Triad Today

The Boy Scouts of America just can’t seem to catch a break. First they came under fire for allowing gay boys to join their ranks. Then they came under fire for allowing openly gay men to serve as Scout leaders. And just six months ago they came under fire for redefining boyhood to include transgender girls. Now BSA has come under fire for allowing Donald Trump to address their annual jamboree.

Before I go any further, I should disclose that my Dad was a Scout leader in the 1940’s and 1950’s, and I was a Boy Scout a decade later. Actually I was a Cub Scout, and after a few weeks as a Webelo, I dropped out because they didn’t award merit badges for playing baseball and kissing girls. It goes without saying that my late father’s Scouting career was much more distinguished than mine. In fact, after having served as one of Eisenhower’s regional campaign managers, Dad’s troop was invited up to D.C. for a V.I.P. tour of the White House and Capitol.

It is important to note that in the ’50s and ’60s, Boy Scouts looked up to and admired their elected representatives. Some even dreamed of becoming President one day. Two of them, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, achieved that dream. A lot has changed since then, but boys still want to be inspired by their President, and that brings me back to Mr. Trump, and his visit to the BSA jamboree which was held in West Virginia two weeks ago.

Instead of inspiring the Scouts with carefully chosen words of wisdom, Trump elected to bombard his young audience with a disjointed collection of incoherent, inaccurate, and inappropriate comments. He began by saying, “Who the hell wants to speak about politics when I’m in front of the Boy Scouts, right?” The President then proceeded to go on a political rant. Here’s a sampling:

“Do you remember that incredible night with the maps and the Republicans are red and Democrats are blue, and that map was so red, it was unbelievable, and they didn’t know what to say.”

“You know we had a tremendous advantage in the Electoral College, popular vote is much easier.”

“I went to Maine four times because it’s one vote, and we won. But we won, one vote. I went there because I kept hearing we’re at 269.”

“Then Wisconsin came in. Many, many years, Michigan came in.”

“What we did was an unbelievable tribute to you and all of the other millions of people that came out and voted for ‘Make America Great Again’.”

Aside from promising not to talk politics, then breaking that promise, most of what Trump said made no sense, especially to a group of boys who were not old enough to vote last November.

Trump also showed the Scouts his nasty side by saying, “By the way, did President Obama ever come to a jamboree?” He did, however, brag about the fact that ten of his Cabinet members were Scouts, and he talked about the importance of loyalty. But one of those former Scouts is Attorney General Jeff Sessions who the President had publicly berated only days before. So much for teaching the Boy Scouts about loyalty. Trump also mentioned Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price by name, but the reference meant little to those in attendance. Speaking of the Senators who were about to vote on repeal of Obamacare, Trump said, “He (Price) better get them. Oh, he better, otherwise I’ll say, ‘Tom, you’re fired’, and I’ll get somebody else.” Sadly, the only time President Trump came close to inspiring the Scouts, his statement left the captive audience scratching their heads. Said Trump, “Oh, you’re Boy Scouts, but you know life. You know life, so look at you.”

A few days later, after receiving numerous complaints about the President’s inappropriate remarks, BSA Chief Executive Michael Surbaugh issued a formal statement to Scouts and their parents. “I want to extend my sincere apologies to those in our Scouting family who were offended by the political rhetoric that was inserted into the jamboree. That was never our intent.”

Reacting to Surbaugh’s letter, Trump told the Wall Street Journal, “I got a call from the head of the Boy Scouts saying it was the greatest speech that was ever made to them, and they were very thankful.” That prompted BSA to issue an immediate denial, saying that they had no record of such a call, and that, “The Chief Scouting Executive’s message to the Scouting community speaks for itself.” A few days later, White House press spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders admitted that the call had never taken place. So much for teaching the Scouts to be trustworthy.

Donald Trump has a history of making insensitive and inappropriate comments, and he is prone to brag about his electoral victory to whoever will listen. That’s why the President’s remarks at the jamboree should not have come as a surprise to Mr. Surbaugh. In that regard, the BSA executive is as much responsible for what happened as is the man who caused the stir. Still, it was a coup for Surbaugh to land Trump for the event, and, in all fairness, many of the Scouts in attendance cheered the President during his non-political, political speech. In any case, the entire fiasco wouldn’t have happened if Donald Trump had embodied and embraced all of the characteristics required of a good Scout. Certainly the President is clean and thrifty, but he comes up short on being trustworthy, loyal, friendly, courteous, and kind.
 
 

I never knew Richard Dobbs Spaight personally, but I bet he resented George Mason. In 1787, Spaight, a native of New Bern, was one of North Carolina’s delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, and one of only four delegates under the age of 30 who signed off on our great document. Old Mr. Mason signed too, but he was also responsible for setting age limits on candidates for federal office. Mason made sure that no one under 25 could serve in the House of Representatives, and that you had to be 30 and 35 to run for Senate and President respectively. According to John Seary, author of Too Young to Run, Mason had a simple argument for not lowering the age a few notches. The Virginia politician said he “had been an idiot at age 21, and figured most 21-year-olds were about the same.”

Spaight was 29 in 1787 and perhaps would have made a good President, but he just wasn’t old enough to run under the new rules. He did, however, run for high office later and, in 1792, became Governor of North Carolina. Still, it must have been difficult for him to listen to a bunch of old guys in Philadelphia disrespecting young people, and dictating the age at which they could vote or hold office. Now, 230 years later, another North Carolinian probably feels the same way.

Last month, Joe Schuler was told by the Guilford County Board of Elections that he was too young to run for a seat on Greensboro City Council. Schuler, a student at UNCG, is 19 years old, and the North Carolina Constitution bars anyone under 21 from holding a state office. Ever the optimist, Schuler told the Greensboro News & Record, “Hopefully, someday the laws will change.”

The laws have already changed in a number of states, where young people are running for and winning local races. This year, for example, Carl Nordman, age 19, is running for Mayor of Adel, Iowa. He is trying to unseat 26 year incumbent Jim Peters. His campaign is not unprecedented in the Hawkeye State. In 2011, 18-year-old Jeremy Minnier was elected Mayor of Aredale, Iowa. In 2010, 19-year-old Romaine Quinn became Mayor of Rice Lake, Wisconsin. In 2008, 19-year-old John Hammond, a freshman at the University of Oklahoma, bested the incumbent Mayor of Muskogee with 70% of the vote. In 2006, 18-year-old Kyle Corbin was elected Mayor of Union, Oregon. And, one year earlier, teenagers were elected Mayor in Linesville, Pennsylvania, Roland, Iowa, and Hillsdale, Michigan.

Despite the progress being made in some localities, wholesale change isn’t coming soon enough for author Seary, who writes, “In our country, 18-year-olds can buy cigarettes, donate organs, drive cars, fly airplanes, shoot guns, sign contracts, have consensual sex, get married, get divorced, have children, join the military, serve as jurors, and be tried in court as an adult. But for some reason they are branded too immature and too inexperienced to run for office.”

Seary was referring mainly to federal office, but his argument also rings true for young people who want to run for state and local offices.

A particular sticking point among older teens is that if they can be sent overseas to fight for our country at age 18, they should be able to hold any elected office at age 18. It’s a familiar argument which arose over voting rights five decades ago. In 1971, following a growing protest against the Viet Nam War and our mandatory military draft, Congress amended the 26^th Amendment to allow 18-year-olds to vote. Today there is a similar move afoot to lower the age for young people who want to hold a local, state, or federal office.

Like George Mason I also believe that a lot of young people are too immature and too inexperienced to represent themselves, much less thousands of their neighbors. But I also recognize that there are a growing number of exceptional men and women under the age of 21 who are wise beyond their years, and who have innovative ideas for how we should be governed. The problem is, even exceptional young leaders haven’t had enough life experience, or adult responsibilities, to give them a rounded perspective on how to go about serving and regulating others. Having said that, I also agree that anyone who is old enough to join the military is old enough to hold office. That’s why I propose that we raise the minimum age for military service to 21, and leave the North Carolina law as is.

My proposal won’t help Joe Schuler get elected any time soon, but it could save the lives of a lot of other Joe Schulers who might be allowed to grow up a little more before heading off to war, or to the Mayor’s office.
 
 

Like most senior citizens, I am set in my ways. I like to watch the same old TV shows over and over again. I like to wear the same old pair of jeans around the house. I identify more with Johnny Bench than Johnny Depp. And I won’t try any food that has “grain” in the name.

OK, so a few weeks ago I was leaving the Triad Today studio when my friend Steve Rehburg, an account executive at abc45, handed me a bag of something called “Gorilla Grains”. I trust Steve because, like me, his hair is turning gray, nevertheless I wasn’t about to sample a bag of grain just because he offered it.

“Try it,” he said. “My wife Alicia makes it.” I thanked him and walked away, intending to re-gift the Gorilla Grains to my wife Pam. As fate would have it, I got stuck in traffic on the way home, and the longer I was stuck, the hungrier I grew. In what can only be described as an act of desperation, I opened the convenient, resealable bag of Gorilla Grains, and poured a handful of the buttery sweet morsels into my mouth. It was the best thing I had ever tasted! In just a few short seconds, I had gone from being set in my ways, to being hooked on grain. As a journalist I was naturally intrigued to learn more about my new vice, so I contacted Alicia Rehburg to find out about her company, and how she came to invent Gorilla Grains.

Jim: How would you describe Gorilla Grains?
 
Alicia: It’s a small, batch-baked granola with a toasty, buttery taste, and light, delicate crunch. We use 100% organic oats and real butter.
 
Jim: What gave you the idea to try and create the perfect grains?
 
Alicia: My husband Steve was a chef by trade. Food had to taste good to him, so he was not on board with any granola snacks that I made for our children. In fact, I had him sample granola from far and wide, and he said the bag they came in tasted better than the granola. I was convinced that there had to be a better way to make granola that would be tasty to discerning palates like Steve’s. I also believed there had to be a way to make a healthier snack than the things people stash in their desks at work.
 
Jim: So how long did it take you to come up with the right formula?
 
Alicia: For fourteen years I tried out variations of the recipe on Steve. The poor guy endured things no one should have to [laughs]. Remember, this is someone who would rather go hungry, than eat foods that don’t taste good.
 
Jim: Once you hit on the right formula, how did you envision Gorilla Grains being used?
 
Alicia: Customers tell me they like to put it on top of their Greek yogurt. Others take it to work for a snack right out of the bag. In fact, I hear that a lot of moms put a bag of Gorilla Grains in their kids’ backpack for school. Our favorite way to eat it is in a parfait with Greek yogurt, layered with Gorilla Grains and frozen, mixed berries, topped off with a sprinkling of salted mixed nuts. Steve says it’s a symphony in your mouth!
 
Jim: You talk about Steve a lot. How did the two of you meet?
 
Alicia: We met outside of his television station. I went there on a Saturday morning to volunteer to answer telephones for a crisis call line. He was there to let volunteers in the building, then he would go back to his office and drink coffee and read the newspaper. After he let me in, he never made it back to his office [laughs].

That chance encounter led Alicia and Steve to the altar, and later produced four children. Today, the couple and their youngest daughter live in Graham, and Alicia’s company is growing by leaps and bounds. Gorilla Grains is garnering rave reviews, and was a finalist in the first annual Big Tasty contest held in Asheville, winning Alicia an opportunity to study at Rutgers University’s Food Innovation Center.

Jim: How did the Rutgers experience help you, and what are your goals for the company now?
 
Alicia: The wealth of knowledge I gained there established our direction for future growth, which is to market Gorilla Grains as a premium food product, and make it available to the public through fine retail stores, as well as through online sales (at GorillaGrains.com).

As for me, I’m still set in my ways. I still watch the same old TV shows, and wear the same old pair of jeans. But my outlook on eating grains has changed, thanks to a lady in Graham, her guinea pig husband, and a bag with a gorilla on it.
 
 

I know this sounds silly, but I’ve come to believe that Richard Petty is the real-life Peter Pan. Throughout his career, Richard flew around tracks with ease. Kids of all ages followed him wherever he went. And, most importantly, he never grew old.

I first met the NASCAR King in 1979, and last month when we taped an interview for Triad Today, I realized that nothing had changed in all that time. He still takes flight, although now it’s in a jet. Kids of all ages still follow him around. And, he looks the same as he did 38 years ago. That’s why it’s difficult for me to believe that RP is 80 years old. Nevertheless, in honor of his birthday and of his groundbreaking career (which included 200 wins and seven championships), Triad Today will salute the ageless wonder in a special program this weekend. The half-hour tribute features an exclusive, in-depth interview with the King, as well as the first-ever joint appearance of Richard with his racing grandson Thad Moffitt, and Thad’s mom Rebecca Petty Moffitt. I began the show by asking Richard to recall the first time he got behind a wheel as a little boy.

Petty: The first time I ever remember driving at all was down on my uncle’s farm. He was getting up hay one day, and he had this old ’38 Ford flatbed truck, and they was throwing hay on the back of it. They put the truck in granny gear, and pulled out the throttle so it sort of crept along. They put me up there and I was standing in the seat, just holding the wheel straight ’till they got to the end of the road. Then they jumped in and turned it around, and I came back. And that was the first time I drove a truck.

Longworth: Did that upset your momma when she found out?

Petty: Well they didn’t tell her I don’t think (laughs). They got the field cleaned up, that was the main thing.

Longworth: Did your daddy encourage you to follow in his footsteps and become a race car driver?

Petty: I don’t think we ever had that conversation. When I was 18 I said, “Can I drive a race car?”. And he said, “Come back when you’re 21. You’re going to grow up a lot between now and the time you turn 21.” So I just kept working on his race car, and he was winning races and championships, and then one day, right before I turned 21, I said, “OK, I’m turning 21.” And he said, “There’s a car over there in the corner. Get it ready to go.” And off we went to Columbia, South Carolina.

Longworth: In 1959 you were running at a track in Georgia, and you thought you had your first victory until you heard someone say something.

Petty: They flagged me the winner and flagged my dad second. I was in a ’57 Oldsmobile convertible, and he was in a ’59 Oldsmobile. I hadn’t been racing but about six months, so I was tickled to death to win. Then they told me someone was protesting the race. Come to find out it was my dad protesting. Sure enough when they checked the cards, they had left him out of a lap. Back then if you had a new car, there was a $500 bonus. I had a 1957, Dad had a ’59, so our company made $500 more when HE won than if I had won.

Longworth: Your daddy was pretty smart.

Petty: Yeah, he was pretty good, and Mother was standing right there taking the check, you know what I mean? (laughs)

Longworth: On a race day did you always have fun, or was it more like a job?

Petty: It was fun. Driving a race car was a hobby. We had done all the work on it during the week, and I had done everything that I had done back when I was a mechanic, except when it was time for the race, they put me in the car, and away I went. So you work all week to be able to do your hobby, like you work all week so you can go play golf on Sunday. I worked all week so I could go racing on Sunday. That was the fun part.

Longworth: You had a lot of scary crashes. When you would get back in the saddle for the first race after a crash, were you ever a little bit afraid?

Petty: No. You was just that much more determined to overcome the problems you had before. I’ve never been afraid of a race car. Things happen so fast that you don’t have time to be scared. And when it’s over with, there’s no need of being scared.

Longworth: You always stayed around after each race to sign autographs, whether you finished first or tenth. Why did you do that when other drivers wouldn’t?

Petty: I look at it from the standpoint that the fans are the ones that’s paying me. The fans had to buy the tickets so the promoter would have money to pay us. So every time I would sign “Richard Petty”, I would say “Thank you for being a race fan”. I didn’t care if you were a Richard Petty fan or not. As long as you bought a ticket, then I would say, “Thank you.”

Longworth: You’re 80 years old now. What if the phone rang and they said, “Richard we have a problem and we need you to drive this Sunday.” Could you still race?

Petty: I’d try (laughs). I don’t think I’d tell ’em “No”. I think I’d go try.

Spoken like a good old boy who never grows old.

The complete interview with Richard, plus information about his family Foundation, the Petty Museum, Petty’s Garage, and Victory Junction Camp, can be seen this Saturday at 7:30am on abc45, and Sunday at 11:00am on MY48. Audio of the program will also be broadcast Saturday at 11:30am on 600AM WSJS.

There was a headline in last week’s newspapers that caught my attention. It read, “Middle Class Wage Crisis Worse in North Carolina.” The story, written by Associated Press correspondent Emery Dalesio, highlighted findings by NC State University economist Michael Walden, in which he concluded that the collapse of middle class jobs in this century was worse in North Carolina than in the rest of the country. According to professor Walden, middle class jobs rose by 6% nationwide between 2001 and 2015, but fell by 5% here in the State. Communities that have lost textile jobs in large numbers accounted for much of our decline, and Winston-Salem was particularly singled out as having suffered from depressed wages.

Dalesio also referenced findings by UNC’s Maureen Berner, who added that the decline in middle class jobs and wages led to a “double-digit growth in the need for food distributed by non-profit organizations.” Her conclusion didn’t come as a surprise to me. Clyde Fitzgerald, CEO of Second Harvest Food Bank, had warned of this trend on many occasions over the past few years when appearing on my Triad Today television program. He spoke of the high rate of childhood hunger in the Triad, and of the challenges in keeping food bank shelves filled, and financial donations flowing.

What makes all of this bad news especially hard to swallow is that while many North Carolina families are still struggling to make ends meet, the income of wealthy people continues to rise at an obscene rate. In fact, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich and Senator Bernie Sanders have been railing against income inequality for years, even before the recession of 2008. So, just how bad is the disparity? According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 1982, the average CEO pay was 42 times greater than that of his average worker, but by 2012, the Institute for Policy Studies estimated that the ratio had reached 364 to 1. And while I will never defend greedy corporations who overpay their CEOs to the detriment of their employees, at least those executives work in the private sector. Not so with another elite group of “one percenters”.

If you really want to get steamed about stagnant wages, then just take a moment to examine what today’s college coaches earn each year. For example, Duke University basketball coach Mike Krzysewski makes $9.6 million per year, and Michigan football coach Jim Harbaugh is paid about the same. Alabama football coach Nick Saban earns over $7 million annually, while Florida State’s Jimbo Fisher and Louisville’s Rick Pitino take home around $6 million each. But the pay rates and raises are also staggering for lesser known coaches in minor sports. According to a Washington Post story by Will Hobson from March of this year, the University of Virginia’s head women’s volleyball coach has seen her pay increase from $94,000 to $221,000 over the past ten years. Meanwhile the salary of West Virginia University men’s soccer coach rose from $66,000 to $188,000 per year, and Kentucky’s track and field coach went from earning $108,000 in 2006 to $429,000 last year. That’s a 298% pay raise! Not angry yet? Then consider that during that same period, the median pay for the average American worker rose by less than 1%.

The pay disparity at our nation’s colleges must also anger the men and women who have devoted their lives to providing academic instruction to students. According to the American Association of University Professors, the average salary of a full professor is $113,000 per year, while most instructors are lucky to be making half that amount. Even worse, their raises are few and far between, and when state legislators do approve a pay hike, it’s usually less than 5%. That’s a far cry from the coach who received a 298% pay raise.

So there you have it. Private sector CEOs make nearly 400 times the salary of the workers they haven’t yet laid off, while a growing number of college coaches earn anywhere from two times to 40 times more than the teachers who make it possible for those coaches to have a place to work. Pundits and politicians have suggested that higher taxes on the rich, and salary caps on coaches would make our lot in life easier. But the fact is, neither of those solutions would translate to more middle class jobs and higher wages for workers. That might only happen if President Trump makes good on one of his campaign promises: to incentivize companies who bring their factories and jobs back to America from overseas.

Until then, those of us in the dwindling middle class can either make do with what we have, or else try and get hired as a CEO or college coach. Excuse me while I dust off my resume.

This week we celebrate our 241st anniversary of independence from Great Britain. A few weeks earlier, we celebrated Memorial Day, where we honored men and women who had made the ultimate sacrifice. I’m as patriotic as the next guy, but over the years I have come to dread these holidays, and I can explain my disdain in one word: Fireworks.

Despite what we see in old movies, war is not glamorous. It is not glorious, and it is almost never necessary. And so there’s a morbid kind of irony about the fact that we honor those who died in war, by firing off a barrage of mortars and rockets designed to recreate the violent sounds of war.

In my neck of the woods, fireworks are shot off by neighbors in their back yards, and by so-called professionals who are hired by the city to punctuate community gatherings. During our a previous Independence Day fete, the combination of private and municipal rocket fire caused the windows of our house to vibrate so severely that they nearly shattered. Moreover, the constant barrage of scud-like missile activity also caused our dogs to shake uncontrollably, and become so upset that they suffered with GI difficulties for two weeks. Meanwhile, the noise disrupted bed rest at area nursing homes and retirement complexes, and wildlife fled from their limited wooded habitats, and ran nervously into on-going traffic, where at least one deer met his doom. These are all too common scenarios across the country, and are of particular interest to Chapel Hill-based Noise Free America.

NFA acts as a clearinghouse for noise complaints, and as an advocate for a ban on fireworks altogether. In a 2014 email exchange with NFA Director Ted Rueter, I learned that noise wasn’t the only problem resulting from our annual Independence Day fireworks displays. Serious injuries and deaths also occurred. Those included three small children and an infant who died in a Philadelphia house fire, which had started when a firecracker was thrown onto a sofa on their front porch. The fire also spread to several other row houses. And then there was the man from Michigan who lit some fireworks which then flew back into his chest, killing him. Ted also mentioned another man who blew his arm off while using fireworks. Meanwhile, KIRO-TV in Seattle reported that in just a few short hours, one local hospital treated 35 people with fireworks-related injuries. Said Rueter, “This past 4th of July turned out to be a deadly and very disruptive holiday”.

Unfortunately, fireworks related tragedies are not a recent phenomena. The National Fire Protection Association reports that

in 2011, nearly 18,000 fires were caused by fireworks. Those included 1,200 total structure fires, 400 vehicle fires, and 16,000 other fires.

That year, fireworks caused over $32 million dollars in property damage, and at least eight people died. Not surprisingly, more fires are reported on the 4th of July than on any other day of the year, and fireworks account for two out of every five of those fires.

According to the Insurance Journal, in 2016, hospital emergency departments treated nearly 11,000 people for fireworks related injuries, including 31% who were children under the age of 15. Meanwhile the Consumer Product Safety Commission reports that there have been 114 deaths related to fireworks since 2001

And, as if we didn’t have enough to worry about, now there’s a new kind of danger involving fireworks. Forbes and other news outlets report a rise in people flying their drones in the airspace just above fireworks displays. When rockets collide with drones, the latter can cause the former to detonate off target, and can force hazardous debris down onto unsuspecting spectators.

In addition to producing noise and causing fires and injuries, fireworks are also increasingly causing environmental damage. Studies by the EPA show that chemical residue from fireworks is polluting lakes, ponds, and even contaminating ground water. That, in turn, negatively impacts on the health of humans and wildlife alike.

Some states have enacted laws which restrict use and composition of fireworks. In California, for example, fireworks devices cannot leave the ground. In North Carolina, aerial fireworks are illegal except by permit. Meanwhile, seven other states have banned all consumer fireworks. But those bans don’t go far enough, because they do nothing to restrict commercial use of fireworks. Yes, I’ve heard the argument that “professionals” know how to handle fireworks, and most of them do. But that’s not the point.

According to Science Daily, the South Coast Air Quality Management agency solicited testimony which showed that chemicals from nightly fireworks displays at Disneyland, had polluted underground water to the extent that six local wells adjacent to the park had to be shut down, and residents forced to drink bottled water. Science Daily also reported that children with asthma had more frequent attacks because of smoke generated from Disney’s fireworks displays.

I doubt anyone is more competent with recreational explosives than the pyrotechnic wizards who set off fireworks at Disneyland, Disney World, and other parks across the nation. But that doesn’t rectify or prevent noise, air, and water pollution. That’s why commercial as well as consumer fireworks displays should be banned in every state, with the caveat that localities can issue special permits for venues that aren’t near a residential area, don’t border on a body of water, and where technicians use non hazardous materials.

The fact is there’s nothing particularly patriotic or even appropriate about shooting off fireworks in celebration of Independence Day, Veterans Day, or Memorial Day. Surely we don’t need to be bombarded with the sounds of war when pausing to recognize our freedoms or our veterans. A simple parade, display of American flags, a brass band, and some small sparklers are more than adequate to present a safer, quieter commemoration. I just can’t imagine that anyone who died in battle would feel good about the injury, death, and damage caused by fireworks on his behalf. That kind of senseless loss serves only to dishonor those we seek to honor.

We all know that there’s a lot of hype in advertising, but most ads contain at least some modicum of truth. For example, a car that’s advertised as getting better gas mileage, usually does. A pain reliever that’s advertised as having extra strength, usually has it. And, toilet paper that’s advertised as being new and improved, usually is. So, last week when Senate Republicans finally released their secretive healthcare reform package, and advertised it as the “Better Care Reconciliation Act”, I assumed that it would offer “better care” than either Obama’s ACA, or Paul Ryan’s AHCA. As it turns out, though, the name “Better Care Act”, really just means it’s “Better than Nothing.”

After listening to Senator Mitch McConnell announce highlights of the BCRA, I went online and read through the 142-page bill, only to find that it is just as bad as the House version. The first indication of that was on page 5, in a section titled “Applicable Median Cost Benchmark Plan.” Section (B)ii provides for a health plan that “has a premium which is the median premium of all qualified health plans…which are offered in the individual market.” The problem is that BCRA doesn’t impose caps on premiums, deductibles, or co-pays, nor does it enact a federal requirement for insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions. Thus, that particular section seems moot because a median premium could end up being the median of unaffordable plans to begin with.

Perhaps the most cruel provision of BCRA, though, is tucked away on page 134. Section 204 covers “Change in Permissible Age Variation in Health Insurance Premium Rates”, and maintains the same “Age Tax” imposed by Ryan’s plan. Specifically, BCRA allows insurance companies to charge older persons (ages 50 to 64) five times the monthly premium as a younger person. That means a 49-year-old man who pays $500 per month in premiums, might pay $2,500 per month one year later, even if there’s no change in his health. In a statement released on June 22, AARP Executive Vice President Nancy LeaMond said, “The Senate bill would hit millions of Americans with higher costs and result in less coverage for them. AARP is adamantly opposed to the Age Tax, which would allow insurance companies to charge older Americans five times more for coverage than everyone else, while reducing tax credits that help make insurance more affordable.”

Ms. LeaMond also criticized the Republican-led Senate for proffering a bill that “cuts Medicaid funding that would strip health coverage from millions of low-income and vulnerable Americans who depend on the coverage, including 17 million poor seniors, and children and adults with disabilities…the Senate bill also cuts funding for Medicare, which weakens the programs ability to pay benefits, and leaves the door wide open to benefit cuts and Medicare vouchers.”

Former President Obama is also critical of the BCRA, writing on Facebook that “…it’s a massive transfer of wealth from middle-class and poor families to the richest people in America.” Obama continued, “Those with private insurance will experience higher premiums and higher deductibles, with lower tax credits to help working families cover the costs…and millions of families could lose coverage entirely.”

As of this writing, not a single Senate Democrat plans to vote for BCRA, which means McConnell can only afford to lose the support of two fellow Republicans. But already, at least four GOP Senators have indicated they won’t vote for the plan. If those numbers hold, then the American people will be stuck with a failing Obamacare system from which insurance companies continue to flee. Under that scenario, it is possible that Congress would eventually have to consider the one healthcare reform they fear the most: Bernie Sanders’ “Medicare for All” plan.

Sanders proposed his plan during the 2016 campaign, and engaged reputable economists to devise a way to pay for it without overtaxing the average American. Critics on both the left and the right say Bernie’s plan amounts to socialized medicine. But I don’t hear any of those folks complaining about taxpayer-supported schools, police, or military. If we have a right to free police protection, we should also have a right to free medical care. We shouldn’t have to live under the threat of bankruptcy in the event of a catastrophic illness, or become seriously ill because we can’t afford the medical care that we need.

Insurance companies pump millions of dollars into lobbying and campaign contributions each year. Eliminate them and you’ll eliminate the reason that many legislators are afraid of voting for substantive healthcare reform. In the meantime, we’re stuck with trying to replace one flawed healthcare system with another. Take my word for it, unlike toilet paper, there’s nothing new and improved about BCRA. I am, however, tempted to use one for getting rid of the other.
 
 

By now we all know the story about a friendly gathering of politicians that turned violent. Suddenly, without warning, shots rang out, and a member of Congress lay wounded on the ground. Days later, elected officials boasted about a new spirit of bi-partisan unity that would grow out of the attack. This wasn’t last week in Alexandria, Virginia. It was six years ago in Tuscon, Arizona.

On that day, Representative Gabby Giffords was gunned down while attending a constituants meeting in a shopping center parking lot. The shooter also killed a federal judge and wounded several other people who were in attendance. Ms. Giffords, a pro-gun control Democrat, survived the assassination attempt, and her high-profile rehabilitation was expected to inspire bi-partisan cooperation on Capitol Hill, especially when it came time to vote on gun reform. But Congress has an historically short attention span, and an even shorter memory. Even though one of their own was nearly murdered by a nut with a gun, not a single piece of legislation was passed to curtail the sale or use of guns.

It has been a week since Louisiana Rep. Steve Scalise and his Republican colleagues were attacked while practicing for their annual Congressional baseball game. Scalise is still in critical condition, and several others are still recovering from their wounds. The baseball game went off as scheduled, and it turned into a love fest between the two political parties. A commentator for FOX News noted that, “Republicans and Democrats are coming together to wear LSU caps in honor of Scalise.” And, though Dems won the contest, they awarded the trophy to the GOP so it could go on display in Scalise’s office. What wonderful gestures! But if 2011 is any indication, those gestures will prove to be hollow. Soon, things will be back to normal, and the two parties will battle each other to a standstill over healthcare, taxes, immigration, and Russia. And, oh yes, don’t look for any substantive gun reform legislation either. Sadly, that’s just the way things are in Washington. Old habits die hard. Gun victims die much easier. The fact is that D.C. politicians are better at pointing fingers than they are at solving problems. Perhaps we all are.

Anytime there’s a mass shooting, folks from all walks of life are quick to blame other folks from all walks of life. First and foremost, of course, the shooter is to blame for pulling the trigger, but the media loves to analyze what motivates such killers. In the case of last week’s baseball field incident, the perpetrator, James Hodgkinson, was a liberal extremist and Bernie Sanders supporter who hated Donald Trump, and wanted to assassinate Republicans. So naturally, the news media sought out Senator Sanders for an official statement, as if he was somehow responsible for Hodgkinson’s behavior. They did much the same thing in 2011.

Just prior to the Tuscon shooting, Republican darling Sarah Palin urged her followers to “target” Democrats, especially Rep. Giffords. Palin’s website even featured the image of a rifle scope with crosshairs. Immediately following the attack on Giffords, Democrats and the media blamed Palin for inciting violence. Even today, Palin is still having to defend those political ads, and deny that there was any intent to harm Giffords.

Though they are polar opposites, politicians like Sanders and Palin strike a nerve with their followers. The question is, can political rhetoric cause or lead to violence? GOP Congressman Mark Sanford believes so. Last week in an interview with MSNBC, he reminded viewers that during the 2016 campaign, candidate Donald Trump once told a rally that he’d like to punch a protestor in the nose, and would pay the legal bills of anyone who did so. The suggestion is that Trump’s bluster eventually led Mr. Hodgkinson to spray fifty bullets at defenseless Republican Congressmen. But vitriol hasn’t been the sole property of conservatives like Donald Trump. Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters once referred to Republicans as “scumbags”, while other members of her Party call for impeachment on a daily basis, suggesting that Trump and his Cabinet are corrupt traitors.

Speaking of liberals, Democrat-leaning entertainers are also being blamed for last week’s violence. Comedian Kathy Griffin recently held up a fake severed head of Trump, covered in blood. Madonna told thousands of women that she had thought about “blowing up the White House.” Snoop Dog produced a music video in which he pretends to shoot a Trump look-a-like. And just last week in New York City, a theatre production of Julius Caesar portrayed the famed emperor as Donald Trump, so that the brutal assassination scene would send some kind of sick message to the audience.

Following the Giffords incident in Arizona, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik spoke with the New York Times about the political climate in America, as a factor in politically motivated shootings. Said Dupnik, “When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government…The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous.” Perhaps Sheriff Dupnik didn’t realize how prophetic his words were. What should be peaceful town hall meetings have turned into shouting matches and worse. It’s gotten so bad that a number of Congressmen have stopped holding town halls altogether. Meanwhile, a growing number of other members now refuse to wear their Congressional lapel pin for fear of being targeted, and Rep. Chris Collins said he’s going to start carrying a gun. The fact is that we’re all partially to blame for the divisions in our country, and that’s why we need to choose our words more carefully. We also need to elect real leaders who will stop fighting among themselves, and start fighting for changes that will improve quality of life for all Americans.

Six years ago, the only concession Congress made in honor of Gabby Giffords was agreeing for both parties to sit together at the 2011 State of the Union Address. Six years later, Congress has agreed for a baseball trophy to sit on Steve Scalise’s desk. Here’s hoping they agree to set an example of civility, tone down the rhetoric, and work together to pass meaningful legislation. It’s time for Congress to really play ball with each other.
 
 

If you stick around in Washington long enough, you build up seniority and get to chair committees, providing that your political party is in power. That’s what has happened to Senator Richard Burr. Burr was first elected to Congress from the 5^th District in 1995, then moved to the upper chamber in 2005. For most of that time he has remained largely invisible to his constituents and to the mainstream media, but all that changed recently when he began to preside over a series of hearings conducted by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Thanks to Comey, Flynn, and the Russians, Richard Burr is now one of the most visible politicians in the nation. TV news anchors, pundits, newspaper editors, and even leading Democrats are now heaping praise on Burr for his fair-minded handling of these high-profile soap operas. And so, the senior senator from North Carolina has suddenly become America’s poster boy for bi-partisanship. The problem is that his newfound fans have a short memory.

Burr has consistently voted in lockstep with his fellow Republicans on every major issue. In doing so, he has received a fortune in donations from industries whose products and services have brought hardship to millions. He has voted against tax cuts for the middle class while supporting tax cuts for his industry donors. He opposed employment opportunities for veterans, supported the privatization of Medicare, and has voted to confirm every Trump cabinet nominee. And, he has enriched himself while those he serves have seen their incomes drop or remain stagnant.

In addition to chairing the Intelligence Committee, Burr also sits on several other powerful committees, including one which has oversight of the FDA, Medicare, and Medicaid. But instead of using his position to help people, he has voted with the interests of the industries he should be helping to regulate. Reporting for STATnews.com, Sheila Kaplan points out that some 200 companies located near Burr’s hometown are in the business of developing or manufacturing drugs and medical devices. It should come as no surprise, then, that these companies gave Richard over a million dollars for his last re-election campaign. In return, Kaplan says that Burr has pressed for lower taxes on Big Pharma.

Meanwhile, Richard has also received big bucks from the insurance industry, and in return, has opposed the Affordable Care Act, voted to privatize Medicare, and refused to come down on Blue Cross for price-gouging. As a result of his partisan votes and positions on these matters, millions of people can’t afford the costly drugs they need, won’t seek proper medical attention, and can’t pay their rising healthcare premiums.

Speaking of partisanship that harms people, Burr has refused to support even the most basic, common-sense gun reforms. Rob Schofield of The Progressive Pulse, reported that in 2016, Burr voted against a bill that would have required universal background checks, and limit sales of guns to known terrorists. Why? According to Becky Ceartas, director of North Carolinians Against Gun Violence, Burr’s votes were a quid pro quo for the 800 thousand dollars he received from the NRA. Said Ceartas, “Burr chose not to put safety of our families first, pushing that aside to demonstrate (his) loyalty to the gun lobby.”

Back in 2003, partisan Burr supported President Bush’s invasion of Iraq, and once he knew that we had invaded the wrong country, did nothing to advocate for withdrawal. The result was the death of over a million innocent Iraqi civilians and thousands of American troops. To add insult to injury, the veterans who returned home from Iraq and Afghanistan faced an unemployment level of nearly 11%, yet according to a report by Jon Erickson of WCTI-TV, Burr voted against a bill that would have created a job corps meant to employ veterans as firefighters and police officers.

And if all that isn’t partisan and self-serving enough for you, consider Burr’s vote on a bill called the Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge Act, better known as the STOCK Act. The bill would have prohibited members of Congress from trading on and profiting from insider knowledge of the stock market. Sean Galitz of CBS.com reported that the STOCK Act was the result of a “60 Minutes” investigation which “exposed how members of Congress and staff legally traded stocks based on non-public information that they had exclusive access to.” Richard Burr voted against the bill. Why? Galitz suggests it was because Burr held stock in a number of companies who were “lobbying for several energy and regulatory bills that he co-sponsored”, and that those companies had donated nearly a half-million dollars to Burr’s campaign. Burr’s vote was also suspicious because of his increase in wealth since coming to D.C. According to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Burr’s net worth in 1994 was $189,000. By 2014 it was over $2.6 million. That’s an increase in net worth of 500% during a period of time when, according to Ballotpedia.org, the average American household net worth increased by less than one percent.

All of this makes Burr’s recent fame as a bi-partisan leader just a bit hard to take, especially for anyone who has been negatively impacted by his numerous quid pro quo votes over the years. Yet Richard seems to be wearing his newfound mantle well. In fact, he looks downright relaxed and statesmanlike with a gavel in his hand. The reason? Last year Burr announced that he would be leaving the Senate after his current term expires. No longer is he worried about raising money, trading on insider information, or answering to lobbyists and industries who have scratched his back. He’s made his millions and when he steps down, those of us whose interests he voted against, will pay him a full pension with benefits.

Believe it or not, I remember a time when elected officials of both parties acted like statesmen from their first day on the job, and never compromised their ethics or their votes for political or personal gain. They were individuals who arrived in D.C. with very little wealth and no agenda, and they left the same way. Richard Burr is finally coming into his own as a statesman, but it’s only because he’s a lame duck who’s already come into everything else.
 
 

In the year 1054, Pope Leo IX and one of his Eastern patriarchs, Michael I, got into a power struggle. The Pope believed he had absolute authority over all Christians, east and west, while Michael saw Leo as a figurehead with no authority over the Eastern Church and its doctrines. The two men ex-communicated each other, and, to this day, the east and west churches remain apart. That break-up became known as “The Great Schism”, and it has lasted in part because the Vatican refuses to relinquish its status as God’s chief interpreter, arbiter, and enforcer here on earth. Now, another great schism has occurred between two God-fearing factions, but this time the split isn’t between church leaders. It’s between the Church and millions of children who are involved in Scouting.

Last month Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City ordered all churches in his diocese to cut ties with Girl Scouts because the Scouts “are no longer a compatible partner in helping us form young women with the virtues and values of the Gospel.” That means Catholic churches will no longer host or support Girl Scout troops, and priests will no longer sell or facilitate the sale of Girl Scout cookies. Naumann says his cease-and-desist action is warranted because Girl Scouts USA pays dues to the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts, which, in turn, supports Planned Parenthood.

But the schism doesn’t just affect Scouts in Kansas City. The controversy over social issues like birth control and sexual orientation has been brewing for several years. According to Huffington Post correspondent Carol Kuruvilla, in 2014 the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops took Girl Scouts USA to task for its indirect ties to WAGGGS, saying it was “morally objectionable that WAGGGS promoted educating girls about their sexual and reproductive rights.” That opened the door for archbishops to begin transitioning away from sponsorship of local Girl Scout troops. In fact, the Archdiocese of St. Louis cut ties with Girl Scouts last year, and, with Naumann’s recent decision, other Catholic churches are expected to follow suit.

And it’s not just girl scouts who are feeling the heat from their church sponsors. Last summer the Boy Scouts of America announced it would begin accepting gay scout leaders and volunteers. A month later, Bishop David Kagan told churches in North Dakota to stop supporting Boy Scout troops. Kagan told the Catholic News Agency, “I cannot permit our Catholic institutions to accept and participate directly or indirectly in any organization whose policies contradict the authoritative teachings of the Catholic Church.” But there’s more bad news for Boy Scouts. Last month, the Mormon Church announced it too was cutting ties with them because of BSA’s acceptance of gay and transgender men and boys.

According to Julie Zauzmer of the Washington Post, the Mormon Church will begin to create its own youth program for teenage boys, in lieu of supporting BSA troops. Meanwhile, pastor Steven Andrew, president of USA Christian Ministries, is also calling for a boycott of BSA, saying that, “Boy Scouts (of America) don’t care about the souls of young men because the Bible warns that homosexuals don’t go to heaven.” If these church boycotts continue to grow among all denominations, millions of boy scouts and girl scouts will find their troops displaced and in search of hosts and sponsors.

I must admit I am perplexed by these scouting schisms. Church leaders profess to know the wishes of God, and demand that scouts follow strict interpretations of those wishes. Yet both boy scouts and girl scouts are, by their very mission, dedicated to following God’s word. The Boy Scout Oath, for example, includes a “Duty to God”, while the Girl Scout Promise includes a pledge “to serve God.”

Moreover, these young people don’t just sell cookies and go on camping trips. They collect food and clothing for the needy, clean up streets and streams, visit Alzheimer’s units, and volunteer at homeless shelters. In fact, Girl Scouts founder Juliette Gordon Lowe believed that a scout’s spiritual development must be tied to community service. Translation? Serving God means serving our fellow man, not excluding him.

Last month a girl scout in the Czech Republic confronted an angry mob of Neo-Nazi bullies who were protesting against diversity. The young girl engaged one of the racist homophobes in a conversation, and before long, the crowd had calmed.

Perhaps if angry church leaders would take the time to meet with scouts and learn what these fine young people are doing for others, then they would realize that these boycotts and schisms are misdirected, and will only serve to hurt the kids they profess to care about. Until then, it’s important to note that bullies come in all shapes and sizes. Sometimes they have shaved heads and wear swastikas on their clothing, and sometimes they wear robes and crosses. I think God wants us to stand up to all of them.

My dad was active in the Republican Party for most of his life, and counted Richard Nixon among his friends. When I was born in 1954, then-Vice President Nixon sent Dad a hand-written note, congratulating him on, “bringing another Republican into the world.” Ten years later Dad took me to meet Mr. Nixon. I told the famed politician that I had been his 1960 campaign manager at Moore elementary school, and that, thanks to me, he defeated JFK in our straw vote.

Nixon grinned, then placed his finger on my chin and said, “One day YOU’LL be president.” I never did become president. Nixon had lied. No big shock there.

Twenty-three years later in 1987, though, he made a similar promise to a young entrepreneur named Donald Trump. In that instance, Nixon’s prediction came true. I’m not bitter that Trump made it to the White House instead of me, but I am a bit confused about why.

As a politically astute ten-year-old, I knew that I was not qualified to be president because I was just a child. I was also pretty sure that you had to be an adult to get elected president. Yet Trump ended up in the White House by acting like a child, and now he’s governing in the same way. His behavior must send a confusing message to today’s children, many of whom get punished for name-calling, acting out, or for being rude, petulant and nasty. But it’s not just kids. A lot of adults are also confused by how a grown man can act and speak childishly, yet still be rewarded with the most powerful job in the world.

Last month Ross Douthat, a conservative columnist for the New York Times suggested that, based on his behavior, President Trump could be removed from office under the 25th Amendment, which elevates the vice president if the president is “incapacitated.” The columnist bases his opinion on a broad interpretation of the Amendment, by including mental or emotional incapacitation as a justification for removal. The fact is, talk of Trump’s instability has been escalating lately, and with good reason.

Throughout the 2016 campaign, Donald Trump displayed narcissistic and childish behavior that was unprecedented in American presidential politics. He mocked a disabled reporter. He suggested that a female debate moderator was mean to him because she was on her menstrual cycle. He called United States senators childish names like “Lyin’ Ted” and “Little Marco”, and referred to his opponent, a former secretary of State, as “Crooked Hillary.” And when Senator Elizabeth Warren was critical of his policies, he called her “Pocahontas”, and still does. Since taking office his Twitter storms have also been childish. He accused former President Brack Obama of wiretapping him. He questioned the ability of a judge just for having an Hispanic last name. And he declared that the news media is the enemy of the people, giving political cover to men like Congressman Greg Gianforte who recently body-slammed a reporter for asking a question about the healthcare bill.

In addition to displaying childish anger, Trump also has a child’s level of understanding for nearly every facet of government. And, just like the little boy bursting to tell a secret, Trump has, on at least two occasions, spilled classified information to our adversaries, first by revealing Middle East intel to the Russians, and more recently telling Philippine strongman Rodrigo Duterte where our nuclear subs were located.

President Trump also has trouble telling the truth. Last month he told a reporter that Trump University had an “A” rating from the Better Business Bureau, when in fact it had a “D” rating. Those kinds of statements go hand-in-hand with another childish trait. Little boys love to brag, and Trump is no exception. He talks about having the smartest Cabinet ever, the best people on staff, and the biggest crowd in the history of inaugurations. He also once said, “I know more about ISIS than the Generals.”

Beyond bragging, his unscripted remarks in general demonstrate definable immaturity. A recent report from the healthcare website STAT revealed that Trump’s language and cognitive abilities are at 3rd and 4th grade levels. The report also looked at data from the Flesch-Kincaid grade level test which documented Trump’s frequent use of derogatory words, like “idiots” and “losers”. His ability to read scripted texts aloud is also child-like. Just watch when he tries to read from notes or a TelePrompTer, as he struggles to properly speak or emphasize even the simplest words. Trump also lacks an ability to memorize and assimilate basic facts. For example, every time he emerges from a private meeting into a photo op session, he has to rely on note cards when summarizing what he just heard only moments before.

It is important to note that the STAT study observed a sharp decline in Trump’s cognition over the years, saying that in the 1980s and ’90s, he “demonstrated a more polished style of speech and extensive vocabulary.” Back then he also didn’t lash out with cruel insults at people he didn’t like, nor did he seem paranoid about everyone and everything. And that brings us back to whether our president is mentally, clinically, or emotionally incapacitated.

Last year I wrote a column about Narcissistic Personality Disorder as defined by the Mayo Clinic. According to that definition, Donald Trump displays every major symptom of NPD. Former FOX News chief Roger Ailes, a Trump supporter, told the National Review that Trump just needs to “grow up.” But that’s easier said than done, and may not be possible, especially if Trump’s capacities keep declining. Meanwhile, congressman Ted Lieu has proposed legislation which would require a psychiatrist to be attached to the White House, and free to monitor the mental health of the president. It’s probably a good idea.

Clearly Donald Trump has a problem, and so do we. The man who currently occupies the Oval Office and who has control of our nuclear arsenal:

• angers easily,
• is petulant and cruel,
• is insensitive,
• is detached from facts and reality,
• is paranoid, narcissistic, and
• has diminishing cognitive skills.

In other words, he is a man-child whose only qualifications for being president are that he’s over the age of 35, and he’s an American citizen.

Richard Nixon could not have known back in 1987 that Donald Trump would turn out this way, but in 2016, 63 million voters knew and didn’t seem to care. Nixon can be forgiven for his oversight. The 63 million voters cannot.

Last week, a group of community leaders from Forsyth County came together for a roundtable session with State Attorney General Josh Stein to discuss the problem of opioid deaths. The meeting was triggered by the release of a report from the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, which showed a rise in opioid deaths throughout much of the Piedmont, between the years 2005 and 2015. During that time, deaths resulting from opioid overdoses rose from 13 to 53 in Forsyth, and from 27 to 47 in Guilford.

Meanwhile, Governor Cooper announced he was “committed to combatting opioid abuse”, and that includes passing HB 243. Known as “The STOP Act”, the bill will put new restrictions on doctors who prescribe and dispense opioid drugs, and will also limit public supply. The North Carolina Hospital Association must believe HB 243 will pass, because it just recommended that all emergency departments start using non-opioids to treat pain.

If all this sounds familiar, that’s because when he was Attorney General, Roy Cooper waged war on decongestants, saying that criminals were extracting ingredients in Sudafed and using them in the manufacture of meth. Cooper’s grandstanding has resulted in innocent citizens being treated like terrorists every time we try to purchase meds for a sinus headache.

Just as with the war on decongestants, the war on opioids is an example of what I like to call cosmetic or deflection politics. It makes for good headlines and generates lots of goodwill, but it mainly serves to deflect public attention away from the fact that our elected officials aren’t doing much of anything to address more widespread problems. Childhood hunger, unchecked healthcare premiums, corporate pollution, and the flow of illegal drugs into our state, are all complex problems that are not easily solved, and sometimes never addressed. On the other hand, a war on legal painkillers can be superficially waged by quickly enacting a few laws and guidelines, so that the public believes something has been accomplished.

The sad truth is that restricting or prohibiting the use of legal painkillers will do nothing to prevent either access or abuse. The 18th Amendment should have taught us that. When alcohol was banned during Prohibition, the flow of spirits never abated, it just flowed under the radar at speakeasies and in back alleys. Likewise today, marijuana, heroin, cocaine, and meth are all illegal, yet Americans are still using and abusing them in record numbers.

Is it tragic that some people die from abusing painkillers? Absolutely. Should we step up our efforts to educate the public about the dangers of such abuse? Absolutely. But you can’t legislate abuse any more than you can legislate morals. Passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act did not end racism, and passage of new restrictions on legal painkillers will not end opioid abuse. If we ignore that fact, then we might as well ban all products or substances which can cause death when misused. One example is caffeine.

Last week while Stein and Cooper were grandstanding, a 16-year-old South Carolina boy died after drinking too much caffeine. In the course of two hours, the youth had consumed a large Mountain Dew, a cafe latte from McDonald’s, and an energy drink. The combination caused him to have a fatal heart attack. The incident was unfortunate, but the young man chose to drink large quantities of caffeine, and we are not our brother’s keeper. Still, I suppose Mr. Stein’s solution would be to make all soft drinks and coffee illegal.

Each year, over 200 people die from food allergies. Perhaps, then, Mr. Cooper will put restrictions on the use of peanuts, milk, and shellfish.

And let’s not forget demon rum. According to the CDC, approximately 90,000 people die each year because of alcohol. Some of those deaths are from binge drinking, and some from liver damage. But many alcohol related deaths are the result of a drunk driving incident. If the Governor wants to wage war on something, why not start by making cars and whiskey illegal?

Or perhaps we should begin our Prohibition with handguns. According to the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, each year nearly 20,000 people commit suicide with a gun. That compares to 11,000 people who are killed by others with a gun. In other words, people take their own life with a gun more often than they get murdered with a gun. No problem, we’ll just make all guns illegal.

And how about passing a law to protect us from eating donuts? Each year over 75,000 people die from diabetes, and many more than that are killed by heart attack and stroke due to clogged arteries. Abusing donuts, therefore, can lead to an early death. So can using tobacco products. Each year over 200,000 people die from COPD alone, a disease caused by smoking. But alas, I haven’t heard any Forsyth County officials declare war on Winston cigarettes or Krispy Kreme donuts. I wonder why that is?

The fact is that selective prohibition is inconsistent, hypocritical, and rarely successful. The war on illegal drugs has failed, so why should we expect a different outcome from a war on legal drugs? Just make something hard to get, and watch how fast consumers will still manage to get it anyway. Again, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t allocate funds for prevention, education, and treatment. It just means we have to stop kidding ourselves by waging politically cosmetic wars that only serve to punish innocent people who legitimately need or want the product that is being restricted.

Otherwise, let’s just go ahead and make EVERYTHING illegal. I miss my donuts already.