Triad Today

Often times it seems like we are inundated with celebrations of special causes, which include their own special color ribbon, or commemorative event. And while these events raise awareness and money, they are soon forgotten by the general public. They are, however, especially meaningful for those of us who have been directly affected by the causes they represent. And so it is for me and National Hospice and Palliative Care Month. Over the past ten years, no less than six of my family members were under hospice care before they died. That’s why I take every available opportunity to tell people about the benefits of hospice care, and of the special people who administer that care.

Hospice offers a multi-disciplinary, holistic regimen of medically supervised, end-of-life care for terminally ill patients, which is designed to keep them comfortable and pain-free. Hospice programs are staffed by a team of doctors, nurses, social workers, therapists, chaplains and others who administer to the physical, emotional and spiritual needs of the patient, while also lending support to the family. Hospice services can be offered in the patient’s home, or at a hospice-run facility, like the Kate B. Reynolds Hospice Home in Winston-Salem, the Joan and Howard Woltz Hospice Home in Mt. Airy, and the new SECU Hospice Care Center of Yadkin.

I remember someone once said to me, “Hospice is where you go to die.” But just ask a hospice team member, or anyone who’s had a loved one under hospice care, and they will tell you that hospice is all about quality of life for the patient, and helping them live in comfort with dignity during their final journey. That’s why it is so important to meet with a hospice team as soon as your loved one is diagnosed with a terminal illness. In the early stages, the patient might benefit from extended palliative care, then gradually and seamlessly transition to full hospice care in the final six months. Advance planning is invaluable, and can prevent the kind of emotional turmoil that can occur when families wait too long to make a decision about hospice care.

But as much as hospice care benefits the patient, it also benefits family members, especially those who are thrust into the role of caregiver. For those folks, hospice provides peace of mind and a responsive support system, which includes volunteers who perform a wide variety of duties, including respite care, which allows caregivers to take a break from their day-to-day responsibilities.

Hospice also offers outreach programs that benefit patients, families, and the community. For example, Mountain Valley Hospice & Palliative Care, which serves 17 counties in North Carolina and Virginia, offers counseling services and grief camps for children who have lost a loved one. They offer special hospice services tailored to the unique needs of military veterans. They provide pet care for patients. They have a volunteer choir that performs for patients and community groups. They operate a Re-Sale Shoppe where the public can donate items which can be given to hospice families, or sold to raise money for supporting the hospice mission. And, they provide all of these programs and services while maintaining a not-for-profit status, which means you can never be denied hospice care, regardless of your financial situation.

November is National Hospice & Palliative Care Month, so as we recognize the compassionate professionals who administer hospice care, I also hope you will take time to learn more about hospice, and how it might benefit you and your family. I also encourage you to donate your time to hospice because they are always in need of volunteers. For more information, visit the websites of Mountain Valley Hospice & Palliative Care or Hospice Care Center.
 
 

Back in the day I joined the BOY Scouts because I was a boy. My sister joined the GIRL Scouts because she was a girl. There was nothing ambiguous or confusing about our choices, nor should there have been. It was just part of the natural order of things. Earlier this month, however, Boy Scouts of America upset the natural order of things. BSA underwent a sea change and a sex change by deciding to recruit girls into their ranks. The move left liberals and conservatives alike scratching their heads, and it put me in mind of something Gomer Pyle once said: “What a dumb thing! What a dumb thing to do!”

The national Girl Scout office had a more visceral reaction, saying, “The Boy Scouts’ house is on fire. Instead of addressing systematic issues of continuing sexual assault, financial mismanagement, and deficient programming, BSA’s senior management wants to add an accelerant to the house fire by recruiting girls.”

The sexual assault portion of that statement refers to a landmark 2010 court case in which the Oregon Supreme Court ordered BSA to release their long-hidden, so-called “perversion files”, containing more than 14,500 documents which detailed complaints of predatory abuse dating back to 1959. For over five decades, BSA had refused to tell police about sexual assaults by scout leaders and, even worse, had systematically guaranteed those offenders that the organization wouldn’t go public if they would just resign and move on. Thus BSA’s cover-up enabled sexual predators to re-locate and re-offend somewhere else. The abuse was far reaching and, according to a 2012 report by the Greensboro News & Record’s Amanda Lehmert, included seven predatory scout leaders in the Triad, along with specifics of their crimes dating back to 1967.

But BSA’s transgressions aren’t the primary argument for why girls should not join their ranks. In an exclusive interview with Lane Cook, CEO of Girl Scouts Carolinas Peaks to Piedmont, she told 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.”

And those developmental needs and differences to which Ms. Cook referred, are significant, as I learned back in 1993 while producing a documentary about the value of single-sex educational institutions. I interviewed a number of highly successful women, all of whom had either attended or managed an all-female school. What they told me was eye-opening.

Anne Marie Whittemore, then part of the legal team defending VMI’s right to stay all-male, and now a partner in McGuire Woods, told me, “Educators generally seem to believe that girls perform better in a supportive type of environment.” Cynthia Tyson, then-president of Mary Baldwin College, added, “Women increase in their self-esteem in a single-sex institution, and that leads to higher achievement for them when they go out into the world of work.” And attorney Anita Blair commented, “In my all-girl high school, a girl was president of the senior class. A girl was editor of the school newspaper. A girl was captain of every team, and we learned by being in an all-female environment, that women can do anything.”

Now, nearly 25 years later, those same developmental differences and needs remain the same.

“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,” said Ms. Cook. “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.”

Clearly, Girl Scouts offers a nurturing experience for their members, but is that going to be enough to stand up against what could be an aggressive campaign by BSA to recruit girls? Lane Cook believes that it is.

“Girl Scouts’ central focus, unlike that of BSA, has always been one of serving girls in an all-girl, girl-led, and girl-friendly environment, to create a safe space for them to learn, lead, and thrive. Only the Girl Scouts has more than 100 years of experience helping girls tap into their leadership potential by reinforcing and extending their skills in a supportive, encouraging environment, in which they feel safe to just be themselves.”

In all fairness, boys just need to be themselves too, and the best way to accommodate the developmental needs of both genders is to maintain and sustain two distinctly different scouting organizations. Kudos to the Girl Scouts for standing their ground. Thumbs down to the Boy Scouts for pulling a stunt to shore up membership. Sorry, BSA, there’s no badge awarded for disingenuous social engineering. It just has no merit.
 
 

I suppose somewhere in the sick mind of Stephen Paddock, he fancied himself a western gunslinger. But a gunslinger of the Old West had to cock the hammer on his six shooter before he could fire a single round. Paddock, on the other hand, was able to fire off 600 rounds per minute with one pull of the trigger. That’s because he used a bump stock on several of his semi-automatic rifles, which effectively turned them into machine guns, and enabled him to terrorize thousands of people at an outdoor concert in Las Vegas on October 1. The barrage of gun fire lasted for about ten minutes, and left 59 dead and over 500 others injured. And unlike the Old West villain who carved a notch on the handle of his Colt to commemorate every kill, Paddock didn’t live long enough to put 59 notches on his guns. No matter, though, because those 59 notches belong as much to Congress as they do to Mr. Paddock. Certainly, Paddock pulled the triggers, but our federally elected representatives, past and present, made it possible for him to have those weapons in the first place.

Time and again, in the aftermath of a mass shooting, Congress has had a golden opportunity to enact substantive gun reforms, but always failed to do so. And those opportunities have not been scarce. Since 2012, the United States has experienced no less than nine massacres, and the Vegas shooting was the bloodiest. In December of 2012, for example, parents of the 20 children killed at Sandy Hook Elementary school, pleaded with Congress to enact new gun laws, but even their pleas fell on deaf ears. The same thing will happen in the aftermath of Vegas. The question is, Why? The answer is the NRA, an organization whose original mission was to promote gun safety, but now stands for gun proliferation.

Not surprisingly, today there are more guns in circulation than there are people, and those guns kill over 11,000 Americans each year. That compares to 165 gun deaths in Canada, 68 in the UK, 55 in Australia, and 39 in Japan. In those countries, government officials aren’t controlled by the NRA, nor do they condone the sale of semi automatic assault rifles for either home protection or hunting.

The truth is, I can stop an intruder with a double action handgun, or a double barrel shotgun. And I can kill a deer seven times over with an old-fashioned Trapper model Winchester. Clearly, no one needs an assault rifle, so those guns should be banned. We also need to ban all after-market modifications and accessories for those rifles. We need to charge a premium price for all ammo. And, once the reforms are in place, we need to confiscate all banned weapons and devices without regard for grandfathered exemptions. In other words, the new laws would go into effect retroactively.

No doubt we will have to wait on these reforms until Democrats hold a super majority in both chambers. But when and if that happens, they must also strictly enforce a Conflict of Interest rule, whereby any member of Congress who receives even a penny from the NRA, must abstain from voting on any gun related legislation. In the meantime, we’re stuck with a do-nothing Congress who believes in the NRA’s mantra, “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” True enough, but Stephen Paddock couldn’t have knifed or clubbed 600 people inside of ten minutes, so guns DO kill people, especially assault weapons.

And so, for now, the best we can hope for is enacting stricter background checks, longer waiting periods, and a base-line mental health predictor, such as standardized psych evaluations for middle school and high school students, as well as for new hires of government agencies and publicly held companies. I just hope we won’t have to carve any more notches until then.
 
 

An unarmed black man was killed by a white police officer while resisting arrest. Details of the incident were withheld by police for over a week. Later, a judge dismissed murder charges against the cop, and riots ensued, including burning and looting. This wasn’t in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014, it was in Winston-Salem in 1967. I was 13 years old at the time, and I remember riding to church and seeing National Guardsmen positioned on tops of buildings throughout downtown Winston-Salem. The Guard was there to restore law and order, the practice of which, ironically, had caused the civil unrest to begin with. Here’s what happened.

Fifty years ago this week, on October 15, 1967, James Eller, an African-American father of four, was seen staggering across a street. Mr. Eller made it to the front porch of his house where several police officers caught up with him, and proceeded to arrest him for alleged public drunkenness. According to police, Eller resisted arrest and the officers tried to subdue him, first by spraying MACE into his eyes. That didn’t work, so patrolman W.E. Owens struck Eller on the head with a blackjack. It proved to be a fatal blow. Police didn’t release details of Eller’s death until eight days later, and it was another four days after that before Owens was suspended. Eller’s widow swore out a warrant against Owens, which according to the Winston-Salem Journal stated that Owens, “feloniously, with premeditation, deliberation, and malice and forethought, did kill and murder one James Eller.” Judge Leroy Sams dismissed the case, and that ruling triggered riots in downtown Winston-Salem.

Winston-Salem Journal and Twin City Sentinel reporters Roy Thompson, Steve Burns, Gene Whitman, Joe Goodman, and Eugene White, and editor Wallace Carroll provided extensive coverage of the riots, which included descriptions of damage to stores along Liberty, North Trade, North Cherry, Claremont, Main, and Fourth streets. Most of the businesses were looted then burned. Mobs particularly targeted jewelry and liquor stores, as well as furniture and appliance stores. Fires broke out everywhere, cars were overturned, bricks were tossed, and shots were fired.

Patrolman E.W. Thorpe described the November 2nd sniper fire to Eugene White in saying, “Guns were reporting everywhere, and you didn’t know who was shooting at who.” Thorpe’s own patrol car was struck by sniper fire at 13th Street and Patterson Avenues. His partner, C.E. Crosby, who fought in the Pacific during WW II, described the rioting as a “small scale war.” Said Crosby, “We didn’t know where to take cover when there was shooting. We were afraid we might try to take cover where the shooting was coming from.”

Mobs also set a fire just behind a Reynolds Tobacco factory on Chestnut Street. The fire was burning near a gas tank, and had Thorpe and Crosby not arrived in time to put it out, there probably would be no Innovation Quarter today.

Twin City Police Chief Tucker told his troops to “take things easy on the mob,” but, he added, “Pull out the heavy stuff. Don’t use it unless you have to, but display it. But STOP it.” Normally, local National Guardsmen are not called upon to defend their own city, but the 200-man Winston-Salem guard was put on alert. Meanwhile, Mayor M.C. Benton and Governor Dan Moore deployed National Guardsmen from Mt. Airy. Most of them patrolled the streets, while others were given roof-top duty. Two of them, Spec 4 Tommy Hennis and PFC Rodney Cooke were positioned atop the Robert E. Lee Hotel.

After a couple of days, all that remained of the “small scale war” were charred buildings and debris in the streets. Order had been restored without loss of life, but there were a number of injuries reported, including to a “negro woman” who had been hit in the head by a brick. Mobs, it seems, are indiscriminant about who they hurt.

The events of October 15, and November 2, 1967, taught us a lot about race relations, the criminal justice system, mobs, and the way Winston-Salem dealt with all of them. Officer Owens probably didn’t mean to kill Mr. Eller, but his unnecessary use of force triggered a firestorm nevertheless. Critics of the time said the officers on Eller’s front porch that fateful day should have used handcuffs instead of mace and nightsticks. The police chief should have gone public within hours of Eller’s death. Judge Sams should have meted out an appropriate punishment for officer Owens. And the rioters should have stayed home. Instead, most of them sought to inflict deliberate damage to local businesses, and some intended to kill cops. One member of a mob was overheard saying to a policeman, “I’m going to get one of you for this.” Burning, looting, and killing is not an appropriate or effective response to police brutality.

In an editorial, Wallace Carroll wrote, “We cannot permit ours to be a city where people are divided against each other by race, and where public safety cannot be taken for granted. No city in America is immune from the passions of these days. But we can overcome them here. We must.”

In December of 2014, a group of concerned citizens marched along Hanes Mall Boulevard in Winston-Salem to peacefully protest the August killing of Michael Brown at the hands of a white officer in Ferguson, Missouri. And, earlier this year there was a peaceful gathering in downtown Winston-Salem to protest the racially-charged incident in Charlottesville. Ferguson and Charlottesville remind us that while we still have a long way to go to improve race relations, we’ve also made some progress over the past fifty years. Instead of throwing bricks and setting fires, protesters in Winston-Salem hold up signs. Instead of threatening to kill cops, they seek substantive public policy reform.

There will always be rogue cops who break the law, white supremacists who incite violence, and mobs who use those incidents as an excuse to do the same. But, by and large, Winston-Salem has, to paraphrase philosopher George Santayana, learned from the past, and is not condemned to repeat it.
 
 

Eddie McLaurin is two-faced. Literally. Just spend an evening at Woods of Terror and you’ll see what I mean. He patrols the haunts in a costume of his own creation, and his character name is “Bone Daddy”, a tall creature whose hair is spiked, and whose neck is adorned with a live boa constrictor. If Eddie’s head is turned to the right, you’ll see Bone Daddy’s “skeleton”, but if he turns to the left, you’ll see the face of a dedicated businessman whose smile is infectious. You’ll see a face that has worn well throughout 26 grueling years of owning, operating, managing, and upgrading Woods of Terror, a spooky destination that is perennially named one of the top haunts in the nation. You’ll see the face of community service, evidenced by, for example, his hosting of an annual fundraiser for breast cancer awareness called “Terror for Ta-Tas” (which takes place on October 20 this year). And, you’ll see the face of economic impact, both in terms of the hundreds of people he employs, as well as the boost that Woods of Terror gives to local businesses each year. I spoke with Eddie and both of his faces when he visited Triad Today.

JL: You look scary in your monster costume, but you look normal here in the studio.

EM: I have two sides, the business side and the scary side.

JL: So you’re bilingual, as Barney Fife might say.

EM: [laughs]

JL: What’s the first Hallowe’en costume you ever remember wearing?

EM: I dressed up as The Crow, from the movie starring Bruce Lee’s son Brandon.

JL: What frightened you as a kid?

EM: My father (laughs). He was a real disciplinarian, but he did right by me. No, probably my fondest memories are of watching Poltergeist, and seeing the clown coming after the girl.

JL: So it scared you?

EM: Yeah, it was scary, I mean graves coming out of the ground, my goodness! And I didn’t get to watch a lot of horror movies as a kid, so that was my favorite scary memory.

JL: Well, you’re giving people a lot of scary memories now. Hey, I went behind the scenes at Woods of Terror recently, and it was like watching a military invasion combined with a Broadway show opening. I was amazed at the amount of work that goes into your production, and the huge number of folks involved.

EM: We have a hundred actors, and it takes almost another hundred for management, parking lot security, midway, and maintenance. It just takes a lot of people to get it right.

JL: In addition to hiring hundreds of full- and part-time employees, you also have a positive impact on the local economy, especially along Church Street.

EM: Yeah we do. The local store owners say their business goes up 35% when we’re open.

JL: You’ve received a lot of national honors and recognition over the years. What makes Woods of Terror so special?

EM: One thing is hard work. If you decide to work hard and you want to make something happen, it will happen. A lot of folks think this happened overnight, but it didn’t. I’m in my 26^th season here.

JL: You seem very committed to your work and to helping others. Who influenced your work ethic and community spirit?


EM: Probably my grandparents because of their honesty and integrity, and the things they instilled in me. My dad also taught me a lot about hard work. If I hadn’t been taught those things, Woods of Terror wouldn’t be open. It’s a big challenge to keep this place open. It’s a lot of work, and it’s a year-round process, not just during Hallowe’en.

JL: I saw your mom helping out too.

EM: Yeah, my mom is incredible, she manages my midway. I also want to say that it’s the people who make this work. From the maintenance staff, to the midway staff, to the actors, it’s all about the people. I couldn’t do it without them.

JL: What new attractions do you have this season?

EM: The biggest thing is our 3-D House, which has been totally re-designed. We also have a huge calypso scene in the pirate section, and we have some other things in the Fun House that will shock everyone.

JL: You once told me that Woods of Terror isn’t for everyone.

EM: We recommend 13 and under probably should not come unless they’ve seen all the horror movies and love it, but we don’t let kids 5 and under in at all. This is for adults, and it IS scary.

JL: I think I’m too young.

EM: I think you’ll do all right.

Woods of Terror, located at 5601 North Church Street in Greensboro, is open every Thursday through Sunday in October, and again on November 3 & 4 for a special “Terror in the Darkness” event. For more information, visit WoodsOfTerror.com, for dates, show times and ticket information.
 
 

On February 27, 1968, after returning from a tour of southeast Asian battlefields, CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite ended his nightly broadcast with an uncharacteristic commentary. In just three minutes of prepared text, the iconic newsman told us that the war in Vietnam was “mired in a stalemate”, and was unwinnable. He called for a negotiated settlement rather than prolonged fighting. Following that broadcast, President Johnson, whose administration was already besieged by youthful anti-war protesters, told a White House aide, “If I’ve lost Walter Cronkite, I’ve lost middle America.” One month later, LBJ announced he would not seek re-election.   

Back then Cronkite affected public policy at a time when viewers could only watch three networks. There were no iPhones, no Facebook, no Twitter, and no YouTube. Today, television anchors have all of those platforms available to them, but utilizing social media to affect public policy requires serious journalists to do so responsibly. Last week, ESPN sports anchor Jemelle Hill failed in that regard. In broadly commenting on the state of race relations in America, and the disparities in our criminal justice system, Ms. Hill tweeted that President Donald Trump was “a white supremacist”, who surrounded himself with white supremacists. She also said a few other choice words about Mr. Trump.

Unlike Cronkite who cleared his commentary with the bosses at CBS, Ms. Hill went rogue on Twitter, and her viral tweet quickly polarized the nation. And, unlike Cronkite who criticized a presidential policy, Hill criticized presidential character. Yet it was not so much Hill’s words that kept the story on the front burner, as it was ESPN’s lack of action about those words.

Reacting to the tweet, White House press spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders called Hill’s comments “outrageous”, and said they constituted a “fireable offense.” In an effort to pre-empt any such termination, the Rev. Al Sharpton warned that Hill’s firing would result in a nationwide boycott of the sports giant. Not surprisingly, ESPN decided to retain Ms. Hill, and do so without punishment.  In the end, this wasn’t about a woman of color calling her president a racist, it was about a liberal anchorwoman being protected by what used to be a non-partisan sports network, which has gradually morphed into a left-wing, politically correct broadcast outlet. That transition became overwhelmingly evident in 2012 with the firing of Rob Parker.     

Parker, a noted African American journalist, was participating in ESPN’s First Take panel discussion when he was asked to comment on the plight of Redskin’s rookie quarterback Robert Griffith. Rob then related feedback he had heard about the black QB from a gaggle of conservative black men who felt that RG3 was more focused on his brand than on his team. “The guys I talk to at the barbershop say he’s black, but that he’s not really down with the cause. He’s not the guy you’d want to hang out with. He’s a cornball brother.” That remark got Parker suspended for one month, during which time he made a public apology. However, after a month, ESPN fired the veteran columnist. Imagine that. A black journalist was fired for answering a question, and relating information he heard from conservative men of color about a black athlete.

Curt Schilling was another victim of ESPN’s left-wing agenda. Last year Schilling, a white conservative and former MLB pitcher, was fired after he took to Twitter to compare Islamic extremists to Nazis. He also weighed in on the transgender bathroom controversy, tweeting, “I don’t care what they are, who they sleep with, the men’s room was designed for the penis, women’s, not so much. Now you need laws telling us differently? Pathetic.” Schilling was naturally critical of ESPN then, and has renewed that criticism now that the liberal Ms. Hill has retained her job despite her divisive tweet. “Disney and ESPN have stopped giving all pretense of objectivity, and they support a very intolerant, exclusive, liberal agenda,” Schilling told FOX News. “I think some of the most racist people in sports are on the station there now, and they have a voice.”

Jared Max, a former ESPN contributor and now a FOX Sports commentator, believes Ms. Hill should have received the same treatment as conservative employees. In an interview with Howie Kurtz for “Media Buzz”, Max said, “First day on the job at ESPN, I was told, ‘You are no longer Jared Max. You are ESPN’s Jared Max. If you do anything stupid, you get into any kind of trouble…you’re ESPN’s Jared Max.’ Jemelle Hill knew the score. There have been policies issued by ESPN that stipulate: ‘Do not insert personal, political opinions. Do not take disparaging shots at politicians.’ ”

So clearly that policy has not been enforced (with Hill),” Kurtz said.

Max replied, “She has not removed her tweets about our president, which is outrageous. Many others have lost their jobs or been suspended for much less.”

;When ESPN first went on the air in 1979 they relied on freelance reporters to keep them flush with content, and I was proud to have served in that capacity. But, over time, I have become disappointed in ESPN for its blatant political prejudices, and willingness to put political correctness before everything else. The night they gave the Arthur Ashe Courage Award to Caitlyn Jenner instead of a teenager who battled cancer, I knew for certain that ESPN had lost its way. If Parker and Schilling were fired for making conservative statements, then Hill should have been fired for making a liberal one. Clearly, ESPN will never deserve to receive its own Courage Award.
 
 

In the aftermath of a mass school shooting, pundits and politicians tell us that families are in mourning so, “This is not the time to talk about gun control.” Similarly, right after hurricane flooding claims dozens of lives, we hear, “Now is not the time to talk about property owners taking responsibility for their own situation.” With all due respect to those who have lost loved ones in Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, now is PRECISELY the time to talk about why people put themselves in harm’s way, and why taxpayers keep paying for clean-up and restoration of homes and businesses that shouldn’t be there in the first place.

Someone once said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result. Yet that’s exactly how it is with residents and business owners who continue to return to, relocate to, and build in flood-prone areas. In fact, since Hurricane Andrew struck in 1992, a three-county area in South Florida has one of the fastest growing populations in the nation, and now stands at 6 million people. Why? Because the rest of us have their backs every time a disaster strikes.

James Howard, a data scientist at Johns Hopkins University, assessed this phenomena in a recent issue of “The Conversation”. According to Dr. Howard the cycle of insanity began in the late 1960’s when our federal government created the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to help people who live in flood zones, and couldn’t afford to pay for private flood insurance. Sounds like a noble undertaking, but Howard says that the presence of a taxpayer-backed insurance program has only served to encourage more development in “coastal and other flood-prone areas.” An increase in private development then brought about the destruction of the kinds of plants and grasses that prevent erosion which, in turn, “increased the likelihood of flooding.” Over time, Dr. Howard says this has resulted in “higher damages and losses from hurricanes and storms.”

And so, NFIP, which has indirectly made flood damage more costly, is collecting less in premiums than it pays out in claims, and is now over $23 billion in debt. That means, absent any substantive reforms, taxpayers who already back the coverage, will now also have to foot the entire bill for clean-up and restoration going forward. How significant is that? Already, estimates are that Hurricane Harvey will cost us nearly $200 billion in damages and clean-up, or about 1% of our nation’s total GDP. And we haven’t even calculated the damages from Irma.

Dr. Howard summarizes the dilemma we face: “NFIP subsidizes development thereby transferring the costs away from current developers and property owners, and to either future owners or taxpayers. Repeatedly flooded properties also receive an indirect subsidy through the frequent rebuilding costs, which are absorbed by NFIP and not the property owners.”

Ron Paul came to that same conclusion in 2012 right after Hurricane Sandy ripped through New Jersey and New York. Wrote Paul in “The Hill”, Many think that there is a need for the government to provide flood insurance…after all, the market would never provide insurance in flood-prone areas at affordable prices. But shouldn’t that tell us something? Shouldn’t that tell us that it is a losing proposition to insure homes in coastal areas and flood plains…and if it’s a losing proposition, should taxpayers subsidize the inevitable losses arising from federal flood insurance?”

The solution is painfully obvious. Howard believes that property owners who choose to live in areas ripe for flooding, should bear the “real costs” of ownership. Translation? If you want to live in a flood zone and soak up the sun and fun year-round, then you need to take responsibility and soak up the costs to rebuild your homes and businesses after every natural disaster. I can hear the PC critics now, “Hey Jim, a lot of lives have just been lost in two major hurricanes, so this is not the time to talk about requiring owners to pay for the choices they make.” OK, if not now, then when? Next week after Hurricane Jose makes landfall? Or maybe next year after another storm hits the Gulf, kills more people, and disrupts our oil refineries? I’m sorry, but now IS the time to talk about reforms, like moratoriums on residential and commercial construction in flood zones, erection of flood walls to protect the environment and essential economic development, and incentives for people who move away from flood-prone areas.  The point is that it won’t kill us to talk about these issues now, but it might kill us if we don’t.
 
 

In her new book “What Happened”, Hillary Clinton blames a variety of people for her loss to Donald Trump.  She blames Trump, saying he is sexist. She blames James Comey and the FBI.  She blames Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden. And, of course, she blames the Russians. OK, so what would happen if next week, Hillary filed suit against the aforementioned culprits, as well as 60 million other people who didn’t vote for her? What if her lawsuit claimed that those people stole the election from her, along with her rightful prize, the White House? I’m certain that no court would even hear her motion. Why? Because that kind of fingerpointing and blame game has no merit. No one stole anything from her, so she should just move on. Sounds logical, except that each year in America, thousands of women are allowed to litigate something just as absurd. It’s called “Alienation of Affection”.

Alienation of Affection is an antiquated law that is still legal in seven states: Hawaii, Illinois (until the end of 2017), Mississippi, New Mexico, South Dakota, Utah, and our beloved North Carolina. In fact, here in the old North State, it is estimated that 200 AOA lawsuits are filed each year. So what is Alienation of Affection? Simply put, it is a law that allows a wife to sue her spouse’s lover for breaking up her marriage and stealing her husband.

Last week, the North Carolina Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of Alienation of Affection, in a Forsyth County case involving a married physician and his mistress. That ruling paves the way for the aggrieved wife to collect mega bucks from her husband’s lover. Unfortunately this is not an isolated case. In March of 2010, ABC news reported that a North Carolina wife was awarded $9 million dollars in a suit against her hubby’s mistress. That same year, according to MailOnline, a wife prevailed in court against her best friend, who she said had seduced her husband. Then there was the Burke County case in which, according to RiceLaw, the wronged wife was awarded $1 million dollars because she said her husband’s secretary dressed provocatively at work, resulting in an affair that destroyed her marriage.

Prior to 2009, North Carolina wives could claim Alienation of Affection even after separating from their husband, but the old law was amended to limit such claims to those occurring pre-separation. I suppose that was some small consolation, yet still, the entire law should be stricken from the books. Aside from being outdated, the existing AOA laws in North Carolina allow the accusing wife to make her case on less burden of proof than she would have to do in a simple defamation case.

According to MyFamilyLaw.com, a spouse only has to prove three things: that love existed between the married spouses; that love between the married couple was destroyed (alienated); and that a third party’s malicious conduct contributed to the loss of affection. The problem is that jury awards are often made based upon the wife’s feelings and testimony rather than hard facts. Even so, who cares if a husband had an affair. If that’s the case, then let his wife take him to the cleaners in divorce court. But allowing an angry wife to collect millions of dollars from a mistress is just plain wrong. Alienation of Affection law essentially condones extortion and accepts the premise that a lover can steal someone’s husband.  

In justifying its ruling last week, the Court said, “…a broken marriage can mean the loss of all the benefits that a healthy marriage brings to society. The State has a legitimate interest in protecting the institution of marriage, ensuring that married couples honor their vows, and deterring conduct that would cause injury to one of the spouses.” News flash, it’s not Big Brother’s job to maintain or sustain marital relationships.

The North Carolina General Assembly needs to join the 21^st century, and recognize that no one can steal a spouse from someone else. It is preposterous to believe otherwise. The Alienation of Affection law, therefore, must be repealed. Until then, if some young guy steals my wife, I’m going to sue him, the Russians and Bernie Sanders. I’ll make them all pay, and the court will see to it that they do.
 
 

The recent match between Floyd Mayweather and Conor McGregor was heralded as the greatest sports spectacle in modern times. Mayweather, a recently retired, undefeated world boxing champion, was pitted against McGregor, the top draw in Mixed Martial Arts fighting. But unlike the 1976 bout between Muhammed Ali and Japanese wrestler Antonio Inoki which was billed as an “exhibition”, the Mayweather/McGregor contest was hyped as a serious fight between two warriors from two different ends of the pugilistic spectrum.

Experts gave McGregor no chance of winning because he would be constrained by strict rules of boxing, and unable to wrestle or kick his opponent. But MMA fans held out hope that the scrappy Irishman would prevail despite the limitations put on him. In the end, McGregor lasted ten rounds before the fight was called, but the MMA champ claimed he could have gone the distance, leading conspiracy theorists to speculate about the contest having been fixed. Regardless, Mayweather not only walked away with a “victory”, he also walked away with $300 million dollars for 28 minutes work. $100 million of that was for just showing up, and $200 million was from his percentage of the pay per view profits. Meanwhile McGregor took home some $30 million dollars for his losing effort. Promoters also made an obscene amount of money, most of which came from fans who shelled out $100 apiece to watch the fight at home.

I don’t have a problem with fans paying to watch a boxing match, but I do have a problem when fans help to enable the criminal behavior of the combatants. Let’s start with Floyd Mayweather. Mayweather came to the fight with numerous arrests under his belt, all involving violent assaults, and most involving spousal abuse. In 2002, for example, he repeatedly punched his baby mama in the face, for which he received a six month suspended sentence, and was ordered to perform 48 hours of community service. In 2004 he was found guilty of assaulting two friends of his other baby mama. That time, Mayweather received a one year suspended sentence, and ordered to pay a $1,000 fine. In 2005 he was charged with beating a bouncer who worked at a bar in Grand Rapids, Michigan. For that Floyd received a 90 day suspended sentence. Later that same year he was arrested for allegedly beating his ex-wife Josie Harris (baby mama #2), but the charges were dropped during trial when Ms. Harris recanted her testimony, presumably so she wouldn’t get beaten again. If so, her strategy didn’t work, because several years later Mayweather attacked her again, this time in front of their kids. He pled guilty and was sentenced to 90 days in jail and a $2,500 fine. He was released after 60 days. It seems that Mr. Mayweather just can’t keep his lethal hands off of women, and never seems to show remorse for his actions.

Speaking of showing no remorse, that brings me to Conor McGregor. Though the volatile Irishman has never been arrested for criminal battery, he is guilty of racist behavior and repeated incidents of hate speech. That behavior escalated leading up to the Mayweather fight. At one point he shouted to his opponent, “Dance for me boy.” Then during a news conference, McGregor told Mayweather’s daughter to , “sing it for me beautiful yaya,” a derogatory word sometimes used to refer to an African nanny, or to describe a woman’s private parts.   And while being interviewed by Jimmy Kimmel, McGregor referenced the film “Rocky III”, and said, “Was that the one with the dancing monkeys?”  Then, after the fight he told reporters that he had “turned Mayweather into a Mexican.”

So there you have it. A boxing match took place between a wife beater and a racist, and millions of Americans paid to watch it. In so doing, those millions of Americans tacitly condoned the physical abuse and hate speech that these two so-called men have committed on a regular basis. Spousal abuse is a heinous act, and the perpetrators should not be rewarded in any fashion, yet that’s what many of us did. And, ironically, the big fight took place on the heels of a race riot in Virginia, which resulted in the death of three people, and a demand for all  monuments to slavery be torn down. Yet, many of the same people who called for an end to violence and racism, helped to bankroll a high profile fight featuring a violent spousal abuser and a flaming racist.

Judge Deborah Lippis, who presided over one of Mayweather’s trials, told the boxer, “You may be a terrific and famous fighter, but that doesn’t make you a god.” Maybe so, but last week, millions of fans tithed generously to two gods – one who stands for domestic abuse and the other who stands for racism. Without our financial support, these two despicable men wouldn’t have even climbed into the ring. As it is, we have made them richer and more heroic than ever before, and signaled to them that their behavior is acceptable. I don’t know why it is that Americans worship athletes, but if we’re determined to elevate these men to god-like status, the least we can do is be more selective in the gods we choose to support.
 
 

Don’t do the crime, if you can’t do the time.” It’s an old familiar phrase to fans of TV police dramas, and a stark warning to all would-be criminals to think twice before doing something bad. But people don’t always heed that warning. Nevertheless, when they get caught, there is a reasonable expectation that the punishment will fit their crime. Unfortunately, judges and juries don’t always adhere to that expectation.

Sometimes, sentences are too light. Take for instance the Triad man who several years ago decided to go bar hopping, get sloppy drunk, refuse a cab ride home, and then get behind the wheel of his car. Moments later he drove onto a sidewalk and struck a pedestrian, dragging his victim a hundred yards before realizing what he’d done. The man died and the driver got off with time served (about a year) plus community service. I’m sorry, but when you deliberately get drunk, deliberately drive a car, and kill someone, that’s no accident, it’s murder, and you should go to prison for life.

Then there was the 2013 case in Billings, Montana in which a male teacher raped his 17-year-old female student. The girl was so distraught that she committed suicide. The judge sentenced the teacher to 30 days in jail. In justifying his ruling, judge Todd Baugh said that the victim was, “older than her chronological age”, and was, “in control of the situation” when she was raped. As appalling as that verdict was, it is not unusual. There are 90,000 rapes reported each year in the United States, but according to the Rape Abuse & Incest National Network, only 3 out of every 100 rapists receive jail time.

But just as some judges are too lenient, others are too harsh. This is particularly true when it comes to handing down sentences for possession and cultivation of marijuana. A kid with no criminal record who gets caught with several ounces of pot can go to jail for several years, and if he happens to have 100 or more marijuana plants on his property, he can receive 40 years in prison. I’m not condoning the use of pot, but increasingly the country is moving toward legalization, and creating special drug courts to advocate for rehab, so handing down lengthy prison sentences for possession seems inappropriate.

Speaking of inappropriate sentencing, I am baffled by the verdicts in two recent, but unrelated cases. The first one involves a Massachusetts man who committed suicide. Conrad Roy, age 18, was extremely depressed and kept telling his girlfriend, 20-year-old Michelle Carter, that he intended to kill himself. For whatever the reason, Ms. Carter repeatedly texted Mr. Roy, encouraging him to go through with his suicidal plans. Eventually he did, and Carter was arrested and tried for manslaughter. Last month she was sentenced to two and a half years in prison. No matter whether the girlfriend was sick, evil, or just displayed bad judgement, the fact is that she did not kill Conrad Roy. In fact, she was miles away when he took his own life. Carter may belong in a mental hospital, but I can’t see how sending her to prison is justified. In any event, it was an unusual case and one wonders how it would have been adjudicated in another venue.

The other case that makes me scratch my head involves Jennifer Caswell, a 31-year-old teacher from Oklahoma. Ms. Caswell had consensual sex with her 15-year-old male student. The boy’s parents said that once the incident became public, their son was humiliated, so last week the judge sentenced Ms. Caswell to a minimum 10 years in prison, and ordered her to pay the boy $1 million dollars. No one condones what the teacher did, but she doesn’t deserve to be locked up for ten years, or have her wages garnished well into the next millennium. A more appropriate punishment would have been to give her a probationary sentence and ban her from taking any job in which she might come in contact with children.

The point is that we are in dire need of more concise laws which specify appropriate sentencing for all crimes, and which apply consistently to every locality in the nation. Until we get that, then going to court is a crap shoot. The question is, how much longer are we willing to accept the roll of the dice?
 
 

Over the past few years I’ve written several columns about Transgenderism, and I must confess that some of the nastiest emails I’ve ever received have come from Trans advocates who misunderstood my intent. In short, I have no problem with an 18-year-old transitioning to another gender, but I do have a problem with parents who encourage and enable that same transition in a small child.

It seems not a week goes by that we don’t hear about another publicity-seeking mother who brags about letting her 10-year-old boy wear dresses to school. In fact, these stories have become so commonplace that I’ve started to tune them out, that is until I heard about “Libby” Gonzales.

“Libby” has become the erstwhile poster child for those who oppose the controversial Texas bathroom bill. Similar to North Carolina’s HB2, the Texas bill professes to be about privacy rights and, if passed by both chambers, would prohibit Transgender persons from using public restrooms unless they use the facility that corresponds to their biological sex.

“Libby”, a biological boy, is only 7 years old, but her parents, Rachel and Frank, say that the child identified as a girl by age three. Rachel recalled the moment of truth for CNN. While visiting a toy store four years ago, Rachel said to her son, “You can pick out anything you want.” “Libby” selected a fairy costume with pink skirt and wings. Said “Libby” to her mom, “This is what I want.” From that point forward, Mr. and Mrs. Gonzales enabled their son’s alleged transgender tendencies.

Stories like those are a media staple these days, but what doesn’t get much attention are legitimate studies and experts who say that many parents are misguided, and are doing harm to their children by helping them transition too early. Dr. Paul McHugh, former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital, told CNSNews.com that young children who act in conflict with their biological sex, suffer a mental “disorder of assumption.” McHugh also cites studies by Vanderbilt University and London’s Portman Clinic which found that 70% to 80% of children who express transgender feelings, “spontaneously lose those feelings” over time.

That view is echoed by Dr. Ken Zucker, head of the Gender Identity Service at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto. Dr. Zucker told the Globe & Mail’s Margaret Wente, “About three fourths of little kids who have issues with their gender – boys who want to be princesses, girls who want to throw their dresses in the garbage – will be comfortable with it by adolescence…or grow up to be gay or bi.” Says Wente, “That’s why Dr. Zucker takes a watch-and-wait approach, and even advises parents of princessy 6-year-olds to say, ‘You’re not a girl, you’re a boy.’” Unfortunately you won’t hear those words coming out of Rachel Gonzales’ mouth, or from most of the attention-seeking parents who love to trot their child out to the media at every opportunity. Why, then, are we hearing about so many transgender children? Dr. Alice Dreger, a bioethicist at Northwestern University’s school of medicine, and a staunch advocate for Transgender rights, told the Globe and Mail, “The pendulum has swung too far. Parents who encourage their kids to change gender are socially rewarded as wonderful and accepting, while parents who try to take it slow, are seen as unaccepting, lacking in affection, and conservative.”

I’m neither a doctor nor a parent, but I have been a little boy, and experience tells me that a child’s utterances and desires are mercurial in nature. One day Johnny wants to be a fireman, the next day a cowboy. One day Suzy wants to be a veterinarian, the next day she wants to be an astronaut. A good parent takes those imaginings with a grain of salt, and rolls with the punches. She doesn’t rush out and send her 7-year-old to flight school at NASA. In like manner, if a little girl wants to dress like a cowboy, the parent shouldn’t tell the child that she’s a boy.

Opponents of the Texas bathroom bill say that it will stigmatize transgender youth, and even put them in danger. But Dr. McHugh says the greater danger to gender dysphoric youth is for their parents to push them into a transgender lifestyle too soon. For example, McHugh cites a new study that shows the suicide rate among transgender youth who go on to have re-assignment surgery, is twenty times higher than the suicide rate among the non-transgender population.

In short, parents of children who show an interest in gender-conflicting activities and clothing, should just take a deep breath and cool it for a few more years. Says Dr. Dreger, “You get the sense that what we have is not so much a rational approach to a psychosocial issue, as a radical ideological experiment.” Perhaps the Globe & Mail’s Wente says it best, “Maybe we’re manufacturing more problems than we’re solving. If we really want to help people, we should remember the old rule: First, do no harm.