Triad Today

Once upon a time, a group of women who had lost their fathers and husbands to war, raised enough money to erect a statue in honor of their fallen loved ones. That group was the Daughters of the Confederacy, and, over time, their statue of a rifle-bearing soldier affectionately became known as “Silent Sam”. Sam was a different kind of Confederate memorial. His sole purpose was to honor members of the UNC family who had been killed in a not so Civil War. Sam was not a lionized General, or a cruel slave master. He was a benign figure who even became part of a humorous legend around the Chapel Hill campus. As the joke went, if a virgin ever walked past Sam, he would fire his rifle (he never had to). Humor aside, though, the statue was to have been a quiet reminder of lives cut short. But Sam’s 1913 dedication was marred by the vile remarks of Julian Carr, a Confederate veteran who, in his speech, bragged about flogging a female negro slave. The text of Carr’s shameful remarks was re-discovered in 2009, and, ever since then, Silent Sam went from being a well-intentioned memorial, to a hated symbol of white supremacy.

And so, as an increasing number of Confederate statues have been defaced or removed this year, it was just a matter of time before Silent Sam would be targeted by protestors. That time arrived on Monday, August 20, when a gang of UNC students toppled Sam from his perch. YouTube videos of the angry mob put me in mind of Iraqi citizens who toppled a statue of Saddam Hussein in 2003, or Parisians who took to the streets and defaced portraits of Hitler after WWII.

One can argue that the 5% of American Southerners who owned slaves were as bad as Hitler and Saddam, and that beatings and lynchings were no less shameful than firing squads and gas chambers. But the privileged young people who toppled Silent Sam last month were not celebrating the death of a recently deposed tyrant. There was no sense of immediacy to their actions, nor would their destructive behavior end racism. If anything, their violent act only gave rise to violent reactions.

Last week, the UNC Board gave Carolina’s Chancellor until November to come up with a resolution regarding the disposition of Silent Sam, and I hope that resolution will include putting Sam back where he was, and erecting an additional statue nearby that honors the struggles and achievements of African Americans. Of course, regardless of what UNC decides, we should all recognize that statues are only symbols, and every moment we spend arguing about them is time we could be spending on the fight to repeal racist policies designed to disenfranchise minorities. In other words, getting rid of Silent Sam won’t help us get rid of gerrymandering.

Last month’s UNC mob broke the law. Even worse, they failed to understand that removing history doesn’t change history. Instead, it just delays the lessons we must learn, and the challenges we must face in order to affect real change. The fact is that Silent Sam has a lot to tell us, if we’ll just listen.

Political pundits keep telling us that there will be a blue wave in November, and that Democrats will take control of the House of Representatives. Given Donald Trump’s erratic behavior, vitriolic tweets, and questionable policy decisions (think trade war with Canada), it is quite possible that the upcoming mid terms will be a referendum on Trump himself. But for Trump haters, the big prize isn’t taking back the House in 2018, rather, it’s taking back the White House in 2020. To do that, Democrats must put up a strong candidate who can relate to us common folk, and assure us that our jobs are secure, our healthcare premiums are low, and our prescription medicines won’t bankrupt us.

Democrats must also learn how to appeal to moderate and conservative voters of all races who are easily angered by divisive social policies and obtrusive social initiatives. For example, an African American professor in California once told me that after Obama and Biden came out in favor of gay marriage, that Black church-goers became skeptical of Democratic candidates, and stayed home in droves on election day. Today, another social issue is catching fire, and Democrats have their hands squarely in the flame. The controversy involves transgender rights in public schools.

Several weeks ago, Judge Marco Hernandez ordered that public schools in Oregon must allow a boy who identifies as a girl, to share locker room, bathroom, and shower facilities with biological girls. Hernandez also told angry parents that his ruling does not violate the privacy rights of their daughters, and that if they didn’t like the idea of boys and girls showering together, they could put their kids in private school. I hate to name call, but Hernandez is an idiot. Even worse, he’s an arrogant, unfeeling idiot who doesn’t understand the startling impact his words are having on thousands of parents. First of all, no parent wants their 15 year old daughter undressing in front of, or showering with a 15 year old boy, even if he thinks he’s a girl. Second, only a small percentage of parents have the means to send their kids to private school.

Let’s be clear. None of the major Transgender rights court cases that have taken place over the past few years have focused on kids who have already gone through gender re-assignment surgeries. Instead these cases have been driven by a handful of misguided and misinformed parents who have been pushing their young children into believing that they should identify with the opposite gender, in some instances, as early as age 4. Additionally, their cause has been championed by a handful of ultra liberal judges like Hernandez, who have determined that it’s Ok for a boy with male equipment to shower with a girl who has female equipment.

And if you think parents are disgruntled in Oregon, just pay a visit to Oklahoma, where, last week, one school district had to shut down for two days because of violent threats being made against a 12 year old boy who thinks he’s a girl. The “boy” has been using the girl’s bathroom and parents with daughters have lit up social media with vile comments and threats. One parent had a twitter meltdown, and even encouraged other parents to take a sharp knife to the boy, and turn him into a girl.

Parents of all ages and races are angry, confused, and frightened about this gender-neutral, co-ed trend, and that brings me back to the 2020 election. The other day I was approached by an African American woman who happens to be the single Mom of a teenage daughter. She told me in no uncertain terms that even if Donald Trump says he is a racist, she would vote to re-elect him if his Democratic opponent thought it was OK for a teenage boy who thinks he’s a girl, to shower with her daughter. Democrats need to wake up and realize that their base is comprised of hard-working Moms and Dads who want a decent wage, affordable healthcare, and, above all, they want to protect their children. If the Democratic party doesn’t get a handle on the Transgender issue facing our public schools, then Donald Trump won’t just win in 2020, he’ll win in a landslide.

Teenagers have always displayed risky behavior. In the 1950’s they did stupid things in and on their cars. They stood on the hood, they mooned other cars, and sometimes they engaged in make-shift drag races. By the end of the decade, cramming into phone booths was all the rage on college campuses, and during the free love 1960’s, some teens felt empowered to smoke weed and disrobe at rock concerts. In the 1970’s and ’80’s, self-administered body piercings became a sign of rebellion, and, according to a Harvard University study, in the early 1990’s binge drinking became the nation’s number one health problem among college students. Clearly, these kinds of activities presented a risk to health and safety, but for sheer stupidity, none can hold a candle to some of the things kids have been doing in recent years.

According to ListCrown.com, some of today’s more popular stunts include drinking a cocktail made of hand sanitizer and mouthwash. Another activity involves choking your partner until he or she blacks out. Then there’s the Cinnamon Challenge, where kids swallow large quantities of dry cinnamon powder. Sounds harmless, but according to GreatSchools.org, the National Institutes of Health says the Cinnamon Challenge can result in collapsed lungs. Another modern day teen pastime is the Tide Pod Challenge, where stupid kids put the detergent-filled pods in their mouth, then chew them up. This despite the fact that, according to the American Association of Poison Control Centers, ingesting Tide Pods can cause chemical burns, and induce seizures and coma.

And that brings me to the Kiki Challenge which went viral earlier this year. The Kiki Challenge requires the participant to jump out of a moving car, dance to the strains of Drake’s “In My Feelings”, then jump back into the moving car. On July 23, 18-year-old Anna Worden of Bettendorf Iowa, took the Kiki Challenge, and ended up in hospital with a fractured skull, blood clots in the ear, and bleeding in the brain. “I thought it would be fun,” she told a TV news reporter. That same week, a 19-year-old boy in Alabama took the Kiki challenge and was also seriously injured.

These and other dangerous activities have been on the rise over the past decade. For example, CBSNews.com reports that in 2013, an 18-year-old Georgia boy took a dare and drowned after he was tied to a shopping cart, then pushed into a lake. That same year a 19-year-old boy caused a multi-car accident when he fainted from holding his breath while driving through a tunnel in Portland, Oregon. There are a number of theories as to why such dangerously stupid behavior is so rampant. One is that older teens have been inspired by watching re-runs of MTV’s “Jack Ass” Another theory is that kids just want to be seen by millions of people on Youtube. But Dr. Katherine Ramsland, of DeSales University, believes it is more related to peer pressure. She told Psychology Today, “They [teens] look for novelty and are easily influenced by the latest trends, and by their need to belong to the in-group. They use dares to build their self-esteem.”

Clearly teen stunts have become decidedly and deliberately more dangerous than ever before. At the same time, 18- and 19-year-olds want to be treated like adults, but adults don’t eat detergent or jump out of moving cars. Instead, we adults do more mature things, like smoke cigarettes, over-eat, drive drunk, and get addicted to opioids. Come to think of it, I guess there’s no age restriction on stupidity.

Call it political correctness. Call it co-ed scouting, or a gender-blind experiment. Call it whatever you like, but Boy Scouts of America is now accepting girls into its ranks, and for the local Old North State Council, that means an opportunity to better serve families.

As a 64-year-old former cub scout, I was skeptical of BSA’s new initiative, which now allows girls from kindergarten to grade 5 to join gender-specific cub dens, while mixing with boys for family activities (older girls will join BSA in February). So I asked Old North State Council CEO Ed Martin to bring me up to speed on how the new inclusive arrangement will work.

Jim: Why should girls join BSA if a Girl Scout Council is accessible to them?

Ed: For many years, families with sons and daughters have been asking the Boy Scouts of America to provide one program where the entire family can participate together. Families today are busier and more diverse than ever. Many do not have the time nor capacity to take one child to one program location, and another child to another location. Also, the ability for boys and girls to participate in one program location is of great benefit to single-parent families.

Jim: What specific activities can a girl participate in through Old North State Council that she can’t participate in with Girl Scouts?

Ed: Both BSA and GSA are fine organizations that offer unique benefits to youth and families. However, there are many different program experiences offered within each organization. For example, the BSA has offered programs for young men and women ages 14-21 years since 1971 in Career Development (Career Exploring), and since 1988 in high adventure (Venturing). Some of the young ladies in these programs previously participated in the Girl Scouts and then determined that the BSA program was a better fit for their interests. Also, many young women have served on summer camp staff at Old North State Council properties for many years, and then decided to participate in Career Exploring or Venturing.

Last year when BSA announced its plan to recruit girls, Girl Scouts Carolinas Peaks to Piedmont CEO Lane Cook responded by talking about the benefits of a single-sex environment, telling me, “I hope girls will continue to choose Girl Scouts because we are the girl experts, and are dedicated to ensuring that girls are able to take advantage of a program tailored specifically to their unique developmental needs, not one tailored for boys and adapted for girls. Girls thrive in an all-girl, girl-led environment such as Girl Scouts, where they can take center stage, and where the constant message is that nothing can stand in their way. In Girl Scouts, girls can try new things, take risks, and take on challenging roles. Our girls follow their passions without worrying about what their male peers may think about them. Girls succeed in positions that otherwise might go to their male counterparts in a co-ed environment.”

For his part, Ed Martin doesn’t see BSA and GSA as competitors, but rather as co-existing organizations that simply want to serve the needs of children.

“We realize there will be some young women and families that participate in BSA programs and then determine the Girl Scouts is a better fit for their interests or needs. We encourage families to visit us, the Girl Scouts, or any other youth development program that will best meet their interests or needs. The Old North State Council is proud to support all families that choose to join local BSA programs, and help make the dreams and desires they have for their children a reality,” said Martin.

Nationwide, over 3,000 girls have already signed up for BSA’s Cub Scout program, including 7-year-old Ruthie Bunthoff, who, last week, became Old North State’s first recruit. She comes from a long line of scouts, starting with her grandfather who was an Eagle Scout. Her mother Kathryn was also a scout, as are her male siblings. In an interview with the Greensboro News & Record, Ruthie said, “I want to be just like my brothers.”

Something tells me that Miss Bunthoff is going to make a great scout, and grow into a fine young woman. And I wouldn’t be surprised if someday, some little boy says, “I want to be just like Ruthie.”
 
 

Whether you like Donald Trump or not, you have to admit that the man loves to brag. He bragged about having the biggest electoral college victory (it wasn’t). He bragged about having a larger inauguration crowd than Barack Obama (it wasn’t). He bragged about being the toughest president on Russia (sorry, but that honor goes to Ronald Reagan). And, earlier this month he bragged about being the most popular president in history, even more so than honest Abe Lincoln. And while most of Trump’s boasts are about himself, he has, on occasion, directed them at other people.

Early into his presidency, Trump bragged that he had “the best people” working in his administration. He also bragged that his cabinet secretaries had the highest IQ of any presidential cabinet in history. I would have to argue that George Washington’s pick for Secretary of State is proof that Trump’s boast is unfounded, after all, Thomas Jefferson is widely regarded as one of our most brilliant political leaders. In fact, while speaking to a group of Nobel Prize winners in 1962, JFK remarked, “This is the most extraordinary collection of human knowledge that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.”

So, is it true that Trump hires “the best people”? Here’s a run-down on a few of his appointees.

Michael Flynn: (National Security Adviser), was fired after he lied to Vice President Pence (and others) about his meetings with Russian officials during the transition. Flynn has since pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI.

Rob Porter: (White House Staff Secretary), was fired after both of his ex-wives publicly accused him of physical abuse. President Trump initially defended Porter based on information given him by his communications director Hope Hicks.

Hope Hicks,: (White House Director of Communications), whose previous experience consisted of promoting Ivanka’s clothing line, was perhaps Trump’s most trusted adviser. She was always by his side, often slipped him ad lib notes, and wrote some official statements for him to read, including one that supported Rob Porter. Hicks resigned after it was revealed that she was in a romantic relationship with Porter.

Kelly Sadler: (White House Aide), was fired for making fun of Senator John McCain’s terminal cancer, saying, “He’s going to die anyway.”

Dr. Ronny Jackson: (White House Physician), once told the press that Trump passed a psychological test with flying colors, and that he was the healthiest president in history. It was later learned that Trump wrote portions of his own medical report. Trump nominated Dr. Jackson to head the V.A., but his name was withdrawn when charges surfaced that Jackson had been intoxicated on duty, and had over-prescribed meds to White House staff.

Anthony Scaramucci: (White House Director of Communications) was fired after less than ten days on the job because he had publicly excoriated members of the White House staff in an expletive-filled interview with The New Yorker.

Sean Spicer: (White House Press Secretary) resigned six months into Trump’s presidency after taking constant heat for making misstatements to the White House press corps.

Scott Pruitt: (EPA Secretary) resigned just a month ago after a series of bizarre incidents, ranging from ordering his staff to go to Trump Tower and get him a mattress, to purchasing a $43,000 sound-proof security booth for his office, and two desks that cost a total of $70,000.

Rick Perry: (Secretary of Energy) is still on the job, but we’re not sure he knows what that job entails. Perry, who during a presidential debate said there were three agencies he wanted to abolish, but he could only remember two of them. The one he forgot was the Department of Energy. After being nominated to Trump’s cabinet, Perry admitted to the press that he wasn’t aware that DOE was in charge of our nuclear arsenal.

Dr. Ben Carson: (Secretary of Housing) is famous for his off-the-wall statements. He said being gay is a choice because prisoners who are raped come out gay. He also said that Jews could have prevented the Holocaust if they had guns. He must be qualified, though, because hanging in his home is a portrait of himself in which he is seated next to Jesus.

Tom Price: (Secretary of Health & Human Services) resigned following public disclosure that he had expended over one million dollars in DHHS funds for personal travel.

Betsy DeVos: (Secretary of Education) has remained in her job despite not having a grasp on the issues confronting public education. During her confirmation hearings, she was unable to answer a series of questions about such things as accountability, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. My favorite DeVos response is when she said we need guns in schools to protect students from bears.

Abraham Lincoln’s cabinet was comprised of a so-called “Team of Rivals”. These were brilliant men who had often criticized and disagreed with the President, but whose counsel proved invaluable during the most perilous time in our nation’s history. Donald Trump, on the other hand, has assembled a revolving-door team of misfits. Even worse, the President doesn’t seem to heed the advice of the few team members he has who are highly qualified to serve in their capacities. Every president deserves to be surrounded by the best people, but just saying they are the best, doesn’t make them so.

In May of this year, comedian Roseanne Barr tweeted some racist remarks in a late-night rant, which she later blamed on having taken Ambien. (Fact check: Ambien makes you sleepy, not racist.) Regardless of her intent or her lame excuse, Roseanne’s tweet was inappropriate, and it set social media ablaze, with calls for ABC to fire their biggest star. Within hours, the network had sent Ms. Barr and her hit TV show packing.

Increasingly today, people write and do stupid things on Twitter, Facebook and Youtube, and when they do, there are often severe consequences, not just for big celebrities, but for us regular folk as well. Take the federal contract worker who gave President Trump the middle finger as his motorcade was passing by. She posted her dirty digit antic on Facebook, and was fired shortly thereafter. Or how about the North Carolina waitress who was recently fired for going on Facebook and calling out two customers by name for stiffing her on the tip. Then there was the Mecklenburg County teacher who tweeted to her friends how much she hated having to work in, “the most ghetto school in Charlotte.”(source: Business Insider) That teacher no longer complains about the school she works at because she no longer works at any school. Meanwhile, Lydia Price, a reporter for PEOPLE.com, recalls a man who went on a Facebook rant about immigrants, only to learn that the owner of the company for which he worked, was a recent immigrant. Not surprisingly the ranting man was fired. And, Rolling Stone magazine tells of a daycare worker in Newport News who was fired for going on social media and making fun of the kids in her care.

Whether it’s a mega-star like Roseanne, or a relatively unknown daycare worker, it is becoming more and more common for these kinds of insensitive people to lose their jobs because of social media. In fact, according to CareerBuilder.com, nearly 20% of employers say they have fired people for something they posted on social media. Clearly, these people have no one to blame but themselves, but there are cases where someone is fired by social media for something that someone else posted. Case in point, Adam Bloom, a caucasian executive with packaging company Sonoco, who also served as chairman of the Glenridge Neighborhood community swimming pool in Clemmons. As chairman, one of Bloom’s responsibilities was to make sure that only residents had access to the pool. Over the July 4 holiday, a white pool-goer reportedly asked Bloom to check on the residency status of Jasmine Abhulimen, an African-American woman who had been relaxing by the pool with her child. Bloom approached Ms. Abhulimen, who then began recording their verbal exchange. At some point, police were called, and the responding officer calmly resolved the situation. Among other things, the four-minute video reveals that Ms. Abhulimen was the only person singled out by Bloom that day, even though she was a resident of Glenridge and had a key card that had allowed her access to the pool in the first place. We also hear Jasmine asking Bloom to apologize for racially profiling her, but he refused. According to the Winston-Salem Journal’s Sarah Newell, the video went viral with approximately 5 million page views, and Sonoco was inundated with demands for Bloom to be fired. The social media crowd got what they wanted, and within hours, Bloom no longer had a job at Sonoco.

Clearly, mistakes were made at the Glenridge pool that day. For one thing, there was no sign-in protocol being used. For another, when Bloom was asked to check on Ms. Abhulimen’s residency, he could have gone around the pool and asked for an ID from everyone. Finally, he refused to apologize for embarrassing Ms. Abhulimen. Still, two questions remain. Is it fair for someone to lose his job because he showed poor judgement in handling an incident that occurred away from his workplace? And, should social media mobs act as judge, jury and executioner in deciding the fate of someone based on a short video?

I watched the four-minute video several times, and I didn’t like how Ms. Abhulimen was singled out. I’m also not sure what was in Mr. Bloom’s heart, or if he harbored any ill will toward Ms. Abhulimen. What I am sure of, is that a social media mob can’t know those things either. No doubt video postings can serve a valuable purpose when examined in the proper setting, but too often they only serve to incite. Bottom line? Before we help to take away someone’s means of support, he deserves a fair hearing, not just a social viewing.

No matter how you spin or manipulate the statistics, and despite heroic efforts by a number of organizations and agencies, the fact is that drunk driving is still a huge problem. The Centers for Disease Control calculates that intoxicated drivers get behind the wheel no less than 112 million times per year, and that translates to 30 fatalities every day. M.A.D.D. (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) reports that one person dies every 51 minutes due to an alcohol-related crash, while the CDC says there’s one fatality every 48 minutes. The National Highway Safety Administration’s estimate is even more bleak. According to NTSA, more than 16,000 people die in alcohol-related crashes each year, and that translates to one death every 30 minutes.

Tragic as those statistics may be, they are only one-dimensional. Clearly, the drunk driver himself is primarily responsible for his lethal behavior, but sitting alongside him in the metaphorical passenger’s seat are the judges, district attorneys, and legislators who have enabled that behavior. How so? According to M.A.D.D., over one-third of people convicted of drunk driving are repeat offenders. They get caught, get a slap on the wrist, then, after a period of time, they drive drunk again, and again, and again.

Seven years ago the Charlotte Observer reported on something we already knew: DWI sentencing is inconsistent from county to county and from court to court. The Observer’s investigation found that judges in some North Carolina counties convict 90% of drunk drivers, while those in other counties only convict 10%. Overall, our judges acquit about one-third of all drunk drivers. Why the inconsistency? It boils down to a system of guidelines that allows a judge to weigh three factors in every DWI case. These consist of “Mitigating Factors”, “Aggravating Factors”, and “Grossly Aggravating Factors”. If a drunk driver has had an otherwise safe driving record, that’s a mitigating factor that often results in a small fine and a suspended sentence. If the driver has had two or more drunk driving convictions within the past five years, that’s an aggravating factor that sometimes results in a heftier fine and jail time of from 2 days to six months. If the intoxicated driver is operating a vehicle with a revoked license and causes serious injury to another person, that’s a grossly aggravating factor which can carry a prison sentence of up to three years.

And so, while judges weigh three types of factors, six levels of sentencing, acquit one-third of cases, and, in some counties convict only 10% of drunk drivers, the offenders they keep releasing and recycling continue to wreak havoc on society. Meanwhile, in some instances, drunk driving is more of a bargaining chip than a crime, and that brings me to the case of Taylor Roberts.

According to a story in the Winston-Salem Journal, Mr. Roberts appeared in Forsyth County court late last month for driving drunk at high speeds, crashing his car and killing his passenger, Kayla King. Oh yes, and Roberts was driving with a license that had been revoked. The incident occurred last July. If you guessed that Roberts was sentenced to life in prison, guess again. Instead, he reached a plea deal with Assistant District Attorney Matt Breeding and was only convicted of “felony death by motor vehicle”. Judge George Collins then sentenced Roberts to a prison term of from three to five years. But what happened to the drunk driving charge, driving at high speeds, reckless driving, and driving with a revoked license? Those charges were all dismissed as part of the plea deal for a lighter sentence. But why even approve a plea? Because Judge Collins said that Roberts had no criminal record.

First of all, even if Roberts had been an angel up until the time he drove drunk and killed Kayla King, the justice system should have allowed for more prison time. Second, Judge Collins and ADA Breeding likely knew that Roberts was no angel. At the time of sentencing for the fatal crash, Roberts was awaiting trial for allegedly one count of armed robbery, two counts of attempted armed robbery, one count of breaking and entering, and several other felony drug charges during a crime spree last September.

Taylor Roberts is a menace to society, but so is our criminal justice system, which often won’t consider past behavior or pending charges, and will routinely let drunk drivers off with light sentences even when someone dies as a result of their crime. Anyone who drives drunk should do serious jail time on the first offense, and if he causes the death of others, he should spend the rest of his life in prison. No deals, no pleas, no slaps on the wrist. Kayla King’s family deserves no less.

Last week I taped a segment for Triad Today that focused on the prevention of childhood injuries. My guest, a noted Pediatric Injury Prevention Coordinator at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, suggested, among other things, that parents keep their children away from all-terrain vehicles. Coincidentally, before that segment could air, the Winston-Salem Journal ran a front page feature story about a horrendous ATV accident which had occurred back in January, and nearly took the life of 13-year-old Tyler Hughes of Clemmons.

On that fateful day, Tyler got on his ATV and proceeded to drive fast along a snowy, curvy road. The ATV flipped over on him and the roll bar severed his left arm. The headline of the story was, “Quick Thinking Mom, Skilled Doctors Made the Difference”, a reference to how Tyler’s mother Crystal had applied a make-shift tourniquet to her son’s arm, and how surgeons at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center were then able to successfully re-attach the arm. It was a feel-good, human interest story with a happy ending, because Tyler is now almost fully recovered. It was also a grossly negligent story for what wasn’t written. The fact is, Mrs. Hughes should have never let her son operate an ATV in the first place.

Don’t get me wrong. I have nothing against Mrs. Hughes, who acted bravely under pressure, but I do have something against ATVs. As far as I’m concerned they are nothing but noisy death traps. But don’t take my word for it. Based on data extrapolated from a 2010 Reuters report, there are about 11,000 ATV accidents every year, and, according to ATVsafety.gov, those accidents result in roughly 900 deaths annually. Even more troubling, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission says that ATV deaths involving children have accelerated since the new millennium began. Sadly, here in North Carolina, 45 people lost their lives in ATV accidents in a two-year period between 2014 and 2016, and that makes our state 9^th in the nation for ATV-related fatalities.

Shamefully, the Specialty Vehicle Industry Association (the ATV industry’s answer to the NRA), has tried to divert attention away from the inherent dangers of ATV’s, by blaming accidents and fatalities on people who take their 4-wheelers onto paved roads, instead of driving them strictly off-road. S.V.I.A. would also have us believe that simply wearing a helmet will prevent all serious injuries. In reality, that is more true for motorcycle riders than for those who ride ATV’s. During a 2010 meeting of the American College of Surgeons, it was reported that when the severity of injury is the same in an ATV as it is in a motorcycle, those riding the ATV are 50% more likely to need treatment in an intensive care unit, and 50% more likely to die. Why? Mainly because unlike motorcycles, ATV’s are mostly operated by minors.

Tyler Hughes is the perfect example. He wore a helmet, but that did nothing to prevent the roll bar from cutting off his arm. So how, then, do we protect kids from being injured or killed on an ATV? It’s very simple, We keep them away from ATVs. The Consumer Product Safety Commission recommends that no one under the age of 16 should operate an ATV, and I agree. Our state lawmakers should embrace that recommendation, along with three caveats. First, is that the 16-year-old must also have a valid driver’s license even when crossing a public road. Second, the age restriction must apply regardless of the size of the ATV’s engine (current NC law allows kids as young as 8 years old to operate smaller ATVs). Third, the new law should apply regardless of where the ATV is operated, and that means no one under 16 can ride on an ATV even on private land.

Without new laws that come with hefty fines, we’ll never be able to protect kids like Tyler from risking life and limb on an ATV. Think I’m overreacting? Then pay heed to Tyler’s own words, when he told Journal reporter Jenny Drabble that he “can’t wait to start riding again”. Children don’t know any better. Lawmakers and parents should.

Earlier this month the mainstream media decided to hype the plight of illegal child immigrants, but what most news outlets failed to report is that families from Central America have been sneaking into the United States for years, and, under President Obama, were often deported. No doubt President Trump’s Zero Tolerance Policy (prosecution over deportation) has increased the number of illegals coming through our system. Moreover, by doing so, he has forced detention centers to care for a larger number of immigrant children, some of whom, under federal law, had to be separated from a parent awaiting trial. The optics of this mess have been terrible because it is never a good thing to separate a child from his parents. But the news media’s crusade to change public policy has been tainted by their own inflammatory and inaccurate reporting.

“IMAGES THAT MISLEAD”

When their crusade began, it was fueled by a photo of a crying immigrant child with his little hands poking through what appeared to be a wire cage. That image went viral, and the little boy became the poster child for the evils of Trump’s inhumane policies. The only problem is that the little boy wasn’t an illegal immigrant being held in a cage, and he wasn’t crying for his mother. In reality the photo had been taken at an anti-Trump rally, and the “cage” was a security fence erected by police to protect protestors. Then there was last week’s TIME magazine cover which depicted Donald Trump standing over an illegal immigrant child who had been separated from her family. But guess what? The girl’s father, Denis Valera, came forward and said that his daughter was with her mother and had never been separated. The father’s story was confirmed by Nelly Jerez, the Honduran Deputy Foreign Minister.

“NUMBERS THAT LIE”

CNN’s John Berman reported that 2,000 immigrant children had been separated from their families in recent weeks. Not true. In fact, according to Townhall.com, 83% of the people who crossed our border illegally were unaccompanied minors. The other 17% included some children who came here with an adult who may or may not have been their parent. Of those, some were separated from their parent only if that parent had been arrested and is awaiting trial. (That’s the same process we follow with our own citizens when there is no other family member to take care of a child whose parent has been charged with a crime). Also, since very few of the illegal immigrant adults have proof that they are, in fact, the parent of a child, it is incumbent upon ICE to separate children from adults in the detention facilities, in order to prevent abuse or trafficking. Berman and other CNN anchors also said that babies were being stripped away from their mothers. But CNN’s own field correspondent, Diann Gallager witnessed moms with infants and dads with infants. Gallager toured processing and detention facilities in Texas and Florida, and reported that, at the Homestead Florida center, less than 7% of the children had actually been separated from someone they said was a parent.

“TREATMENT THAT IS MISREPRESENTED”

Elected officials, political activists, and the media have painted a picture of illegal immigrant children being traumatized and placed in horrendous facilities. Former CIA director, General Michael Hayden compared Trump’s detention of immigrant children to Hitler’s treatment of the Jews. Former First Lady Laura Bush and others, compared the ICE detention centers to the internment camps we built during WWII to detain Japanese American citizens. Such comparisons are shameful. CNN’s own Gallager and others have reported that immigrant children are being housed in buildings that look like old elementary schools, and they sleep in dormitory areas. The kids receive six hours of schooling every day, plus daily group counseling, and weekly individual counseling. They also meet daily with their case worker who is assisting them in either re-uniting with their parent, or temporarily placing them in a loving home. These children are well clothed, well fed, and safe from abuse.

“OPTIONS THAT EXIST”

Critics of Trump’s Zero Tolerance Policy say that the families and unaccompanied children who came here illegally from Central America, were in fear for their lives, and had no other choice but to break our laws and sneak in. First of all, if they feared for their lives in places like Guatemala, Honduras, or Nicaragua, why did they risk traveling all the way to America, when they could have taken refuge in Mexico? Second, all they had to do to escape arrest was to show up at a legal port of entry and ask for asylum. None of these people HAD to break the law. They just didn’t want to go through proper procedures to live the American dream. Simply put, they are “economic migrants”, says Steve Cortes, a member of the President’s Hispanic Advisory Council. And yet, no one in the media places blame on these immigrant parents for putting their kids at risk during a long journey, then breaking the law, and forcing us to take care of their children while they await sentencing.

“CONCLUSIONS THAT ESCAPE THE MEDIA”

Nidhi Desai, whose parents immigrated here legally, isn’t shy about categorizing people who game our system. The UNC student told Odysseyonline.com, “Illegals are cheating.” Illegals also put a strain on our resources. Today there are 13 million American kids who live in poverty, and more than that who go hungry every day. 78% of all Americans still live paycheck-to-paycheck, and tens of millions of Americans can’t afford proper healthcare. Bad optics or not, we cannot allow millions of people to enter our country illegally every year. Obama initially had the right idea – deport, don’t detain.

Last week President Trump announced that the news media are America’s biggest enemy. Thus far, however, Mr. Trump has only attacked his enemies with words. Not so with former President Richard Nixon who actually compiled a written list of enemies, and planned to punish them with IRS audits and other forms of government harassment. Fortunately, his IRS commissioner refused to issue the vengeful audits, and Nixon had to settle for just cursing about his media enemies in private. The truth is there have always been thin-skinned politicians who complain about negative coverage from the fourth estate, but, so far, freedom of the press has prevailed as a pillar of our society. After all, this is America, and no elected official is supposed to use his influence to ruin the lives of those who disagree with him. No elected official is supposed to disrupt commerce or threaten the financial health of a news outlet just because it didn’t endorse her candidacy. Apparently State Senator Trudy Wade didn’t get that memo.

Last year she went on a crusade to extract her pound of flesh from the Greensboro News & Record, the High Point Enterprise, the Jamestown News, and the Carolina Peacemaker, by introducing legislation that would allow Guilford County to publish legal notices on its own website, rather than having to do so in actual newspapers. Wade maintains that she is only trying to save the County money, and that she wasn’t trying to single out local newspapers who have been critical of her. Yet, strangely enough, her bill didn’t pertain to the other 99 counties in our state. It only focused on the county that was home to news outlets who hadn’t endorsed her candidacies. She has also suggested that her bill is just a pilot program, but North Carolina is a diverse state, and any legitimate pilot program should include data collected from several carefully selected localities based upon population, geography, income levels, and number of media outlets.

Senator Wade can try and justify targeting Guilford County, but try as she will, it is painfully obvious to the rest of us that she used her power and influence for payback. And this isn’t the first time she has thrown her political weight around. In 2015 she introduced a bill in the General Assembly that would have eliminated at-large representatives in Greensboro. Why? We can only assume it was because she wanted to weed out some of the Democrats on Council. It was an unprecedented move, and one that former Gov. Pat McCrory called “legislative over-reach”. In the end, Greensboro City Council survived Wade’s power play, but she was emboldened enough by the exercise to try her hand again two years later, when she successfully engineered passage of the newspaper revenge bill.

For awhile it looked as though Wade’s so-called pilot program would go unchallenged, but last week, the four aforementioned Guilford-based newspapers announced they were filing suit against the General Assembly and Guilford County on the basis that the discriminatory bill violates a general statute of the State Constitution. The statute requires that legal notices be published in newspapers circulating generally within the community affected by whatever action is being advertised. Former NC Supreme Court Justice Robert Orr is one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, and in his complaint said that his clients, “as members of the press, were specifically singled out for prior press coverage and editorials published by some or all of the plaintiffs involving certain acts by elected officials from Guilford County.” Translation, “certain elected officials” means Trudy Wade.

The legal battle will be costly and lengthy. According to Orr, the state has 30 days to answer the complaint, and can then ask for an extension. The state will also probably move to dismiss, then the case has to make its way onto the busy Wake County trial docket. “Realistically we could be looking at October before the first round of motions are heard,” Orr told me. That means a verdict won’t be reached until next summer, and then the losing party would most likely file an appeal. Meanwhile, everyone loses. The newspapers stand to lose substantial ad revenues until they can prevail in court, and taxpayers lose because we are footing the bill (directly or indirectly) for the Attorney General or General Assembly appointed attorneys to try the case. Only Trudy Wade escapes unscathed, even though she’s the one who opened this can of revenge-oriented worms in the first place.

There is only one way to send Ms. Wade the message that it is wrong to use her office to punish those with whom she disagrees, and that is to turn her out of office this November. When that happens, I look forward to a free local press giving her defeat the full coverage it deserves.

Earlier this month the UNC Board of Trustees voted to rescind Bill Cosby’s honorary degree. Their decision came just weeks after the once-beloved comedian was convicted on three counts of sexual assault against a former female employee of Temple University. UNC was one of the last hold-outs among colleges who had stripped Cosby of his largely ceremonial honors. Temple, Carnegie Melon, NC A&T, Johns Hopkins, Boston College, and Notre Dame had already distanced themselves from the man they once praised for his contributions to education and race relations. And while Bill Cosby is the first notable sexual predator to be convicted in the “#MeToo” era, he is joined by a growing list of high profile celebrities who have been accused of sexual misconduct, including Harvey Weinstein, Charlie Rose, Kevin Spacey, Morgan Freeman, Tom Brokaw, and Matt Lauer.

Common among these men is the power they had over their prey. In Cosby’s case, that power came from drugging his victims. For other alleged predators, power came from the positions they held. In recent months, scores of women have finally come forward to say they were afraid of either being fired or not being promoted if they refused (or talked about) advances from their celebrity higher-ups. Men like Rose and Lauer, for example, counted on those fears in order to sustain and protect their own bad behavior. These men were also wealthy and powerful within their sphere of influence. In Lauer’s case he was a major revenue producer for NBC, thus ensuring that even if a woman complained, she would not be believed, and punitive action against him would be unlikely.

That was then and this is now. The “#MeToo” movement is in full force. Lauer has been fired, Rose was dropped by PBS, and Weinstein is about to stand trial. Meanwhile they and other once powerful men are now persona non grata, which explains why so many colleges, studios, talent agencies, investors, sponsors, and fans have distanced themselves from these sexual bullies. The question is, should honors and awards bestowed upon them in the past, now be rescinded in wholesale fashion?

Brittney Cooper, professor of women’s studies at Rutgers University, told the Associated Press, “There’s an on-going conversation about ‘can we love the art, and dismiss or disavow the artist?’ But we have to stop deciding that art is a reasonable spoil of war, that we will ignore all the casualties. We can’t separate Cosby from his art.”

I tend to agree with Professor Cooper. After all, serial predators are only able to succeed professionally by protecting their public persona. They wake up every morning comfortable in the knowledge that their house of cards can’t possibly come tumbling down. Moreover, they count on the cooperation and silence of others to sustain their precious and profitable persona. As such, their “art” is informed by a protected environment that empowers their criminal behavior. Thus, any accolades ascribed to them, even by those who are unaware of that behavior, is based upon a false persona. Their contributions to society might have seemed significant at one time, but we look at things through a different lens now, and what we see is that the pain of long-suffering victims far outweighs the intrinsic value of a successful TV show.

In the end, if we don’t rescind honors and awards given under false pretense, then we become complicit after the fact in condoning and enabling these arrogant men and their abusive behavior. Besides, who needs an honorary degree in prison any way.

Down through the ages, school children have been known to blame someone or something else for their own shortcomings. Some of their more common excuses are: “I left my book report at home”, “I couldn’t study for the test because our electricity went out”, and their gold-standard excuse, “The dog ate my homework.” Fortunately, most kids grow out of playing the blame game, but others never do, and when you’re an adult who won’t accept responsibility for your actions, the blame game just makes matters worse. Such is the case with Roseanne Barr, arguably one of the funniest humans on the planet, and a pioneer in giving strong, middle class women a voice in prime time.

The original Roseanne show aired from 1988 to 1997, and it became an instant comedy classic. Then, last year, ABC decided to revive and update the series.

The new iteration proved to be a ratings blockbuster and a revenue windfall for ABC, who, to date has netted around $45 million dollars in ad sales. All was well in the Conner household until Barr, a serial tweeter and part-time conspiracy nut, went on a late night twitter rant in which she claimed that Valerie Jarrett (Obama’s former Chief of Staff) was the product of a marriage between the Muslim Brotherhood and Planet of the Apes.

A short time later, ABC’s president of entertainment Channing Dungey (an African-American) reportedly consulted with her friend Michelle Obama about Barr’s appalling tweet, and, within hours, the Roseanne re-boot had been booted from the network. Roseanne Barr was suddenly persona non grata, and some 300 cast and crew members were out of a job with no notice.

Some media analysts have pointed out that ABC should have never re-hired Barr in the first place because they were fully aware of her proclivity for using social media to make very anti-social remarks. It’s a valid point, but it’s also spilled milk. What’s done is done. Roseanne offered a public apology, but her mea culpa rang hollow. Why? Because instead of taking full responsibility for her racist behavior, she blamed the Jarrett tweet on having taken Ambien. And so, what we have here is a big-name racist celebrity who is essentially saying that the dog ate her homework. Did she deserve to be fired and did 300 people deserve to be laid-off? No, but she should have been required to attend mandatory sensitivity training, and required to stop using social media while her TV series was still on air.

Nevertheless, high profile people who play the blame game must think that the rest of us are stupid. News flash! No one believes that a pill or alcohol can make you develop prejudices that weren’t already there to begin with. And yet, serial offenders of one kind or another continue to think that blame is the best policy. Mel Gibson thought so in 2006 when he was pulled over by a Jewish cop for driving drunk. “Braveheart” spewed anti-Semitic slurs at the officer, and later said that alcohol made him say those things. In 2015, the man who murdered students at an Oregon community college blamed his violent act on being a virgin. Last year a convicted killer in Ohio appealed his sentence because he said that pain pills had made him slaughter two people in cold blood. And every year or so, we hear of a young mother who kills her baby and blames it on postpartum depression. Meanwhile, men who get caught cheating on their wives blame their behavior on a sex addiction, and men who grope their female employees, blame their victims for not being able to take a joke. And then there’s Hillary Clinton who, to this day, refuses to accept blame for her loss to Trump. Instead of admitting she was a flawed candidate who couldn’t identify with us regular folks, she blames the Russians.

In the end, I think we would have more tolerance for troubled individuals if they would just come clean in the first place, instead of playing the blame game.

My advice? Just say you forgot to do your homework, and stop throwing your dog under the bus. The dog doesn’t deserve that, and neither do we.