Triad Today

On the day my father died, a friend of mine 2,500 miles away stopped filming his TV show, and sent me a personal message: “Jim, I’m sorry about your Dad. I’m sure he must have been quite proud of you. Someone once wrote, ‘Flowers will wilt and tears will dry, but love lives on in reverent memory.’ My sympathy.”

That friend was Bill Paxton, a versatile, multi-talented everyman-turned-actor, -musician, -director, and -documentarian, who never lost sight of his Texas roots or core values, and always seemed to put the needs of others before his own. Billy had the biggest heart of just about anyone I ever met, and in a cruel twist of fate, it was his heart that failed him in the end. He went in for surgery on February 14 to repair a valve, then suffered a stroke eleven days later. He died on February 25. Bill was just 61 years old. He was survived by his wife Louise, and his children James and Lydia.

I first met Billy when he agreed to participate in “A Father’s Day Salute to TV Dads” which I produced and moderated for the Television Academy in June of 2009. He had already appeared in a slew of blockbuster films by then, (Aliens, Terminator, Predator 2, Twister, Apollo 13, Titanic, et al), and now, he was filming the groundbreaking HBO series Big Love in which he played a Mormon with three sister wives and a passel of kids. Joining Bill on stage were eight other iconic TV Dads: Dick Van Dyke, Bryan Cranston, Dick Van Patten, Jon Cryer, Patrick Duffy, Reggie VelJohnson, Stephen Collins, and Michael Gross.

It was a good natured group of guys, among whom there was great chemistry and mutual respect, so I knew I was on safe ground to poke fun at them during my introductory remarks. Of Billy I said, “As an actor his credits are impressive, and at the same time, pitiful. In Tombstone he failed to serve out his term as sheriff. In Apollo 13 he failed to reach the moon. In Titanic he failed to recover a prized jewel. And in one season of Big Love he failed to perform in bed with two of his three wives.” Billy entered the stage laughing, and underneath the thunderous applause he received from the capacity crowd, he said to me, “Thanks Jim. What a great introduction!” In my 45 years of hosting shows and events, no one had ever thanked me for poking fun at them. But that was Bill Paxton. He was not only a great performer, he was also a great audience, and the boy loved to laugh. Strike that. You can’t really call what Billy did, a “laugh”. It was more like a cackle, followed by a big Texas style “Woooo!”.

That night, the Academy audience also discovered that Billy was a master storyteller who could talk about poignant childhood memories or hilariously bawdy incidents with equal aplomb. For example, when asked to recall his favorite TV Dad, Billy went on an hysterical rant about unwed fathers.

Paxton: All the TV Dads I grew up with, something happened to the mother. The wife was out of the picture. The Rifleman. What was the deal there? Did he shoot her by accident? [laughter] And what was the deal with Andy Griffith and Opie? I mean was he a bastard kid? And there was the Courtship of Eddie’s Father. And Uncle Bill on Family Affair. Was he really their uncle or their father? What the hell happened to Aunt Dorothy?

Longworth: You’re really wound up about this.

Paxton: And you’ve got My 3 Sons and William Demarest as Uncle Charlie. What did he do? Knock off the mom to get on the payroll? I mean, you could keep going with this stuff. Ben Cartwright. What was the deal with the cook? [more sustained laughter as Bill’s story built to a crescendo]

And then there was his show-stopping answer to my question about sex ed.

Longworth: Who talked to you about the birds and the bees?

Paxton: I remember I was about 16 years old and I wanted to talk to my dad because I had heard this term, “premature ejaculation”, and I thought I was the only guy on earth who had this problem. (laughter from the audience). So one Saturday morning I rode downtown with my dad who went to pick up his mail at the office. Now I could talk to my dad about anything, so I said, “Dad I think I’ve got this problem.” He said, “What’s the problem son?” And I said, “I think I’ve got premature ejaculation.” Well my dad liked to describe things very graphically, and he said, “Oh son, you don’t have to worry about that. Hell, I used to go off on the nest all the time.”

Academy members were nearly falling out of their seats laughing, while Patrick Duffy, who sat next to Billy, feigned a comic look of shock at what he had just heard. “Woooo! That’s a hard one to follow!” said Billy. And so it was.

The event was a celebration of fathers, both on screen and off, so each TV Dad got to tell something serious about his own real-life father. For Billy that meant talking about his hero and best friend, John Paxton.

Paxton: My dad is the person I measure everyone by. And I’m one of the luckiest guys I know because my dad is still my closest confidant. He was a lumber salesman, always traveling, and one thing he taught me was, “take time to talk to somebody”. He was a social man with great humanity.

The same could be said about John’s son Bill.

In the years following the TV Dads event, Billy and I stayed in touch regularly. Sometimes we saw each other, sometimes we talked by phone, and most times we emailed each other. Sometimes we talked about people we admired, or old TV shows we used to watch. On one occasion, I wrote Bill and told him that Pam and I were spending the evening with Shirley Jones. “I’m so envious,” he said. That scene in the cat house in Elmer Gantry is unforgettable. Talk about sex appeal!” And there was the time I told him that the game show Password had just been released on home video, and our buddy Dick Van Dyke was in one of the episodes. “The Password DVD sounds great. I watched a lot of hours of that as a kid,” he wrote. Billy often talked with me about his work, but never about his individual performances. He always hoped that the Big Love team would win an EMMY, and when the show was cancelled, he wrote, “Jim, we went down swinging for the back fence.” He was also proud of his kids, and gave me a heads-up when James was about to show up in an episode of Billy’s Alamo opus, Texas Rising.

And then there was the formal interview I did with him to promote his Hatfields and McCoys mini-series. For Billy it was a bittersweet experience because mid-way through filming in Romania, he was called back home to attend his father’s funeral. He was back on a plane the next day to continue working. Seems like Billy was always going somewhere or coming back from somewhere. His emails read like a travel log: “I’m on my way to Toronto”, “Jim, I’m in London”, “We just wrapped in Romania”. He was a perpetual motion machine when it came to work.

Billy’s last email to me was on February 11. He told me how much he liked the memorial tribute I wrote about our hero Mike Connors (Mannix). And he talked about his new series Training Day. “I’d like to think I’m carrying on what Mike started as a TV Crimefighter”, he said. And in his last sentence he wrote, “Hope you’re watching Training Day!” I told him that Pam and I loved his new show, and that Mike would have loved it too. He didn’t say anything about feeling bad. He didn’t mention being scheduled for surgery on February 14. Eleven days later he was gone.

I couldn’t get my head wrapped around the fact that my friend had died. I put off writing this column because I couldn’t find the words. I turned to some of the folks that Billy and I knew, and they also found it difficult to talk through the shock.

Bruce Dern: Bill was a prince of a guy.

Patrick Duffy: Too good, and way too soon.

Bryan Cranston: Just devastating. He was such a great guy, and a talented actor. Huge loss. Rest well my friend.

Stephen Collins: Such a terrific guy, and incredibly humble about all his success.

Michael Gross: He was indeed a lovely man.

Mary Kay Place: Bill was such a down to earth guy, so kind to everyone. A great human being, no Hollywood BS about him.

Kurt Russell: I don’t know anyone who didn’t love being with Billy. He was flat out one of the good guys. I sure hope it’s in the cards for us to get together again. ‘Till then, I’ll miss him.

Fact is, anyone who knew Billy or watched him perform, will miss him too. Cowboy or cop. Soldier or scamp. William “Bill” Paxton could play them all. But as great as he was an actor, he was an even better person. He was the kind of person who once comforted me by writing, “Flowers will wilt and tears will dry, but love lives on in reverent memory.” Now, I hear Billy speaking those words to me again, only this time, the tears are for him. And when they dry, my memories of Bill Paxton will be of his smile, his compassion, his talent, and that distinctive Texas laugh. “Woooo, Billy!”…you’re a hard act to follow.
 
 

The Ides of March are upon us, and like Julius Caesar, many of us are about to be stabbed in the back unexpectedly. House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have their daggers at the ready, and together they are hatching a secret plan to stick it to us. They have mesmerized us with chants of “Repeal and Replace” so often that we believe them when they say they’re going to reduce insurance premiums and give us all more choices. But if you study what Ryan has advocated all along, and what he is reportedly likely to propose now, you’ll see that we’re about to be assaulted by the very people we trusted to serve our interests.

By now we all know that the Affordable Care Act was a failed experiment. Former President Obama told us that our premiums would go down. They didn’t. He told us we could keep the plan that we had. We couldn’t. He said we could keep our doctor. We couldn’t. And he promised that we wouldn’t be denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition. He was right, but his promise was hollow. That’s because premiums and deductibles were so high that people with a serious illness couldn’t pay for the premium or the procedures they needed.

OK, so Obamacare needs to be replaced. Unfortunately, though, we’re about to jump from the frying pan into the fire.

Last week Kaiser Health News reported that the Republican plan will drastically increase premiums for older Americans. Under the ACA, insurance companies were allowed to charge an older man three times more than a younger man. But last year, Ryan said he wanted to increase that to five times! In simple math that means if a 25-year-old is paying $500 per month for health insurance, a 55-year-old would pay $2,500 per month for the same coverage, regardless of his health and with higher deductibles. All of this is designed to make insurance more affordable for the people who don’t need it and rarely use it, while making it less affordable for people who need it, and are more likely to use it. Can you feel the knife going into your back yet?

But the rationale is disingenuous on both ends of the age spectrum. First of all, even though a young couple might be more able to afford monthly premiums, they won’t be able to afford the co-pay on expensive diagnostics and surgeries. Meanwhile, under Ryan’s likely plan, the insurance companies will make money from increasing premiums on some older folks, and save money by not having to cover other older folks who decide to drop their coverage. In fact, according to NBCNews.com, a Rand study says companies like Blue Cross Blue Shield will pick up 3 million new customers under age 35, while 700,000 people over age 47 will drop their coverage.

To use President Trump’s favorite phrase, Americans age 50 to 64 are about to be screwed “big league.” And look for Ryan to also decrease Medicare premium supports for people 65 and older. Writing for the New York Times, Indiana University professor Aaron Carroll said, “We need to acknowledge that one of the easiest ways to cut premiums is to shift more health care costs to older Americans.” So there you have it. Republicans in Congress are poised to pass a healthcare plan that will make it legal for insurance companies to price gouge anyone over the age of 50.

But why? Why would any politician want to help bankrupt a family because they can’t afford premiums or procedures? And if these politicians really wanted to make healthcare affordable for everyone, why wouldn’t they vote to either cap premiums, or embrace Bernie Sanders’ “Medicare for All” plan? The answer to all of these questions is that many elected officials are beholden to insurance companies for donations and other forms of assistance.

According to CNN/Money.com, BCBS alone spent over $21 million dollars on lobbyists in 2009 and 2010 in order to make sure Congress wouldn’t enact any legislation that might negatively impact Big Blue’s profits. And while it’s true that BCBS cut back on its donations to and lobbying of Congress in recent years, they have re-focused their efforts on lobbying state lawmakers and commissioners who have the power to green-light increases in premiums, once the federal law is enacted. But BCBS can also protect its turf by serving as de facto legislators. According to the National Academy of Social Insurance, Obama’s health exchanges were mandated to “promote effective competition for health insurance, and offer a wide selection of coverage options to individuals and businesses.” But in 2011, iwatchnews.org reported that BCBS of North Carolina was helping to draft a bill that would allow their company to control the governing body of our state’s health exchange. The exchange went into effect in 2014, and by 2016, BCBS was the only company offering health insurance in North Carolina. In other words, Blue Cross has been working behind the scenes for years, making donations, lobbying, and writing regulations that guarantee their millionaire executives will continue to prosper regardless of how the economy, or even their own company, is performing.

The Ides of March are upon us, and very soon Brutus Ryan and his cronies will take action to bleed us to death, with Blue Cross supplying the daggers. But if we all take heed of their plot now, there will still be time to put pressure on our elected officials, and let them know that they can’t get re-elected if everyone over 50 votes against them. Hopefully they’ll get the “point” before we do.
 
 

The other day I was watching a morning news show on which Dr.Mehmet Oz was interviewed.  The famous TV doc was asked how to recognize fake news, and then what to do once you’ve read it. Said the all-knowing Oz, “Be aware before you share.”  I’m not a big fan of Dr. Oz, but I was struck by the profundity of his simple catch phrase. Clearly he was warning us about the dangers of fake news, and how fabricated stories can cause harm when re-tweeted or regurgitated. But his warning could also apply to inflammatory news.
 
Inflammatory news is news that may be technically true, but is not totally accurate because it either inadvertently or deliberately omits proper context. Even worse, it can incite the public unnecessarily, create panic, and cause collateral damage in its wake. Last week Jordan Green, a reporter for Triad City Beat, was guilty of writing an inflammatory news story.
 
He showed up uninvited at the banquet room of a Kernersville restaurant, where a private dinner of the Forsyth Constitutional Patriots was taking place. The group, which holds regular meetings at the popular restaurant, is comprised of some 20 senior citizens whose charitable work includes adopting homeless vets. They also invite guest speakers to their meetings, like Hamody Jasmin, an Iraqi patriot who aided our troops in the Gulf.  Last Thursday the guest speaker was Tom Jones, whose presentation was about the “Islamification of America.” Group organizer Beverly Lung recognized Mr. Green and asked Mr. Jones if he had any objections to having a reporter present. Jones told Beverly, “Not at all. I’m not going to say anything that’s not true.”  Neither Jones nor Lung, however, knew that Green was recording the meeting.
 
In the course of the evening, Islamic terrorism was discussed, and references were made to public executions. One of the attendees, Frank Del Valle, a 74 year old exile from communist Cuba, reacted to what he thought was a hypothetical scenario in which an Islamic terrorist threatened him with death. Frank said the only way to stop them, “is to start killing them.”  Moments later he added, “I’m ready to start taking people out.”
 
Unlike Jordan Green who slipped in the back door, then slipped back out again without questioning people about their statements or motives, I actually interviewed several principal participants, including Ms. Lung and Mr. Del Valle. Frank made it clear to me that he was referring to what he would do if his life was threatened. “The people in our group knew what I meant,” he told me. Unfortunately Mr. Green didn’t want to take the time to know. Two days later the headline above his article read, “Local conservative activists prepare for violent confrontation with Islam.”   
 
The result was public outrage at Ms. Lung’s group, at Mr. Del Valle, and even at the owner of the restaurant, who one blogger misidentified as the guest speaker. CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, was made aware of the article and called on the FBI to investigate Del Valle’s supposed death threats. Meanwhile, the Annoor Islamic Center in Clemmons (which Mr. Jones had said was “operating a Madrassa”) put its children’s Sunday school classes on virtual lock-down. The Winston-Salem Journal even devoted a front page story to the lock-down, and to the fears and safety precautions being taken at the Center. That was followed the next day by Susan Ladd’s inflammatory column in the Greensboro News and Record in which she likened Ms. Lung’s group to Nazis and the KKK. She ended her column by warning us not to discount the actions and words of dangerous groups like the Forsyth Constitutional Patriots, writing, “We ignore it at our peril.”   Thanks to inflammatory news coverage, the FBI did not ignore it.
 
Last Sunday, two FBI agents showed up at Mr. Del Valle’s home, accompanied by two Winston-Salem police officers. But the agents also visited Ms. Lung and the restaurant manager, neither of who had anything to do with what Frank said at Thursday’s meeting. Beverly told the agents that Frank was not a threat to anyone, and said what Jordan Green had done was pathetic. I asked Frank what the agents asked him, and he said “They wanted to know if I thought all Muslims were the same. I said,  ‘No, and that I don’t generalize about people.’ ” Del Valle then told the agents he thought they were wasting their time coming to investigate him on a Sunday morning. “One of the agents agreed, saying, ‘Yeah, I was getting ready to go to church.’ ”
 
Was it appropriate for the FBI to act on a complaint by CAIR, and interview Mr. Del Valle? Absolutely. And even though Frank didn’t commit a crime, perhaps the FBI visit will cause him to be more circumspect the next time he’s trying to articulate a hypothetical statement. Should Ms. Lung and the restaurant manager have had to endure FBI questioning? Absolutely not. But they were collateral damage, thanks to Mr. Green and Ms. Ladd. And by the way, if Jordan Green really believed anyone was in danger, he would have called the police or FBI himself, and waited to file his story following an investigation. Instead he chose to frighten and inflame the Muslim community without regard to the consequences. 
 
Beverly’s group of senior citizens is pretty right wing. They’re paranoid about things that may never happen, and they are certainly not politically correct. But if they posed a threat to Muslims or any other peace-loving people, they’d all be behind bars now. So what’s the lesson to be learned from this fiasco? Old guys like Frank Del Valle need to choose their words more carefully, and so do journalists and columnists like Jordan Green and Susan Ladd. In today’s volatile world, context is very important. Ignore it at your own peril. 
 
 

Ever since 1928 there has been a full time physician attached to the White House (not the same one, of course). These medical professionals perform routine check-ups, prescribe medication, and monitor the President’s overall health. Presumably the White House doctor would also help to determine if the President has become physically incapacitated and is, therefore, unable to serve. But what if the Commander in Chief was “mentally” incapacitated?

Lately that question has been raised by reporters and members of Congress alike, so much so that, earlier this month, Representative Ted Lieu (D-CA) proposed a bill that would require a psychiatrist to be attached to the White House. He also called for the current President to undergo a mental evaluation. The bill stands little chance of advancing, but that won’t deter the chatter around D.C.

On the February 10 edition of Real Time, Senator Al Franken told Bill Maher that he had spoken with members of Congress, including some Republicans, who feel that President Trump is mentally ill. Franken, a former comedian, wasn’t joking. In fact he repeated his claim on a network morning show later that week. Meanwhile, Lieu himself told the Washington Post that he had become “increasingly alarmed at Trump’s erratic behavior.” But such behavior is not a recent phenomena.

During the campaign Trump mocked a disabled reporter, implied that Megyn Kelly was hostile to him because she was on her menstrual cycle, referred to a Black man at a rally as “My African American”, claimed that P.O.W.s are not heroes, and said the world would be safer if more countries had nuclear weapons. He also advised women who are sexually harassed in the workplace to change jobs, and when asked what sacrifice he had made in comparison to a dead soldier, Trump said, “I’ve made sacrifices. I’ve hired thousands of people.” These and other remarks led then President Obama to say that Trump was “unfit to be Commander in Chief”, and Libertarian VP candidate Bill Weld to conclude that Trump “has a screw loose.”

Not surprisingly, these same kinds of offensive remarks have continued now that candidate Trump is President Trump. Shortly after taking office, Mr. Trump visited CIA headquarters and held court in front of the agency’s memorial wall which honors fallen agents. But instead of praising their sacrifice, Trump went on a rant about his electoral victory and the size of the crowd at his inauguration. So much for sensitivity. He also recently claimed that 5 million illegal aliens voted for Hillary, he boasted that his cabinet nominees had the highest IQ of any Cabinet in history, and he said he had been on the cover of TIME more than anyone else. All false statements. Ed Rollins, co-chair of Trump’s Great America PAC, said, “I don’t think he’s deliberately lying. I think he actually believes this stuff.” Alternative facts aside, Trump has also spent his first month in office attacking judges, Congressmen, and members of the news media. And that brings me to last Thursday’s bizarre press conference.

Having been criticized for not taking questions from CNN and other hostile news outlets, Trump went head to head with his detractors, and did so for over an hour. At one point he displayed a sarcastic sense of humor, referring to his private phone conversation with Putin. “It was classified so I’m sure you all know what was said.” But for the most part, his presentation can only be described as a disjointed stream of consciousness. He spoke in sentence fragments and rarely answered the question being asked. He interrupted his own thoughts with other thoughts, and, as always, he bragged about things that just weren’t true. He said he had high approval ratings, when every major poll says just the opposite. He said his roll-out of the travel ban was flawless, even though members of his own party said it was botched. And he repeated his claim that his was the biggest electoral college margin since Reagan. When a reporter pointed out that Obama and Clinton had higher totals, Trump said, “I was referring to Republicans.” To which the reporter said, “George H.W. Bush had 426 electoral votes.” Trump said, “That was what I was told.” But he KNEW his figures were wrong because he’s cited them repeatedly and been corrected repeatedly.

Following the press conference, a number of pundits weighed in. Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta commented that, “He wanders between the real world, and the world of Donald Trump.” Meanwhile, iconic investigative journalist Carl Bernstein said, “What we saw was a road map of his mind, and it’s a very disturbing road map,” Former White House advisor David Gergen said, “We got a look inside the head and heart of Donald Trump, and what we saw was very murky. It showed us a President who is frequently unhinged. He’s living in a different reality.” Bernstein also referred to Trump’s performance at the press conference as “free association”, where he said whatever popped into his head, whether it made sense, or was even appropriate. It’s a performance that led one Republican Senator to tell CNN’s John King, “He (Trump) should do that with a therapist, not on live television.” And that brings us back to Lieu’s proposal for a full time psychiatrist to be assigned to the White House.

Last August I wrote a column about how Donald Trump displays all of the symptoms of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) as defined by the Mayor Clinic. Some of those symptoms include:

• Having an exaggerated sense of self-importance
• Expecting to be recognized as superior without achievements that warrant it
• Being unable to recognize the feelings of others

If Trump truly suffers from NPD, he cannot be cured, only counseled, which is all the more reason to give serious consideration to Congressman Lieu’s proposal. And while the bill is backed by over thirty leading psychiatrists, the American Psychiatric Association warns its members against making an armchair diagnosis of anyone, least of all the President of the United States. After all, it’s not crazy to want to protect our borders and thwart terrorist attacks. It’s not crazy to want to bring jobs back to America. It’s not crazy to want to rid our inner cities of crime and poverty. And in this unstable nuclear age, it’s not crazy to want to try and get along with Russia.

We can all use some counseling from time to time, and we all need someone to talk with about our innermost fears and concerns. And so, having a psychiatrist in the White House might not be a bad idea. I find it ironic, however, that the very week Congressmen were calling Trump mentally ill, they also voted to allow mentally ill persons to purchase guns. In a world where Republicans and Democrats are always going off half cocked, I guess it makes perfect sense.
 
 

In the Fall of 2010 the Television Academy asked me to produce and moderate “A Salute to TV Crimefighters”. The panel of prime time cops and detectives included my buddies Matt Bomer (White Collar), and Mary McCormack (In Plain Sight) along with Marg Helgenberger
(CSI), Thomas Gibson (Criminal Minds), Angie Harmon (Rizzoli & Isles), Matt Passmore (The Glades), and newcomer Boris Kodjoe (Undercovers).

But a salute to TV gumshoes wouldn’t be complete without honoring the man who helped pioneer the genre, first on Tightrope, then with Mannix, in a career spanning more than half a century. And so at the end of our panel discussion I brought Mike Connors up on stage. Pointing to the young actors who stood behind him, Mike commented, “There’s a lot of talent back there, I’ll tell you that.” “There’s a lot of talent standing next to me too,” I said, pointing to Mike.

Mike greeted each of the panelists, then singled out Boris. “I really would have liked to do the show he’s doing because he starts each show in bed with a beautiful gal, then closes the show in bed with a beautiful gal. I used to open my show running down the street, and close the show by getting hit on the head.” The capacity crowd at the Academy’s Goldenson theatre roared with laughter.

Next it was time to present Mike with a beautifully inscribed plaque. To do the honors, I asked my friend Lee Meriwether (Barnaby Jones) to come up on stage and read the inscription to her long-time pal. But Lee couldn’t resist reminding Mike about the time she was a guest star on Mannix. “Mike you DO remember that you and I DID get into bed. I mean, you weren’t running down the street or being shot at that day.” More laughter from the audience. “I’m glad my wife didn’t show up tonight,” Mike quipped.

Lee read the inscription, then Mike made a prophetic joke. “You know when Jim called and told me about this, I was thrilled, and then I got a little worried because I thought, ‘I wonder if they know something about my health that I don’t know?’ ” [laughter] “So I immediately hung up from talking to Jim and called my doctor.” That remark elicited the biggest laugh of the night. Little did we know that some six years later, Mike would be diagnosed with leukemia, and a week after that, he would be gone. Mike Connors died on January 26. He was 91.

Mike was born Krekor Ohanian, a name he shared with his Armenian father, but in high school he was given the nickname “Touch” by his basketball teammates. After a stint in the Air Force, Touch Connors attended UCLA on a basketball scholarship , where he played for the legendary John Wooden. Hollywood producers began to take note of Mike’s rugged good looks and athletic ability, which he put to good use in one of his earliest films, Five Guns West. The western also marked Roger Corman’s directorial debut. I asked Roger to tell me about Mike.

Longworth: Why did you cast Mike in your first film?
Corman: There was an audition, and I was impressed by him for a number of reasons. First, for a young man with not a great deal of acting experience, he was a very good actor. He was also a tall, good-looking guy with strength, which is what I wanted. And what impressed me was his total dedication to the job. I remember he didn’t know much about riding a horse, but he learned very quickly.
Longworth: You must have liked working with him, because you also cast him in Swamp Women.
Corman: I would forget Swamp Women. Mike wouldn’t want us to talk about Swamp Women. [laughs]

Mike settled down early in his career, marrying Mary Lou Willey in 1949 (they remained together until his death), and he stayed busy throughout the 1950’s, appearing in over a dozen feature films and several TV shows before landing his own series, Tightrope in 1959. The crime drama, about an undercover agent who always bested bad guys by hiding a snub nose pistol in the back of his pants, only lasted a year, but Mike’s three dimensional tough guy persona set a standard for the genre.

Mike returned to the big screen in the early 1960’s, co-starring with actors like Jack Lemmon and Robert Redford, but it was his portrayals of a spy in Kiss the Girls and Make them Die, and a gallant gambler in the remake of Stagecoach, that established him as a leading man. I spoke with my friend Stefanie Powers about her co-star in the stylish 1966 Western.

Powers: I loved working with Mike in Stagecoach. He was so generous as an actor, and so solid in his professionalism. I leaned on him, and he supported me with all his talent.

Ann-Margret also appeared in Stagecoach, and she echoed Stefanie’s sentiments.

Ann-Margret: Mike was such an elegant gentleman, always warm and so kind. He was a good man and wonderful to work with.

A year later, Mike landed his second and most successful TV series, this one about a suave, but tough private eye. Mannix would run for eight seasons under the Desilu banner, and it cemented Connors as a cultural icon. I caught up with several actors who had guest starring roles on Mannix, including M*A*S*H star Mike Farrell, Batman‘s Adam West, Eric Braeden (The Young and the Restless), Clu Gulager (The Virginian), St. Elsewhere‘s Ed Begley, Jr., Bob Colbert (The Time Tunnel), and Dynasty star Linda Evans.

Farrell: I was a fan. I always admired Mike, so I was thrilled as my career began to develop, to get the chance to work on Mannix. And imagine how excited I was to learn on the set that Mike the man was everything he brought to his character on the show.

West: One of my first guest shots after Batman was on Mannix. Mike was a fine and warm friend to many.

Braeden: Mike was one of the nicest guys to work with.

Gulager: Mike was a real professional, and he had a big heart. He had a real kindness and gentleness about him, and he was also a great actor.

Begley: I did a Mannix episode in the early ’70’s, and to say Mike was helpful and kind to me is an understatement. He was way nicer than a star of his stature needed to be, and I’ve been thankful for that many times over the years.

Colbert: Mike was a class act, and I never had a moment with him that wasn’t pleasant. He would under-act. He let the character’s warmth and truth come through. His performance was always subdued, and that gave it power, strength and integrity because of his gentle delivery. Working with Mike was one of the most wonderful experiences of my career.

Evans: Mike lightened the lives of everyone who knew him with his outrageous humor and love of life. He was truly one of a kind.

One celebrity who never appeared on Mannix was Mike’s neighbor and close friend Peter Marshall, long time host of Hollywood Squares. Yet Connors frequently showed up on Marshall’s show.

Longworth: Mike did Hollywood Squares a lot. Is that because you invited him?
Marshall: No, in fact I used to have friends call me all the time wanting to get on Squares, and I told them I had nothing to do with booking.
Longworth: So did Mike not invite you on Mannix
Marshall: Toward the end of the series he said there might be a part for me. And I said, “Is it a good part?”, and Mike said “No.” [laughs])

After Mannix ended its run, Connors himself became a much sought-after guest star in other TV shows, such as Murder She Wrote, and The Love Boat. I asked Angela Lansbury and Gavin MacLeod about working with Mike.

Lansbury: Mike was a joy to work with, and enhanced the quality of every show he appeared in.

MacLeod: Mike was the most “unactorish” actor I ever worked with. He was just like a regular guy who just happened to be making a living acting, and falling into it. He was a joy to be around.

In 1993 Mike re-united with Stefanie Powers for a Hart to Hart movie, but it was also the first time he ever worked with his closest friend, Robert Wagner. Fourteen years later the two men appeared together again, this time in Two and a Half Men. I spoke with RJ a few days after Mike died.

Wagner: We had been friends since the 1950s and had a great relationship. We spent a lot of time together, and played a lot of golf. Everyone had such great respect for Mike. He was a very genuine person, and he gave us all a lot. As an actor, he was dedicated and brought so much to whatever he did. Mike worked hard and was always trying to make it better.

I also spoke with some of my friends who were big fans of Mike Connors, but never had a chance to work with him. Among them, Breaking Bad‘s Bryan Cranston, Matt Bomer (White Collar), and Bill Paxton, whose detective series, Training Day recently premiered on CBS.

Paxton: Mike was great as Mannix. You never caught him acting. When I watched Mannix growing up, I never thought I was watching an actor in a role. Mike Connors WAS Mannix, period. I’d like to think I’m carrying on what he started as a TV crime fighter.

Bomer: Mike was a real role model in the television detective genre. His work was influential on the entire television industry, and he certainly influenced me in the work I did on White Collar.

Cranston: I developed a phone relationship with Mike a couple of years ago, and I told him I was thinking of developing an idea that would bring back one of his TV series, except turning the melodramatic hour long show into a half-hour nostalgic comedy. When I said the only actor we would replace would be him, Mike laughed. He encouraged me to take liberties with his material. He said, “If you can make a show out of an old jalopy, I’m all for it.”

That’s Mike Connors for you. No ego, no professional jealousy, no turf to protect. He exuded strength, and was devoid of pretense. He was also pretty direct, and eternally optimistic, as was evident in the last phone call he made to Peter Marshall.

Marshall: He said “I’ve got leukemia”, then he asked when we could go grab lunch at Lakeside again. The leukemia spread quickly, and he died a few days later.

Reflecting back upon the “TV Crimefighters” event, and talking with Mike’s daughter Dana recently, I’m convinced that Mike was genuinely surprised by the adulation he received that night six years ago at the Academy. That’s because he never put himself up on a pedestal, nor did he want anyone else to do it for him. Still, he was one of my heroes, so it was an honor for me to honor him. His peers felt the same way.

Powers: He was an adorable person with a lovely personality, and a rye sense of humor from which his decency as a human being radiated.

Wagner: Mike was a stand up guy as a father, as a friend, as a husband, and as an actor. He was very special and he gave it a good run. I loved him.

Cranston: His character in Mannix was a formidable guy with a sweet soul. That sums up Mike too.

MacLeod: Nothing seemed to have ever changed him. He was like an old shoe, a handsome old shoe (laughs) but an old shoe.

Colbert: He was a class act. God bless Mike Connors.

Ann-Margret: Mike was a good man. He will be missed.

Marshall: Mike was one of a kind – Krekor Ohanian. I loved him.

Angie Dickinson: I simply adored Mike… handsome, charming, a hunk all the way, and funny as hell. Now he can rest in peace, at least until we all get there to laugh and love again.
 
 

“All Americans, not only in the states most heavily affected, but in every place in this country, are rightfully disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public services they use impose burdens on our taxpayers. We are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it.”

That statement didn’t come from Donald Trump, it came from Democratic President Bill Clinton in his State of the Union address from January 25, 1995, and it was met with bi-partisan applause and support. President Clinton went on to call for strengthening our borders, hiring more border agents, deporting criminal aliens, and issuing no welfare benefits to illegal aliens. Twenty-two years later, our problems with illegal aliens and immigrants are even worse, first because of terrorists threats which have escalated since 2001, and second because of increased numbers of refugees fleeing from war torn Muslim nations.

To address that problem, former President Obama identified seven nations (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen) known to have terrorist training camps, and who lacked proper vetting of and documentation for people leaving from or through their respective countries. Further, in 2011 he issued a six month ban on all refugees from Iraq. Yet when Syria began to flood western Europe with refugees, Mr. Obama rejected the idea that those refugees posed a threat to our national security, so before he left office, he authorized acceptance of 10,000 refugees to settle here beginning in 2017. Hillary Clinton went further, promising that if she was elected, we would let in 65,000 Syrian and Iraqi refugees. All this, despite the fact that Obama’s own intelligence officers admitted that Isis terrorists were posing as refugees in order to enter other countries.

Throughout the 2016 campaign, Donald Trump pledged to do what three former presidents failed to do. He promised to strengthen and protect our borders, not just with a wall, but with policies that would control the flow of illegal immigration, and keep us safe from radical Islamic extremists who might try to enter our country, legally or otherwise. And so, on January 27, President Trump issued an executive order that would ban residents of Obama’s seven nations from entering the United States for 90 days, ban refugees from Syria indefinitely, and ban all other refugees for 120 days. In point of fact, the President shouldn’t have called the order a “ban” because it is actually a moratorium, but that’s water under the bridge.

On Saturday, January 28, some 325,000 people attempted to land in America from foreign countries, and of those, only 109 were detained for extensive questioning. Meanwhile, some 60,000 visas were lifted, but with the proviso that the Department of Homeland Security could issue waivers for military personnel and other legitimate travelers. Trump’s order created chaos in several airports, which morphed into full blown protests. That led James Robart, a federal judge in Seattle, to issue a nationwide stay of the President’s executive order. But Robart is only one of about 3,000 federal judges who can issue such rulings, and so the White House immediately began looking for another judge who would issue an emergency stay of the Seattle ruling.

Crusading bleeding hearts like Judge Robart, believe that we should accept anyone who wants to settle in America. That same belief is shared by many church leaders and neighborhood groups around the country who say they will sponsor the refugees. But sponsoring is one thing. Monitoring and supporting them is quite another. Howard Shultz, the CEO of Seattle-based Starbucks says he will hire 10,000 refugees to work as baristas. But a refugee family can’t subsist on minimum wage. Meanwhile, taxpayers are stuck with the bill for educating the refugees and providing them with medical care and other social services. But the economic burdens we face are only part of the problem. Safety and security is the other.

In 2012, right after President Obama lifted his temporary freeze on entry to the United States from the aforementioned seven countries, Mohammed Al-Jayab, an Iraqi refugee was welcomed here with open arms. One year later Al-Jayab traveled to Syria to join a murdering terrorist group, then returned here in 2014. Despite his public postings, proving his status as a terrorist, Al-Jayab was allowed back into America, no questions asked. His was not an isolated case. Last year, Senator Jeff Sessions and the Senate Judiciary Committee gave examples of forty other terrorists who entered our country posing as refugees or translators. The committee concluded that the incidents they reported might just be the tip of the immigrant terrorist iceberg.

I am troubled by the protests of ill-informed, naive folks who don’t grasp the economic or security risks posed by an open-door immigration policy, but I’m also repulsed by the hypocrisy and partisanship of Washington Democrats who feign outrage over President Trump’s executive order. Senator Chuck Schumer is the worst offender. Last week he sobbed during a press conference as he proclaimed that Trump’s refugee ban was, “mean spirited and un-American.” That’s the same Chuck Schumer who, in 2014, pushed for a re-set on our refugee program until we could insure proper vetting.

If folks like Schumer, Robart, and Schultz really want to help those in need, then they should start here at home first, by helping our own down trodden and disenfranchised citizens, like homeless veterans, hungry children, battered wives, and the elderly who can’t afford their medicines. But then, that would cost money that politicians would rather spend on foreign aid, bank bail-outs, and Congressional pensions.

Bill Clinton had it right in 1995, and Donald Trump has it right in 2017. We can only accommodate a finite number of legal immigrants, and we shouldn’t accommodate illegal immigrants at all, especially those who might do us harm. To do otherwise is “wrong and self-defeating.”
 
 

Thanks to Donald Trump’s upset victory, and to the movement it represents, Republicans in Congress are not only in the majority, they are an entrenched majority. Perhaps their status will change if the Trump bandwagon loses steam by 2018, but for now, the GOP has a stranglehold on both houses of Congress. As a result, Senators Richard Burr and Thom Tillis have risen in prominence, and are regularly sought after by the national media for their views on various public policy issues. Burr in particular, as Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has become more visible and more influential, thanks in part to increased threats of terrorism both here and abroad.

As federal office holders, both Burr and Tillis must balance the needs of their constituents with those of all citizens, and they must sometimes vote their conscious over provincial concerns. But when a United States senator’s conscience and his votes are compromised, then he must either recuse himself, or resign. Earlier this month, Senator Burr should have recused himself when it came time to vote on an important healthcare bill. Instead he dishonored himself and the American people, and now he should resign.

On January 11, Senator Amy Klobucher, a Democrat from Minnesota, proposed an amendment to a Senate budget bill, which would have allowed importation of drugs from Canada by pharmacists, wholesalers, and consumers with valid prescriptions. For many Americans trying to make ends meet, the measure meant they would no longer have to choose between food and medicine. Burr and Tillis voted Nay, and the amendment just barely failed. Fortunately, another vote was taken two weeks later, and the Senate passed the bill. Asked to explain their opposition to allowing Americans to purchase cheaper drugs from Canada, Tillis said such a provision might interfere with crafting a new healthcare law to replace ACA. Burr, meanwhile said that drugs from Canada might not be safe. Tillis’ reason made no sense. Burr’s was suspect, and had no basis in fact.

First to the facts about safety. As reported by the Winnipeg Free Press, Dr. Peter Rost, vice president of marketing for Pfizer, said there shouldn’t be any concerns with prescription drugs from Canada. Said Rost, “Drugs from Canada are absolutely, positively safe. What has been said about Canadian drugs is, quite frankly, insulting.” Why Dr. Rost broke with his own company is not clear, but he has been outspoken in setting the record straight, and dispelling myths that have been propagated by the pharmaceutical industry and the politicians it supports.

According to seniormag.com, Dr. Rost says that multinational pharmaceutical firms are using safety to disguise their real motive of protecting profits. But even if Senator Burr has total disregard for Dr. Rost’s analysis, and honestly believes Canadian drugs are unsafe, how then does he explain death-inducing side effects of so-called FDA-approved medicines? The fact is Canadian drugs aren’t dangerous, they are just cheaper, and that’s why Richard Burr voted Nay. But why should Burr care about the price of drugs? Because he is paid to care.

From 2009 until 2016, Senator Burr accepted nearly $420,000 from Big Pharma, and no one donates that much money unless they want something in return.

In Burr’s case, the payback seems to have been voting against any and all legislation that would allow the importation of prescription drugs. The fact that the most recent bill eventually passed is moot. Burr did his job to obstruct passage in the early going, and that’s all the cover he needs if his donors want to know what the heck happened. Of course, Richard no longer has to worry about donor backlash, because he’s already announced that this will be his last term in the Senate. Moreover, North Carolina is one of several states that does not allow for recall of a senator, so even if voters wanted to punish Burr for his insensitive action, they have no mechanism to do so. I suppose the Senate could censure Burr for not acting in the best interest of his constituents, but don’t hold your breath.

Anyway, all’s well that ends well. Richard gets to keep the $420,000 and his Senate seat, while millions of Americans will be able to buy cheaper drugs, in spite of Burr’s efforts to the contrary. The moral of this story is that the drugs we need can be more easily bought…and so can some politicians.
 
 

Republicans and Democrats in the General Assembly can’t seem to agree on much of anything. Just look at what has happened with HB2, or the squabble between the Board of Education and the state superintendent’s office, or the number of Gubernatorial appointees that have been slashed. But there may be common ground when it comes to one aspect of juvenile justice reform. That’s because North Carolina Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Martin recently announced his support for raising the age that a juvenile can be tried as an adult, from 16 to 18. Some political pundits argue such reform is long overdue, citing that North Carolina is only one of two states (New York being the other) where a 16-year-old is tried as an adult. But that characterization is a bit misleading.

The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 allows states to set their own definition of “juvenile” as they see fit. According to a January 2016 article in The Atlantic, nine states, not two, have set the upper limit for trying kids as adults at 16 years of age. The distinction for North Carolina is that we “automatically” consider a 16-year-old to be an adult. That doesn’t make us an anomaly, it just means we’re in compliance with JJDPA regs. That aside, our image as a rebel state isn’t the driving force behind the push for reform.

Those who want change, first point to a flaw in the adjudication process itself. They say that a 16-year-old is not fully competent to stand trial, and that their decision making ability is different from that of an adult. But a study published in “Law and Behavior” magazine reports that juveniles age 16 to 17 are no less competent to stand trial than someone who is 18 or over. Moreover, I really don’t care about a 16-year-old’s capacity for decision-making. If he “decides” to murder someone, then his capacity in that regard is moot. Not convinced? Then let’s look at what these poor little juveniles are really capable of.

In 2001, a 12-year-old in South Carolina murdered his grandparents by blowing them to bits with a shotgun. In 2009, a 16-year-old boy in New York killed a man, but it was no accident. He stabbed the man 50 times in the throat. In 2013, a 16-year-old Las Vegas boy robbed and murdered a 71-year-old woman. He shot her multiple times. In 2016, a 16-year-old Pittsburgh boy shot another youth in the face, then took a selfie of himself standing by the corpse. And then there were the four female juveniles who last year tortured and killed a 12-year-old girl because they were jealous of her. They stabbed the little girl repeatedly, then set her on fire and burned her alive. These are NOT isolated cases.

The Bureau of Justice Assistance reports that 64% of juvenile arrests involve violent felonies, and a study by U.S. states attorneys says that the number of juveniles under 18 arrested for murder is on the rise. In fact, nearly 18% of all serious violent crimes are committed by juveniles, and homicide arrests of kids ages 15 and over is up by 24%. And there’s more. A 2008 report by the U.S. Department of Justice says that 34% of murders are committed by young people, and 11% of those are under the age of 17. In addition, 25% of all murders of sisters are committed by siblings between the ages of 13 and 18. Meanwhile, boys ages 16 to 19 were most often the perpetrators in parental killings.

Another argument given for why we shouldn’t try 16- and 17-year-olds as adults is that, if convicted, they are often placed in jails and prisons with hardened adult offenders. The Campaign for Youth Justice says that each year, 250,000 youths are tried as adults. But statistics differ on how many of those kids are actually incarcerated with adults. BJA says 14,500. The Atlantic says 10,000. Nevertheless, reformers point to a 1989 study published in the Juvenile and Family Court Journal, which says that kids kept in adult facilities are 5 times more likely to be sexually assaulted, and twice as likely to be beaten. And a study by the University of Illinois says youth prisoners are 7.7 times more likely to commit suicide if housed with adults. And just in case those statistics don’t convince conservative lawmakers in Raleigh to stop incarcerating 16-year-olds, the Justice Policy Institute says that it costs over $148,000 per year to keep these kids locked up. That’s 10 times the cost of giving them a K-12 education.

I’m all for isolating youthful murderers from older felons, but local sheriffs don’t currently have the funds to create and operate separate facilities. Perhaps, then, instead of raising the age that a youth can be tried as an adult, the General Assembly should simply allocate the necessary funding to house violent youth in segregated sections of our state’s jails and prisons. Regardless, we should not give 16- and 17-year-old murderers a pass just because they’re not yet 18. If you’re old enough to stab someone 50 times in the throat, shoot an elderly woman multiple times, or burn a child alive, then you’re old enough to be tried as an adult. To think otherwise is criminal.
 
 

In the 1950s Senator Joe McCarthy led us to believe that there was a commie behind every bush. Old Joe would feel right at home in Washington these days, because over the past several weeks, our government has become obsessed with and paranoid about Russia, the likes of which I haven’t seen since 1962 when nuclear war was imminent. That year our fears were justified because Russian missiles were placed in Cuba and poised to launch against us. But now, over a half-century later, fear of missiles has been replaced with fear of missives. Russians are now credited with hacking into the emails of Clinton campaign chief John Podesta, the DNC, and other pro-Hillary folks, then arranging for those correspondences to leak to the media prior to last fall’s election. Democrats on the Hill, along with the liberal media have also gone so far as to characterize Russia’s alleged meddling as “hacking our election”, and blaming the Ruskies for Hillary’s loss to Donald Trump.

But facilitating the release of documents that reveals collusion, corruption and arrogance, is not meddling, it’s whistle blowing. Vladimir Putin didn’t help the DNC rig the debates and their convention in Hillary’s favor. Putin didn’t help CNN’s Donna Brazile give Hillary questions in advance of her debates with Bernie Sanders. Vlad didn’t tell DNC staffers to devise a strategy for discrediting Bernie over his religious beliefs. Mr. Putin didn’t help Hillary break the law by setting up private email servers in her home for the purpose of hiding pay-for-play schemes involving the State Department, her foundation, and foreign leaders. He also didn’t tell Jim Comey to investigate Hillary, nor did he tell Mrs. Clinton to call Trump supporters a “basket of deplorables.”

Hillary and her buddies brought this mess on themselves by being careless about how they communicated and schemed with each other. But if the Russians are responsible for helping to shine a light on systematic collusion and dishonesty, then Putin should be rewarded by our government for blowing the whistle on corrupt politics, and for pointing out security deficiencies upon which we need to improve going forward.

Of course, we can disagree on the politics of this fiasco, but it is important that we’re all on the same page when it comes to semantics. The truth is, I’m not sure that the media is fully aware of what hacking means, or how it might apply to either Putin, or to the folks who are blaming him for their failures.

The Urban Dictionary defines a hacker as “a person who gains unauthorized access to a computer WITHOUT the intention of causing damage.” U.D. goes on to say that someone who does the same thing WITH intent of causing damage is known as a “cracker”. Cracking, for example, would involve trying to shut down a power grid, or disrupt aviation traffic. Cracking is also what happens when someone breaks into a bank’s records, or to your personal account, and then steals money from either. In 2011 thousands of Bank of America customers had their debit card accounts cracked. In 2014, seven of the top fifteen banks were the victim of cracking. And last year, The Guardian reported that a Wisconsin security firm obtained over 270 million consumer emails accounts and passwords which allowed them to tap into all sorts of website transactions. By the way, 57 million of those accounts belonged to Russian consumers. I wonder what those folks think about us American meddlers?

Clearly then, what Putin is alleged to have authorized is not “cracking”. Whoever tapped into the unsecured emails of John Podesta did so to reveal data, not steal data. In that regard, the November 8 election was not cracked nor were votes compromised. Hillary lost because she ran a bad campaign, had high negatives, and because FBI director Comey went public (twice) about his concerns over her mishandling of government property while running the State Department. Meanwhile, the leaked emails from Podesta, the DNC, and CNN were just icing on the cake, but it was Hillary who cost Hillary the election. And so, if Putin helped to facilitate the transparency that American voters deserved, then we should be grateful.

To be honest, I never thought the Russians had interfered in our election. I know that because I voted at a precinct in Kernersville, and not once did I see a Russian messing with the voting machines. So yes, let’s be cautious and vigilant about Russia’s cyber capabilities, but let’s stop blaming Putin for putting Trump in the White House. That honor belongs to Hillary Clinton, whose schemes to discredit Bernie, rig the debates, hide emails, and insult millions of working class people, backfired. In a sense, then, she meddled in her own election, proving what we’ve known all along. Hillary is a cracker.
 
 

Last week America witnessed an unprecedented and remarkable lesson in governing. House Republicans were poised to vote on a measure that would have gutted the Office on Congressional Ethics, a watchdog agency which they believed had been overzealous in recent years. Truth be told, many Democrats probably felt the same way about the OCE, but they opposed the majority’s action because that’s what the opposition party does in D.C. They also knew that any attempt to neuter an independent body which protects us against corrupt congressmen wouldn’t play well in the court of public opinion.

For once, House Speaker Paul Ryan agreed with the Dems, and pleaded with his comrades to back off, but his pleas fell on deaf ears. It seemed that nothing or no one could derail this unethical vote about ethics. No one except Trump the Tweeter. The President-elect had campaigned on a promise to “drain the swamp”, and the last thing he wanted was to take office under a cloud of partisanship and business-as-usual. And so Mr. Trump took to his Twitter universe and took House Republicans to the woodshed for trying to place OCE under congressional control, a move that would have put the foxes in charge of the hen house. Within minutes of his tweets, the GOP caucus met and decided to cancel the controversial vote.

The liberal media complained that the next president shouldn’t govern by social media, but that’s not what’s really bothering them. Suddenly, mainstream news outlets feel their power slipping away because Donald Trump likes to communicate directly with the people. No longer will the fourth estate be able to filter and spin the president’s words so easily. No longer will they be guaranteed daily press briefings. No longer will the American people have to wait for the evening news to find out what President Trump thinks on any given issue. No longer will 24-hour cable news channels have the market cornered on breaking news.

No doubt Donald Trump will be an unconventional president, but his unconventional way of communicating is not so much revolutionary as it is evolutionary. FDR started bypassing the press as early as 1933, taking his message directly to the people with a series of fireside chats broadcast on the radio. Two decades later, Dwight Eisenhower used the new medium of television to communicate with the American people, including a speech he made in 1958 (the first ever in color) in which he foreshadowed the use of the internet and social media by future Presidents. Said Ike, “In these fast moving times, it is highly important that our nation’s capital should be attached to every single citizen in this country by the very fastest, best kind of communication. Decisions of a government that at one time could tolerate three or four weeks of study, now demand almost instantaneous reaction.”

John Kennedy held regular press conferences because he enjoyed the repartee with reporters, but he also spoke directly to the public with prime time television broadcasts when warranted. Neither Johnson nor Nixon were big fans of television, but both men used the medium when making important announcements about Vietnam or their own retirement. Gerald Ford, meanwhile, went on TV to tell us that he had granted a full pardon to Nixon for any crimes he may have committed in the Watergate scandal. That speech and the pardon came back to haunt Ford, who lost to Jimmy Carter in 1976. Then, one month after his inauguration, Carter channeled FDR with a series of televised fireside chats in which he tried to appear like a regular guy by wearing a sweater. Said Carter, “This series of talks is one of several steps I will take to keep in close touch with the American people.” But Carter’s lectures on energy and other topics did not ingratiate him with the public, and in 1980 he lost his job to “the great communicator”. Ronald Reagan, a former actor and TV host, was at total ease speaking on camera, and often used television to mobilize public support for his agenda. In that regard he not only bypassed the press, but he bypassed Congress. It was the first time television had been used effectively by a president for the purpose of subtle arm twisting.

Though the government had been developing internet technology since the 1950s, it wasn’t until the late 1990s that the internet was widely available to the general public. And in 2007, a young senator from Chicago became the first presidential candidate to harness the power of the internet for reaching donors and voters. In November of 2008, Arianna Huffington remarked, “Were it not for the internet, Barack Obama would not be president.” In 2012, Mr. Obama once again used the internet as a campaign tool, and was re-elected to a second term. And though he has recently criticized Trump for using Twitter, I’ll bet money that if Obama was able to run for a third term, he’d be tweeting now too. Instead it’s Trump who is breaking new ground by using Twitter to shape public policy. And in doing so, he’s merely following in his predecessors’ footsteps by using, as Ike said, the “fastest, best kind of communication” available.

It remains to be seen whether Mr. Trump will continue to tweet with such regularity once he becomes president, but if last week’s congressional fiasco is any indication, then social media could soon become the mainstream media, and the president won’t need a plunger to drain the swamp, he’ll just need an iPhone.
 
 

One summer night during the 1984 Presidential campaign, Tonight Show icon Johnny Carson quipped, “I guess both candidates will get some rest this week, Mondale in the Virgin Islands, Reagan in the Cabinet meeting.”

It was a good natured poke at his Republican friend Ronald Reagan, who was known for taking daily naps. But Carson’s barbs took aim at Democrats too.

And regardless of the intended target, his jokes were funny, and never mean-spirited. Unfortunately, the current crop of late night comedians can’t seem to grasp or embrace those standards. For example, compare Carson’s 1984 joke with Stephen Colbert’s attempt at humor on election night 2016. Said Colbert, “If Trump wins, how about screaming ‘f*#@’ for the next 45 minutes?” Not only was Colbert’s remark not funny, it was vulgar, and mean spirited. It’s sad to say, but Colbert and other late night lefties have increasingly lost their sense of humor, decorum, objectivity, and fairness.

Johnny Carson and other television hosts of his era also never took sides in political elections, nor did they predict outcomes. Not so today. Just weeks prior to this year’s election, Colbert said of Trump, “You’re not going to be President!” “The Daily Show’s” Trevor Noah said Trump had “the mind of a toddler”, and called him a “spoiled brat”. Samantha Bee, host of “Full Frontal”, joined in the name calling, telling her audience that Trump, “is a f%&#@ing liar.”

Today’s late night lefties are also poor losers, and just can’t seem to accept the fact that Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton. Said Trevor Noah, “I cannot understand how America can be this hateful.” And Colbert proclaimed, “I can’t put a happy face on this, and that’s my job.” Yes it IS your job Stephen, and you would be able to do your job if you were a true professional.

But as bad as Noah, Bee, and Colbert are, the worst of the late night whiners is Seth Meyers, whose monologues have morphed into rambling commentaries on the evils of Trump. Meyers, you may recall emceed the 2011 National Press Club dinner where he and Obama went after Trump with a vengeance. In fact, Meyers’ over-the-top barbs have since been credited with convincing Trump to run for President in 2016. Meyers wasn’t funny then, and he isn’t funny now, mainly because he’s lost sight of his objectivity, and of the Carson standards for late night comedy. George Mason University professor Robert Lichter told the Daily Beast, “One element of a joke is surprise. That’s what makes it funny. When you just deliver a diatribe, you may be satisfying yourself, but you’re not going to influence many people.”

Prior to being given his own show, Meyers was the head writer on “Saturday Night Live”, where he also served up jokes as the anchor for “Weekend Update”. Then, as now, SNL had a decided left wing bias. In fact, in a 2012 interview with podcaster Bill Simmons, Meyers said of SNL, “Yes, there are more liberal people involved in the show.” Meyers was right. According to Downtrend.com, 67% of people who voted in the 2008 Presidential election had watched SNL, and of those, 59% voted for Obama over McCain.

But this year, SNL went off the rails and shot itself in the left foot by allowing co-anchor Michael Che to deliver a series of commentaries rather than jokes. Lichter’s theory held true. Che’s anti-Trump diatribes didn’t convince enough of his liberal millennial viewers to even vote, much less vote for Hillary. Recently, after viewing SNL, Donald Trump tweeted, “watched parts of SNL. It is a totally one-sided, biased show – nothing funny at all.” To his credit, Che admitted his approach was biased, telling Esquire, “Oddly I agree with him (Trump)…I think our show should show all views…”

Throughout history there have been stand-up comics who have used hate speech and obscenities to criticize politicians, but traditionally, late night hosts have always exercised a sense of balance and decency in their delivery, if for no other reason than they didn’t wish to alienate half of their potential audience. Today’s night owl comedians don’t seem to care who they alienate, so long as they get a cheap laugh from a mean spirited joke about Donald Trump.

Don’t get me wrong, Mr. Trump has said and done plenty of things that warrant comedic barbs, but those barbs should only sting, not stab. They should be funny, not angry. And they should be thought provoking not vulgar. My advice to the President -Elect is to do what I do when I want a late night laugh. Watch re-runs of Carson.
 
 

A few weeks ago I went to the eye doctor, or as Barney Fife would say, the “arculist”. He told me I was so far-sighted that I wasn’t a candidate for Lasik.

Being nearly blind in one eye, what I really need are lens implants, which could cost upwards of $7,000. No worries, though, because I pay a thousand dollars every month in extortion money to the insurance company, so I’m sure that lens implants would be covered. After all, restoring one’s sight is a medical necessity.

I was wrong. Turns out that I’ll have to live with limited sight. But so will millions of other people like me who were born with bad eyes. You are who you are, and sometimes there’s just nothing you can do to change it. Rules are rules, and fair is fair. Imagine, then, my surprise when I learned that, starting next week, every state employee is eligible for a sex change operation, and it will be fully covered by their health plan, which you and I pay for. It seems that the government has determined that sex change surgery is a medical necessity. But how is that possible? and how did it come about?

The Affordable Care Act, AKA “Obamacare”, now prohibits sex discrimination in health insurance cases involving gender identity. Specifically, federal law has determined that denying coverage for a sex change is “impermissible discrimination.” And so, earlier this month, acting in accordance with the new law, the board of trustees for the State Health Plan voted to remove gender changes from previously excluded procedures. Translation? Having sex change surgery is medically necessary.

When I read this I couldn’t believe my eyes, mainly because I’m nearly blind in one eye and need lens implants, which aren’t covered on MY health plan. It is not medically necessary for me to see, but if I were a state employee, I could have a sex change operation because that WOULD be medically necessary.

Our incoming State Treasurer, Dale Folwell, vows to fight this insane change in medical coverage, and if Obamacare is repealed, he might succeed sooner than later. In the meantime, however, if a male teacher thinks he’s a woman, or if a female magistrate thinks she’s a man, then you and I will pay for their sex change surgery. By the way, our incoming Governor Roy Cooper is fine with the sex change law. He’s also OK with letting a 15-year-old boy who thinks he’s a girl, shower with biological girls at the school gym. I’m sorry, but I just don’t see it that way. Of course I don’t see anything any way.

Maybe I’ll go get a job with the state, request a sex change operation, and have the doctor sneak in some lens implants while I’m on the table. That way I’ll wake up with 20/20 vision, so I’ll be able to see the women I’m showering with much better. And none of it will cost me a dime. I know it’s a radical thing for me to do just to correct my eyesight, but I strongly identify with people who have great vision, and I should have the right to have what they have. As a bonus, the state will also cover all of my maternity costs. And, I won’t have to keep seeing my “arculist”. Thank you Mr. President! Speaking of whom, I recall that candidate Obama’s campaign slogan was “Hope and Change”. Now, thanks to his healthcare plan, North Carolina state employees can do just that. They can hope to change.