for honoring a code.

Conway should have been fired three months ago and now he’s finally gone. But the Blue Cross board, who Commissioner Causey accused of a “cover-up”, is still operating, and that should be of great concern to every policyholder in the state.

There’s a particularly tense scene from the movie, Goldfinger, in which James Bond is strapped to a table, and about to have his genitals (and various innards) removed by a giant laser beam. “Do you expect me to talk?”, Bond asks the title character. “No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die!”, Goldfinger replies. As a boy of 10, I learned two things from that scary scene. First, I never wanted to have my genitals severed by a giant laser beam unless the situation was absolutely hopeless. And second, only a man can play the part of agent 007, James Bond. At least that’s what I thought until recent reports surfaced regarding an impending gender switch of Her Majesty’s top agent.

Call me silly, but I tend to believe that a writer’s intentions and specifications should be honored when it comes to the big screen portrayal of his or her protagonist. Certainly, there’s such a thing as artistic or dramatic license when adapting a novel into a movie, but that should only apply to things like condensation of plot points in order to accommodate time constraints. It does not, however, give a film producer the right to change things just for the sake of change. Can you imagine, for example, changing Moby Dick’s name to Moby Denise? Or, casting Tom Cruise to portray Lara Croft?

For some time now, there’s been talk that the next James Bond will be played by a man of color. In fact, ldris Elba’s name has been mentioned in that regard, and that’s fine with my wife Pam who met with the actor in L.A., and thinks he’s hot. But rumor has it that in the upcoming Bond flick, No Time to Die, Daniel Craig is called out of retirement for one last job, and he is introduced to a woman who is identified as “007”. She is played by British actress Lashana Lynch, who also happens to be black. This raises the question, “Is Lynch going to be the next Bond, or just the next 007, or both?” I’m now officially both gender and racially confused. Author Ian Fleming, on the other hand, was never confused about who James Bond is.

The character Fleming created is a white male, born in Scotland, approximately 6 feet tall, who achieved the rank of Commander in the Royal Naval Reserve. Despite the fact that six different actors have portrayed Bond on film, the producers have, thus far, selected “men” who generally fit the Fleming bill, but that may be about to change. The late Albert R. “Cubby” Broccoli must be spinning in his grave at the thought of a female James Bond. That’s because, as producer of the Bond series from its inception in 1962 until his death in 1996, Cubby had always been protective of the brand, and careful to nurture the Bond image. In later years, Broccoli began to give his daughter Barbara and stepson Michael Wilson more responsibility in the family business. That was OK so long as Cubby was alive, but after his death, the kids began to tinker with the brand, up to and including casting Craig, and turning him into Jason Bourne instead of a refined British spy. That was bad enough, but now, the Broccoli kids may be about to ruin the franchise if they cast a woman as the iconic secret agent.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m fine with a female spy in any other venue. Heck, I’m fine with just about everything having to do with the opposite sex. But if a woman is cast to play the next James Bond, then you might as well just strap me to a laser table and be done with it. I simply wouldn’t feel right about having a set of “gadgets” that are no longer available to 007.

Voter suppression has been an ugly part of the American fabric for our entire history. Slavery, of course, was the ultimate method of suppressing votes, but it was just one example among many. Long-standing misogynistic societal norms, for example, kept women in the home and away from the polls for more than 300 years after Jamestown was settled. And let’s not forget that our Founding Fathers, many of whom married into wealth, also intended to keep non-land-holding white males out of the loop when it came to voting. Theoretically, passage of the 15^th Amendment in 1870 (which gave every citizen the right to vote), was supposed to end all forms of voter suppression, but Jim Crow got around that by implementing poll taxes and literacy tests as a means of disenfranchising poor whites, former slaves, and Native Americans.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were supposed to end voter suppression of African Americans once and for all, but it didn’t end voter intimidation, including the kind where white thugs would stand outside the polls and look imposing. It also didn’t foresee the extent to which racist politicians would gerrymander districts in order to dilute the black vote and, thus, limit the number of minorities who could be elected to state and federal office. In recent years, Republican lawmakers in North Carolina have been particularly brazen in their attempts to suppress the black vote, including eliminating polling sites, reducing the number of early voting days, and supporting a photo voter ID.

Earlier this month, the North Carolina legislature was ordered to once again re-draw our state’s legislative districts in a way that would not unfairly dilute Democrats and minorities from voting, so, at the very least, our judicial system is attempting to provide relief for disenfranchised voters. But now a whole new kind of voter suppression has reared its ugly head, and it has the potential to affect a wider population than any political maneuver we’ve ever seen before. As of last week, the Republican party in at least four states (South Carolina, Nevada, Arizona, and Kansas) announced they will suspend their 2020 presidential primaries and caucuses. Why? So that party officials can meet behind closed doors and award all of their convention delegates to Donald Trump. This despicable strategy prevents Republican challengers from getting on the ballot because there will be no ballot for them to get on. Moreover, these GOP officials are not in the least bit timid about admitting their motive. As far back as last December, South Carolina party chair Drew McKissick told the Washington Examiner that he would cancel the state’s 2020 primary if President Trump should face a serious challenge from a member of his own party.

As I noted in a previous column, cancelling primaries is not a new concept, but it is only supposed to be done when there is an incumbent president with no intra-party challengers. The South Carolina Democratic Party, for example, cancelled their primaries in 1996 and 2012 when no other Democratic candidate emerged to challenge Bill Clinton and Barack Obama for a second term. In contrast, McKissick and his Republican counterparts in other states, are preventing declared Republican candidates from being able to even compete with Trump. Concurrently, they are also effectively suppressing the votes of their own registered voters, and that is one for the history books.

To date, three legitimate Republican challengers have announced their candidacy, and, given the seriousness of this situation, those candidates must now join with voters in the offending states to involve legal counsel and the ACLU in proving that the Republican party is engaged in systematic voter suppression. Absent that, it’s possible we could see the cancellation of Republican primaries in all 50 states, and if that happens, Trump will have a coronation instead of a convention.

Last December, Drew McKissick, chairman of the South Carolina GOP, told the Washington Examiner that he would not rule out cancelling that state’s 2020 Republican primary if President Trump should face a serious challenge from a member of his own party. Last week he made good on that promise. As radical as that seems, keep in mind that South Carolina did the same thing in 2004 when incumbent President George W. Bush looked vulnerable after having invaded the wrong country the year before. Instead of letting folks decide a primary winner, Luke Byars, then serving as state chairman, convened a private meeting of the South Carolina Republican state Executive Committee, and passed a resolution which endorsed the President for re-election. Sadly that wasn’t the first time a political party had made an end-run around it’s own voters. The same thing happened in 1992 when the Iowa GOP cancelled their caucuses, for fear that challenger Pat Buchannan would embarrass George H.W. Bush early on. That brings us back to 2020 and Donald Trump, whose tariff policies are starting to erode his base, while folks like former Illinois Congressman Joe Walsh, former South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld, and Ohio Governor John Kasich wait in the wings for a possible primary challenge. It could be a long wait, according to former South Carolina Republican chairman Matt Moore, who told the Examiner, “Pigs will fly before the South Carolina GOP allows Trump to have opposition.”

Flying pigs aside, what Iowa did in 1992 and South Carolina did in 2004 is nothing short of voter suppression because their actions denied Republicans and independents the right to vote. But, in fact, what they did was legal. Those state’s parties were merely playing hardball politics, something modern day Democrats don’t seem to know how to do. For example, an overwhelming majority of Democratic Congressmen want to impeach Trump, but Nancy Pelosi says the Senate wouldn’t convict, so no action is taken. Meanwhile, some Democrats say they are waiting for the Southern District of New York or other plaintiffs to run Trump out of office, but that probably won’t happen. Still other Democrats are content to just see what happens next November, but that’s way too risky. If Democrats really want to rid the nation of Trump, they don’t have to wait until next fall. All they have to do is be creative and play hardball ahead of the primaries. Here’s how.

In most states, if you are a registered Democrat, you must vote in the Democratic primary, and if you are registered as “Unaffiliated”, you must declare which party’s primary you want to vote in, on the day of the primary. But guess what? You can switch your party affiliation ahead of time, and vote in the opposition primary. Here in North Carolina, for example, you must switch your party affiliation within 25 days of the primary, which is on March 3, 2020. In other words, a Democrat can vote in the Republican primary by simply changing his registration in accordance with deadlines established in each state. So how is this a strategy to deny Trump a second term? It’s simple. You switch your party affiliation, walk into the booth on primary day, and vote for one of Trump’s leading Republican challengers.

Let’s take North Carolina as an example. There are just over 2 million registered Democrats in our state, and about that many unaffiliated voters. If a majority of them cast their ballot for, say, Bill Weld in the primary, then President Trump won’t have enough delegates to win the state. If Democrats in every state do the same thing, Trump would be denied a second term before he even gets to run for a second term. True, by switching parties, you forfeit your right to vote for your favorite Democrat, but the overwhelming majority of likely Democratic voters in the United States tell pollsters that any Democrat would be better than Trump. If that’s true, then what’s stopping you Democrats from becoming a temporary Republican during your state’s primary?

Of course, some Republican leaders could counter a Democratic Party-switching ploy by canceling their state’s primary, but, South Carolina aside, I can’t see today’s more engaged conservative electorate accepting a mass movement to disenfranchise themselves from the process. So Democrats, stop your whining and lamenting, and get ready to play hardball. I’ve even got a slogan for your end-run movement: “Pigs will fly in 2020!”

Each year, over 1.5 million shelter animals are euthanized nationwide, and North Carolina is, unfortunately, among the leading states who contribute to that statistic. In fact, according to a recent report by the NC Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, public animal shelters in our state euthanized over 71,000 cats and dogs in 2018 alone. The good news is that one Triad area agency is making great strides in significantly reducing the number of euthanized pets. Just last week, the Forsyth Humane Society received national recognition and a cash award from Best Friends Animal Society, for having increased its save rate from 28% to 81%.

Much of the Humane Society’s progress has occurred since becoming a contract partner with Forsyth County last year. At that time, FHS assumed responsibility for managing intake, care, and disposition of cats and dogs at two shelters, which can accommodate a total of 300 animals. I spoke with executive director Sarah Williamson about the Humane Society’s success, and where we go from here.

JL: How have you been able to improve the save-rate so quickly and so significantly?

SW: It’s because of our two, difference-making programs: Foster care and Transfer. Our community has really stepped up and opened their homes to foster animals. On any given month we have between 300 and 500 animals in foster care. We also partner with about 50 breed-specific rescue organizations, and we transfer animals to them that fit their programs. We also routinely transport animals to “no kill” shelters in northern states, who are seeking rescue animals. These programs open up kennel space in our shelters, making room for the next animal that comes to us.

JL: What role has the Humane Society Board and your staff played in the success of the agency?

SW: We could not perform this mission without the support of our volunteers, our donors, everyone who adopts, everyone who fosters, and everyone who donates supplies. We have a hard-working, dedicated staff and board that makes it all come together.

JL: Other than caring for animals and facilitating adoptions, what other services does Forsyth Humane Society offer?

SW: We offer subsidies that help people afford spay or neuter surgeries for their pets. We help fund about 200 of these important surgeries each year. We also manage a pet food pantry in partnership with five, faith-based organizations which help people in need to be able to keep their pets at home.

JL: Forsyth Humane Society was one of only eight agencies recognized nationally by Best Friends for your high save-rate, but they also awarded you $16,000. How will that money be used?

SW: In addition to the Best Friends grant, we also received a $16,000 grant from the James G. Hanes Foundation, and together, those funds will enable us to purchase a new vehicle with which we can safely and comfortably continue our life-saving transports to rescue organizations and no-kill shelters.

JL: I realize that you can never achieve a 100% save-rate because of animals who come to you, having been severely injured or with terminal illnesses, however, you have said that your goal is to reach 90% by 2023. What will it take to reach that goal?

SW: The last stretch, closing the gap between an 81% save-rate, and a 90% save-rate, will be hard. The gains will be smaller and harder-won. We will need to increase our community’s capacity and commitment to spay and neuter feral cats, and at the same time, work on saving animals with difficult behavioral and medical issues. It will take the support of our entire community to continue to save even more lives.

To inquire about adoption, make a donation, or purchase tickets to this year’s Furr Ball, visit www.forsythhumane.org.

I admit it. I was taken with Kamala Harris even before she announced her run for the presidency. I wrote a column in which I praised her prosecutorial record, and predicted she would be the first woman to sit in the Oval Office. She still might, but not in 2020. During the first round of debates with nine of her Democratic rivals, she attacked former Vice President Joe Biden for his stand against school busing in the early 1970s. Biden was unprepared for the attack, and subsequently stumbled his way through the rest of the debate. That, plus some verbal gaffes along the campaign trail, convinced me that Joe might be fading.

However, shortly after that first debate, it was revealed that Kamala’s busing attack was nothing more than a disingenuous ploy to raise her poll numbers, eat into Biden’s support among African American voters, and raise money for the campaign. Unbeknownst to debate watchers at the time, Harris’s team had already produced promotional t-shirts with a photo of her as a little girl, being bused to school. During the second debate, Harris ran out of gimmicks, and Biden performed much better. Since then, Harris has dropped 12 points in the polls (down to 5%) and Biden, at 29%, has maintained a double digit lead over Sanders (15%) and Warren (14%).

Last week, Biden’s wife Jill said out loud what everyone has been thinking. Speaking to a group of fellow educators, Jill acknowledged that a lot of folks may like other candidates more than her husband, and may even favor their healthcare policy over Joe’s, but the former VP has the best chance of beating Trump in 2020. Certainly a lot can change between now and next summer. For example, Sanders might throw his support to Warren at the convention, and Biden could find himself an also ran. Barring that, a surprise in New Hampshire or, God forbid, a serious health scare, Biden appears to be well on his way to the Democratic nomination. If that’s so, then Joe’s pick for a running mate could be especially significant in the upcoming election. That brings me to Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard from the great state of Hawaii.

Strangely enough, Joe and Tulsi would compliment each other’s strengths and weaknesses. For example, Biden received a student deferment during the Vietnam War, while Gabbard is an Iraq War veteran. Biden supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003, while Gabbard is opposed to such “regime change wars” which unnecessarily cost human and financial resources. Gabbard supported Bernie Sanders in 2016 and was critical of the DNC’s favoritism to Hillary. Biden is a get-along-go-along politician who works and plays well with the Democratic establishment. Gabbard has come under fire for her earlier opposition to gay marriage, while it was Biden who pushed Obama into supporting same-sex marriage. Joe avoids political confrontations while Tulsi wades into them, as evidenced by her attack on Harris for locking up thousands of marijuana users while joking about smoking weed. Biden and Gabbard also compliment each other in terms of age. Joe would be 78 during his first year in office, and Tulsi, as his vice president, would only be 40. That’s important because, if elected, I don’t think Joe will seek a second term, and his stepping down could give Tulsi a chance to break the glass ceiling in 2024.

Joe Biden’s driving ambition is to right the ship of state by restoring dignity to the office of the president, and civility to public discourse. He wants to curb domestic terrorism, and rid our nation of assault weapons. And, he wants to restore our image abroad, by dealing with our allies and adversaries in a mature manner. I believe Congresswoman Gabbard would serve him well in that mission.

There are all sorts of qualifications that candidates must meet in order to run for office, such as minimum age and residency. It’s just too bad we can’t also require them to show proof of accountability. This past week, for example, it was reported that the budget stalemate between Governor Cooper and the GOP-controlled legislature is costing taxpayers $42,000 dollars for every day the session goes over. As of last Friday their overtime tab had exceeded one million dollars. In other words, they’ve gone way over budget while arguing to save money on the budget. That’s what you call an ironic absence of accountability. Soon, however, a new budget will go into effect and all of the money wasted in the process will be absorbed and forgotten. Sometimes, though, our elected representatives do things that can’t just be absorbed and forgotten.

In 2017, then-state Senator Trudy Wade introduced a bill that would allow municipalities to post legal notices on their own web sites, rather than publish them in local newspapers, as is required by our state’s constitution. She pitched it as a pilot program, but, in fact, it mainly affected four Guilford County-based newspapers: the Greensboro News and Record, the Jamestown News, the High Point Enterprise, and the Carolina Peacemaker. Coincidentally those papers had been critical of Wade, and had refused to endorse her candidacy, thus her legislation had the feel of a vendetta. Attorneys for the newspapers filed suit, claiming their clients “were specifically singled out for prior press coverage and editorials…involving certain acts by elected officials from Guilford County.” Attorneys Amanda Martin and Robert Orr also wrote that Wade’s intent “was to restrain the plaintiffs in their coverage of and editorializing about members of the General Assembly, through the diminution of plaintiff’s revenue from the sale of legal advertising.” To date, the Guilford newspapers continue to spend money on legal fees as they await appointment of a three-judge panel who could resolve the matter for good.

Sadly, that wasn’t the first time Senator Wade’s actions had caused chaos and cost people money. In 2015, she introduced a bill that would have re-aligned Greensboro City Council by reducing the number of council persons from nine to seven, and stripping the Mayor of most of her powers. Some council members indicated that Wade’s bill was no more than an attempt to put a majority of Republicans on the city’s governing body. And yet, then-Governor Pat McCrory, himself a Republican, told me at the time that Wade’s interference in Greensboro government was “legislative overreach”. Realizing that a lawsuit against the State of North Carolina would be problematic, several Greensboro citizens and Greensboro City Council sued the Guilford County Board of Elections, as a branch of the State, and thankfully they prevailed. Then, earlier this month it was revealed that a Federal Appeals Court had ruled that Guilford County would have to reimburse plaintiffs’ legal fees, now totaling $600,000.

Many believe that Senator Wade used her office to wage war on and intimidate the press, and interfere with local government, so her failed re-election bid last fall was welcome news to those she had wronged. But here’s the problem. Wade is no longer a legislator, yet we’re still dealing with the fallout from her vindictive “legislative overreach.”

By all rights, Trudy should be held accountable for the havoc she has wreaked on us. She should be made to pay the $600,000 in legal fees incurred by City Council, as well as fees incurred by the Guilford newspapers, but that’s not likely to happen for two reasons. First of all, Wade probably doesn’t have $600,000 in ready cash laying around, and second, as a state senator at the time of the complaint, she is immune from civil claims, unless it can be proved that her actions were “malicious or corrupt”. Of course, Guilford County could sue Ms. Wade, and try to prove malice, but that would be difficult, and we taxpayers would just end up stuck with an even bigger bill to pay.

I’ve heard a rumor that Trudy may try to run for office again. If so, let’s hope that the Board of Elections will have revised the candidate qualifications to include “proof of accountability.” That would keep her off the ballot for sure.

During last week’s Triad Today program, I uttered the “C” word. I don’t just mean any “C” word, I mean the dreaded “C” word. The one word that makes 2^nd Amendment activists’ blood boil. It happened while our Roundtable panel was discussing what can be done to prevent mass shootings like the ones in El Paso and Dayton. That’s when I commented that no matter how many gun control measures are enacted, they will be ineffective unless accompanied by the “C” word: “Confiscation”. Why? Because there are more guns in America than there are people. Forty million more to be exact. And so, even if you ban the sale of assault-style rifles and semi-automatic handguns, anyone who is hell-bent on killing people need only to beg, borrow, or steal one of the 357 million guns already in circulation.

For the record, I believe in the spirit of the 2^nd Amendment, and I own several guns. Some of them are for home protection and others are collectibles. None of them are assault rifles. That’s because I don’t need an assault rifle, and neither does any other private citizen. Folks on the far right, however, argue that a ban on the sale of such weapons would be, in itself, an assault on the 2^nd Amendment. They say the Founding Fathers gave us the right to bear arms. The problem is that when James Madison wrote the Constitution, a single-shot musket was the weapon of choice, with which the finest marksmen of that era could only kill one person per minute. If a bayonet was affixed to the musket, the shooter might be able to kill two people per minute. In contrast, today’s assault-style rifles “affixed” with high capacity magazines can kill over a hundred people per minute. I hardly think that the framers of our Constitution would have wanted every citizen to own an AK 47. Another popular argument put forth by the Right is that mass shooters are mentally ill, but earlier this month the Washington Post published findings of a 2018 report by the FBI, which found that of 63 active shooter assailants studied, only three had been diagnosed with a psychotic disorder.

Let’s suppose for a moment, though, that folks who cling to these false arguments are suddenly outnumbered, and Congress finally votes on comprehensive gun reform legislation. Let’s say the reform package includes a ban on the sale of assault rifles, universal background checks, registration of all guns, mandatory metal detectors and electronic locking doors in schools and other public buildings, an SRO in every school, and a federal Red Flag law whereby police or family members can petition a court to take guns away from anyone ruled to be a threat to himself or others (at present, only 17 states have a Red Flag law). Such reforms would be meaningless unless they include a plan for confiscating all assault-style weapons and high capacity clips through a national buy-back campaign, along with serious prison time for anyone who doesn’t participate. Then and only then will we have a fighting chance to prevent mass shootings.

So don’t be lured to sleep by the sweet sounds of singular reforms being touted by presidential candidates and grand standing congressmen. Let your representative know that you favor confiscation of all existing assault-style rifles. Don’t be afraid to utter the “C” word because, given the growing number of mass shootings, an extreme solution is the only way to prevent extreme violence.

Spurred by anti-Trump sentiment, the Republican’s so-called “War on Women”, and the #MeToo Movement, women turned out in droves last year to vote in the mid-term elections. The result was an historic number of women winning local, state, and federal offices. Then, during Trump’s subsequent State of the Union address, the House chamber was replete with rows of Congresswomen adorned in all-white outfits to demonstrate solidarity. It was a significant moment for women. But the 2018 election was also significant for another reason. That year, Illinois became the 37^th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, leaving women just one state shy of the promised land. Unfortunately, no other states followed Illinois’ lead. ERA bills were introduced in Virginia, Florida, and Arizona, but failed to pass. The same thing had happened the year before, here in North Carolina.

The good news is that there is still a path for ratification. Back in 1972 when the ERA was proposed, Congress required that, in order for the Amendment to become law, 38 states would have to ratify within a specific deadline. However that deadline has long since expired. Even so, the ERA can still be revived if Congress votes to extend the deadline again. But is that likely? The answer is “Yes”, if women become the majority in Congress, or if enough enlightened men are elected to both chambers. In either case, a vote to extend the ratification deadline would be almost assured. That’s step one. The next step would be for one more state to ratify. This may seem strange to say, but of the thirteen states still opposed to the ERA, I think North Carolina is the most likely to change course, and do the right thing. For that to happen, we’ll need a few more progressive legislators to invade Raleigh, and they will need to present a compelling argument for giving ERA another look. Fortunately, there is no shortage of reasons for ratification.

First, there are the obvious disparities that have yet to be corrected, chief among them, the pay gap that exists between men and women. As I noted in a previous column, nationally, white women earn about 80 cents for every dollar a man earns for doing the same job. That statistic falls to 61 cents for black women, and 53 cents for Latinas. Here in North Carolina, women earn slightly better than the national average (about 84 cents for every dollar a man earns), but our pay gap isn’t expected to close until the year 2060.

Second, women have little say in how large corporations are run, or in who gets hired for upper management positions. According to a 2015 report from ThinkProgress.com, there are only 48 female CEOs heading up the top 1,000 companies in America. The trickle-down from those numbers translates to more male executives being hired, who then hire more male executives.

Third, men still write the laws that affect women. Yes, women made great progress during the 2018 mid terms elections, but while they are waiting to win more seats, or for more of their male colleagues to “get woke”, there are injustices occurring every day which could be stopped if the ERA became law.

For example, an increasing number of states are telling women that they cannot have an abortion, even in the case of rape or incest. Speaking of which, there’s even a new law in Alabama that allows a male rapist to pursue custody of the child who was born of his assault. And then there’s the woman in Orlando who, earlier this year had been severely beaten by her husband. While her macho spouse was serving six days in jail, she confiscated his cache of guns, and turned them over to local police for safe keeping, so that her jailbird husband wouldn’t shoot her upon his release. But guess what? The wife was arrested for taking her husband’s guns from the marital home without his permission.

We will never be able to fully eradicate misogyny and prejudice, but these kinds of injustices and disparities would not be tolerated under the ERA. That’s why North Carolina lawmakers need to step up to the plate next year and re-visit the Equal Rights Amendment. Let’s become the state that puts ERA over the top, and gives women what should have belonged to them in the first place.