Triad Today

We are living in an age of the 24-hour news cycle, and that can be both good and bad for political candidates. Good if they utter a memorable sound bite. Bad if they say something stupid. As a result, politicians and their handlers have become increasingly guarded; so much so, that their televised debates have evolved into nothing but a series of thoroughly vetted (often negative) campaign talking points. That’s why, when candidates appear on Triad Today, I abandon the traditional debate format, and instead, engage them in civil conversation about the issues.

Sixth District candidates Democrat Laura Fjeld and Republican Mark Walker appeared together on Triad Today this past week. The questions and answers unfolded organically without putting a stop watch on every response. The result was an exchange of ideas and problem solving. Of course, the program was not devoid of fireworks, like when Ms. Fjeld, an attorney, attacked Walker, a minister, as an extremist on women’s issues. It was a contrast in styles and beliefs from two passionate people, and I appreciated their candor. Here then, are some highlights from our discussion.

 

---

 

EBOLA

JL: Did President Obama put us in danger by refusing to issue a travel ban from West Africa, and would you support a ban now?

MW: I believe he did. Being married to a level one trauma nurse who helps manage the Moses Cone ER, this is certainly a personal issue with me.

LF: I would vote for a travel ban, and I would base my vote on the best advice from the people who really understand this disease and how it travels. We want to know from experts across the globe who are studying Ebola, what is the best way to contain it, and then end it.

MW: I’m not so concerned with positions by international healthcare providers. As your next Congressman, my oath would be first to make sure we protect the citizens of this country. So I have no qualms about immediately establishing a travel ban.

THE MIDDLE EAST

JL: Though we profess to be a peace-loving nation, the United States has been engaged in nearly a hundred foreign conflicts since the early 1990’s. Now we’re bombing Syria. It seems like we’re always at war. Do you support the President’s bombing strategy and should we keep intervening in the Middle East?

LF: I absolutely support the military air strikes, but we’ve got to go further. I’m not satisfied with a trajectory that takes us out years before we can isolate or eradicate ISIS. They are terrorists, and we must do everything we can. Coming from a family of Navy men, I think “boots on the ground” is a last resort, but I just don’t think we can take anything off the table.

MW: We are facing a clear and present danger right now. ISIS is bringing in $3 million a day, they’ve commandeered oil fields in Syria and Iraq, and they’re also profiting from the sex trafficking industry. We do have to stop them. However, you also have to look back and say, “How effective have we been in intervening in these Middle East problems which go back 2000 years?” I feel sometimes like we’re wasting resources and putting our troops in harm’s way. I’m not an isolationist, but I would have to think long and hard before we enter into some kind of conflict.

LF: This is a group that’s recruiting in this country right now. This is not the war in Iraq. This is a different and new threat, and we have to look at it in that light.

MW: There are times when we have to stand up, but history tells us that [our interventions] have not been effective. If you look simply at results, they’re not there, so I think we need to develop some new strategies as we move forward.

IMMIGRATION

JL: Do you favor deportation of undocumented workers, and what about children of illegal immigrants?

LF: I do not favor amnesty. We cannot reward people for breaking our laws. But I do believe that the children who came here through no fault of their own, who want to be productive citizens in this country and want to go to school here, and serve in our military, that they should have a chance to do so.

MW: Securing our border is something that’s past due. Last week there were four ISIS members caught coming across the border, so who knows how many are getting across there.

LF: One of the things that differentiates me from Mr. Walker is his view, which was expressed quite clearly this summer, that we should actually be bombing the border with Mexico.

JL: Mark, was that said in jest?

MW: The paragraph before and after that was talking about going after drug cartels. This has been a spin by their campaign to come after us. We’ve chosen not to go the negative route, but to continue to concentrate on the issues.

LF: Well those are the words that Mr. Walker used to deal with our immigration crisis on the border.

MW: But that statement was by no means talking about going after Mexican citizens. It was talking about going after the drug cartels.

TAXES

JL: Mark, correct me if I’m wrong, but I think you said you favor replacing the federal income tax with a national sales tax. Laura you said you do not.

LF: Well, now is not the time to raise taxes on anyone, and the implementation of a national sales tax on everything we buy would hurt the middle and working class families who can least afford it.

MW: Jim we never said concretely that’s the way we want to go. We said there are many options, such as a fair tax, or even a flat tax model that would also include deductions for higher education, charitable giving, as well as mortgage interest.

MINIMUM WAGE

JL: Do you support raising the minimum wage?

LF: I absolutely believe we should raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. That allows individuals who are working very hard to put food on their tables, some of them working two and three jobs to do that. This is a livable wage, and more importantly it allows people to get off food stamps.

MW: I don’t think it would get them off food stamps. The Congressional Budget Office has said it will cost 500,000 jobs immediately upon implementation, so the answer is no.

LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA

JL: Do you favor legalization of marijuana, which would raise revenues and possibly reduce street crime?

LF: I have some concerns about legalization, but I certainly favor looking at it for medicinal uses.

MW: I agree, but I would add to that: the Governor of Colorado just said it might have been a little reckless to approve that legislation. There’s still some studies coming in, and I’d like to see those before we make any long term decisions.

GAY MARRIAGE

JL: In light of recent court rulings, do you support gay marriage, or would you join with those who seek to repeal those rulings?

LF: I do support marriage equality and I don’t believe government should tell people who they can love.

MW: From an equal rights standpoint, our Constitution should allow any two people to enter into any kind of civil agreement. However, I want to make sure our State’s constitution is being implemented to its fullest.

WOMEN’S ISSUES

JL: Laura, you’ve referred to Mark as an extremist on women’s issues. I want to know why, and Mark, I want to know why women should vote for you.

LF: I believe strongly that a woman’s healthcare decisions should be left to that woman in consultation with her doctor, her family, and her faith. And that’s the way it must be. Mr. Walker’s view is that a woman should never have that option, not even in cases when she’s been the victim of a violent crime like rape or incest.

MW: I want to be an advocate for all life, both the mother and the unborn baby. I am pro-life and I’m not ashamed of that, and I want to stand for the healthcare of all people involved.

LF: His is an extreme view held by very few people in this country, and then to say he will work diligently to pass legislation that would result in the banning of common forms of birth control, such as the pill and IUD, the Congress shouldn’t even be dealing with contraception.

MW: The last conversation I had about birth control was nine years ago when my wife came in and said we need to sit down and talk because we’re expecting our third child.

FAITH AND POLITICS

JL: Mark, as a Protestant minister, what assurances can you give Jewish voters, Catholic voters, and Muslim voters that any votes you cast in Congress will reflect the views of all your constituents?

MW: My oath is to the Constitution, and not to any specific denomination. That’s why we have bipartisan support across this district.

JL: Laura, for conservative voters who are still undecided in this race, what assurances can you give them that you won’t vote in lock step with Obama and the Democratic party?

LF: Well I never have and I never will. This race is really about issues and policy, and as a working mom, I’m the only candidate who’s actually had experience working with people of very divergent backgrounds.

 

---

 

If elected, both candidates feel they can help to break the gridlock in Washington. Perhaps they can. Though their views on many issues are far apart, they are alike in two regards. They are both good listeners, and they aren’t hamstrung by huge egos. That’s something Washington needs more of.

This Fall I am celebrating my 40th year in broadcasting, and that would not have been possible without the training I received at the UNCG campus television studio back in 1972. In the early part of this millennium I returned to UNCG to work with students on TV production and to guest lecture on cinema.

And, over the past year, I have been honored to have Chancellor Linda Brady and other University personnel participate in my “Triad Today” television series. I make these disclosures because I can no longer sit back and let the Greensboro News & Record and a few disgruntled UNCG staffers criticize the administration and make martyrs out of three university employees who got caught doing something they shouldn’t have done.

For anyone who hasn’t followed this saga, here’s the condensed version: On Sept. 24, three salaried employees of the UNCG University Relations Department were fired after their activities had been reported by someone outside of the department. Two of them, photographers Chris English and David Wilson, had allegedly been operating their own for-profit photography business during work hours, and are said to have used university cameras and computers while doing so. The third employee, Lydia Carpen, was Director of Creative Services, and she allegedly helped the two men file false time sheets to disguise their private business enterprise. The trio was arrested by campus police and charged with commission of various and sundry felonies associated with the falsified documents. The two men turned themselves into authorities, but Carpen was handcuffed and taken into custody by UNCG police. If convicted, the three could face prison time.

Before I take the defendants to task, let me say that their alleged offenses should not warrant a single day in jail. Further, though police officers are required to handcuff anyone they are transporting, I deplore that practice when it involves non-violent people who pose no danger to themselves or to others. State legislators need to pass a law that more clearly defines when and how such restraints are necessary. In any event, the arrests of English, Wilson and Carpen have transformed them into martyrs, and directed attention away from the acts they allegedly committed.

Over the past two weeks, a number of UNCG faculty and staff have been critical of the firings and the arrests. One of them, Bennett Ramsey, associate professor of religious studies, even penned a lengthy editorial for the News & Record in which he gave credence to the popular misconception that UNCG made a grave mistake. Meanwhile, a handful of disgruntled former University Relations employees have been playing the role of the angry villagers, demanding justice for the three defendants and vilifying Brady and Paul Mason, her Vice Chancellor for University Relations.

Mason, who has a stellar record in the private sector, was recruited to take over University Relations back in April of this year, presumably to whip the department back into shape and get it running in a professional manner and on budget. Several people were let go in the transition, and they are naturally bitter. Some of them have used the recent arrests to vent their petty complaints against Mason, and assassinate his character. Their efforts have only served to fan the flames of discontent and make people like Ramsey call for investigations and reforms. But amidst all the vitriol and protests, what everyone seems to forget is that three university employees might have broken the rules and broken the law.

Professor Ramsey tried to diminish those crimes by explaining that UNCG has always encouraged entrepreneurism among its students and faculty, but that doesn’t give employees a license to run their outside business on University time. That’s why it’s called an “outside” business for Christ’s sake (pardon my French, Professor Ramsey). There is, however, protocol for state employees to augment their salary, so long as that protocol is followed. One former UNCG staffer did just that.

Bert Vanderveen worked as a photographer in the University Relations department from 1997 until 2002. I asked him for some insight into this mess.

“When I was there, we were working 70 hours a week and making $20,000 a year. We had one broken camera and were asked to bring our own camera from home to do work for the university. I told my supervisor I needed some time off to do some outside work, which she approved so long as I didn’t work for another university. So I would work a split shift, take off a few hours and shoot freelance jobs, then come back to work at UNCG. But you can’t mix the two. You can’t do it ethically otherwise.”

Today, Vanderveen runs a successful photography business, but he shouldn’t have to compete against state employees who run their own business on university time while drawing a substantial salary (reportedly over twice what Vanderveen earned while employed in the same position). That sentiment is echoed by several other Greensboro-based small business owners I spoke with who provide professional photography services and whose taxes go to support the salaries of university employees.

BOB HENDERSON (owner, Henderson Photography):
“I think what the UNCG guys did was highly unethical, and if they were using University equipment, that gives them an unfair advantage over us little guys.”

SUSIE BAKER (owner, Custom Creations Photography):
“I’m glad they were let go because too much of this is allowed to fall through the cracks. I’m out there beating the streets for business and paying taxes, while they take no risk. They have a better opportunity to quote jobs for less because they have a job with a guaranteed salary. They shouldn’t be allowed to work on their own business while working for UNCG. It’s not fair to me, and it’s not fair to the university.”

KATHY DOLLYHIGH (owner, Dollyhigh Photography):
“It’s not just here in North Carolina. The industry has been hurt by people who do things like this. I think it’s wrong. My overhead is unbelievable. I pay electric bills and phone bills, and internet bills. There’s no way what they did could be right and I can’t believe they thought it would be. It’s not right to use other people’s equipment and time to make a profit. It’s like they’re double dipping. It’s ethically wrong.”

The angry protestors who think Wilson, English and Carpen got a raw deal should cool it for a moment and try to walk a mile in the shoes of small business owners. These are the folks who take risks, put up their homes as collateral, hire employees, spend money in the community and pay taxes. Without them, there would be no state-supported universities as we know them. UNCG employees who double dip on the clock undermine the success of those businesses, and that of the university itself.

UNCG is a special place, replete with dedicated faculty and staff who work long hours to improve and shape minds, and make this world better.

Together, the university and the local private sector combine to strengthen our community and our economy. These recent troubles should serve to remind us that the two sectors can only co-exist when complementing, not competing against, each other.

Every time Barack Obama falls short in the leadership department, I am reminded of what former Virginia Governor Doug Wilder wrote in an editorial for Politico.com four years ago. “Getting elected and getting things done for the people are two different things,” Wilder said. Obama knew how to get elected all right, but he still hasn’t a clue about how to govern. The President’s approach to governing has been one of caving in, breaking promises, cutting deals and failing to provide oversight.

From the very beginning of his presidency, Mr. Obama demonstrated hypocritically bad judgment. During his first campaign he told CNN, “I am running to tell the lobbyists in Washington that the days of setting the agenda are over. They won’t work in my White House.” But according to a December 2013 report in the Washington Examiner, lobbying scholar Conor McGrath documents 119 former lobbyists serving in the Obama administration.

Then, a month after being sworn in, Obama launched his so-called war on CEO greed, the lynchpin of which was a cap of $500,000 on executive pay. But his cap only applied to CEOs of companies who would receive at least $20 billion in taxpayer bailout money, and the new caps didn’t apply to companies who had already received federal assistance. Six years later, the pay disparity between CEOs and employees is wider than ever.

Speaking of money, Obama’s stimulus package didn’t exactly stimulate the so-called “shovel-ready” jobs he promised. $535 million was awarded to a solar energy company that went bankrupt less than a year later. $150 million went to the Smithsonian for maintenance. Some $50 million went to the Endowment for the Arts, and $600 million went to the purchase of government vehicles. The list goes on. The President also promised that his recovery plan would restore the jobs lost during the recession, and certainly millions of jobs have been created since then. But a closer examination reveals the duplicity of the President’s boastings.

Jobs paying $14 to $21 per hour comprised 60 percent of jobs lost during the recession, but they only account for 27 percent of those regained. Even worse, nearly 60 percent of all jobs regained since 2008 are low paying jobs. That means two-thirds of new jobs “created” make those workers, by definition, underemployed. That, coupled with the number of people who have given up looking for work, means the latest unemployment figure of 5.9 percent is grossly underestimated.

Mr. Obama purported to be the environmental President, but in 2011 he halted EPA regulations on smog standards. And, he was asleep at the wheel during BP’s Deep Water Horizon spill. It took a full four weeks for Obama to question BP’s competence in directing a cleanup of the spill. Presidential historian Douglas Brinkley criticized the Commander-in-Chief for not making the Gulf cleanup a military operation from the start. And former Presidential advisor David Gergen told CNN, “President Obama cares, but it’s not enough to care. You’ve got to take charge.”

Obama also failed to demonstrate leadership or oversight with the Affordable Care Act. The launch was a nightmare, and millions of people discovered that, contrary to the President’s promise, they could not keep their existing insurance plan. Sure, millions of uninsured people have obtained coverage, but the President made no attempt to include a cap on premiums in his Act, and today, the leading cause of bankruptcy in America is still medical bills. So much for healthcare reform.

Speaking of healthcare, Mr. Obama cut a deal with Big Pharma to keep lower-priced drugs from being imported. Meanwhile, he allows other nations to export their wares to the United States by paying a paltry 2 percent tariff. That compares to China’s rate of 22 percent and India’s 44 percent. That’s real leadership. Thanks to Obama, people on a fixed income have to pay a fortune for medicine, but they can get all the Chinese dog food they want.

And don’t get me started on Obama’s flip-flop when it comes to war. He campaigned as an anti-war candidate, but then proceeded to involve our country in more foreign entanglements than his predecessor had. Hardly had he finally extracted our troops from Iraq when he sent them back into Afghanistan. Now we’re bombing Syria. The federal government has spent trillions of dollars interfering in the Middle East, and that’s money that could have gone to hiring police, firefighters, and teachers here at home.

But perhaps the most disturbing aspect of Obama’s style of governing is his failure to make security a number one priority. Instead of waging war against one foreign rebel group after another, he should be doing all he can to shore up our own borders. Sure he’s deported 2 million undocumented workers who came here predominantly from Mexico and Central America, but most of those people were gainfully employed and posed no danger to anyone. Meanwhile he’s allowed his intelligence agencies to spy on innocent Americans, and his airport agents to strip search little old ladies whose only crime was having an artificial knee. And now he’s failed to act swiftly to prevent a real threat to our safety, the deadly Ebola virus.

Back in July, as soon as the first cases of Ebola were reported in West Africa, Congressman Alan Grayson requested that the President order a travel ban from that area. Obama refused, and now hundreds of people in Texas have been exposed to the virus because of one Liberian man who was allowed entry to our country. The President can be lax with his own White House security if he wants to, but Ebola is an intruder we can’t take chances with.

Clearly Barack Obama was a success at campaigning, but he’s been a failure at governing. I wish it had been the other way around.

The University of North Carolina School of the Arts is famous for creating high drama on stage and in film, but now they’ve created some drama behind the scenes. Last Friday a press release of sorts appeared in the Winston-Salem Journal announcing that UNCSA had contracted with a Chicago-based company to design a new website for the university. The firm, mStoner, Inc., is to be paid $430,000 for the design and for digital communication services. That contract begs two important questions. How is UNCSA able to spend $430,000 to design a website, and why aren’t they spending that money locally or within the State?

First, let’s tackle the money part. According to HigherEducationWorks.org, North Carolina’s public universities have experienced $500 million in budget cuts since the recession, and that includes significant cuts in need-based aid for students. It also includes $20 million in recent management flexibility cuts, of which UNCSA is not exempt. Also, last August when UNCSA was told its budget was being slashed by an additional $333,621, University spokesperson Lauren Whitaker told the Winston-Salem Journal they avoided layoffs “by reducing funds that would have been available…to purchase technology.” This is the same university that has complained about state budget cuts, and who supports and benefits from film companies coming here and spending their money. Yet now UNCSA is handing over $430,000 to a company with no ties to the Triad or to the state. “Kind of ironic, isn’t it?” said Will Ragsdale of the Winston-Salem-based Mitre Agency, one of over a dozen North Carolina firms who bid on the UNCSA project.

And what about those North Carolina design companies who were passed over by UNCSA? I spent several hours on the phone Friday afternoon speaking with a half dozen firms in the Triad and Triangle areas. I wanted to get their take on UNCSA’s decision to outsource web work to an Illinois-based company. I also spoke with Ward Caldwell, vice provost and project manager at UNCSA who was most cooperative in explaining and defending his methodology.

It should be noted that mStoner does excellent work and has specialized in college websites. “MStoner’s experience in education can’t be underestimated,” Caldwell told me. “It was not obvious to us that other companies in [North Carolina] had the capabilities.”

“That’s ridiculous,” said Ragsdale. “There are tons of people who could do the work, so why not do business in the state of North Carolina?” Another local design executive who asked to remain anonymous, concurred with Ragsdale, saying, “There are multiple firms in North Carolina who use the same technology as mStoner, several of them are here in the Triad, and there are twice as many in Raleigh.”

Doug Barton, owner of the award-winning Trone Brand Energy advertising agency located in High Point is one of those qualified firms. “We definitely could have done the (UNCSA) project. In fact, we made it to the finals and presented how we would do it and what we would do. There were some short-term lead times, but it was very doable,” said Barton.

Raleigh-based VisionPoint Marketing was also a finalist for the UNCSA project. CEO Diane Kuehn told me “We were capable of doing the job, and our bid was $40,000 less than mStoner’s.” Meanwhile, another Triad design company executive told me they underbid mStoner by $80,000.

Caldwell defended UNCSA’s decision to hire a more expensive Chicago company over all other bidders, even though budgets are tight, and cost was one of the five criteria factored into the judging process. The other four criteria were an ability to design a high quality, innovative and functional website; the ability to design a website that takes advantage of the unique visual and moving images component of the University’s five art schools; an understanding of the project goals; and an ability to deliver the site on schedule. But those are very standard criteria which any number of North Carolina-based companies could meet, and have done so for hundreds of satisfied clients. The decision to go out-of-state was particularly disappointing to Ragsdale, whose agency has done work for UNCSA in the past. “We are a brand design company, and we’ve helped revitalize and dimensionalize the University’s brand. It seems we would have been involved at some level in this project,” said Ragsdale.

UNCSA’s evaluation process was perfectly legal, but that doesn’t make it right. For a taxpayer-supported institution to pass over local, tax-paying, qualified design companies, and to make such a large expenditure in the midst of a budget crunch, is a major public relations blunder, and an insult to North Carolina entrepreneurs.

“Clearly UNCSA does not value local talent,” one design executive told me. “All things being equal, the work should stay in-state,” said Diane Kuehn. Trone’s Doug Barton agrees. “I definitely believe for those type of assignments they should keep it within the state, assuming the resources in the state are capable of doing the work. Just like the Lottery. They’re required to keep their work in the state unless there’s no resource in the state to do the work. I don’t think this should be any different. If the North Carolina Departments of Tourism and Commerce are treated that way, I don’t understand why this would be treated any different. UNCSA is predominantly funded with our taxes, so I don’t see why they get treated any differently. It should function in the same way, and I don’t understand why the decision was made.”

According to last week’s announcement, mStoner is just beginning to meet with folks on campus to determine what the website should include, which probably means no substantive work has begun. If so, then I would think that the governor would suggest to UNCSA’s newly hired chancellor that he put a hold on the web project until an investigation is made to determine exactly why the job didn’t go to a qualified company in North Carolina. At the very least, UNCSA should be instructed to favor in-state vendors going forward.

As news of the web debacle surfaced last Friday, Chancellor Lindsay Bierman was making his first report to UNCSA’s full Board of Trustees. In it, he set forth his goals and objectives for the University, which included joining with the Winston-Salem Alliance to promote “economic and entrepreneurial development in the region.” Last time I checked, Chicago is not in our region, and the decision to spend $430,000 out-of-state, rather than with in-state companies, runs counter to his stated objectives. The chancellor needs to re-think the University’s web contract, or else lose credibility with the very entrepreneurs he seeks to promote.

Earlier this month, Major League Baseball suspended Philadelphia Phillies pitcher Jonathan Papelbon for seven games because he grabbed his crotch and made an obscene gesture to booing fans. That same week, upon learning that Minnesota running back Adrian Peterson had used a large switch to bloody his four-year-old son’s back, legs, buttocks, face, and scrotum, the Vikings suspended their star for just one game. And so, we all learned an important lesson from the world of professional sports: grabbing your crotch is a much more serious offense than abusing someone else’s.

The Peterson case followed the discovery of a surveillance video showing Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice punching out his fiancée in an elevator, and it immediately preceded news of Arizona Cardinals RB Jonathan Dwyer head-butting his wife, and throwing a shoe at his 17-month-old baby. Meanwhile Greg Hardy and Ray MacDonald were still allowed to play for the Panthers and the 49ers respectively, even though both men had been involved in assaulting women. It has been a bad month for the NFL, whose management and team owners demonstrated a total lack of sensitivity about domestic violence, and an unwillingness to do anything about the problem. The Ravens eventually fired Rice, while the Vikings and Cardinals finally got around to telling their abusive running backs to stay home and collect millions of dollars for doing nothing.

Aside from the disturbing nature of spousal and child abuse in and unto itself, there are a number of collateral issues which should be of concern as well, because they only serve to delay, impede, and prevent any short-term punitive action or long term substantive reform. Those are: greed, denial, and enabling. First is greed. In the beginning, Vikings owners appeared to be taking the appropriate action by sitting Peterson for their game against the New England Patriots. But when the Pats gave Minnesota a severe beating, those same owners reversed field and said Peterson could return for the next game. Former NFL player and coach, now ESPN analyst Herm Edwards said it best, “Winning games has become more important than doing the right thing.” In addition, most of the teams involved with the scandals only did the right thing under threat of losing corporate sponsors. That kind of greedy mentality defies common decency, and reveals an operating procedure that is devoid of empathy for victims of abuse.

Next is denial. For decades now, both league and team officials have acted as though domestic violence didn’t exist. During NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell’s first eight years in office, there have been nearly 60 cases of proven domestic violence, yet those offenses netted a total of only 13 suspended games. Meanwhile, Vikings owners were in a different kind of denial. During one press conference last week, they suggested that what Peterson did might not qualify as child abuse, so they were waiting to see what the courts ruled. The Daily Show‘s Jon Stewart responded to that kind of arrogance and ignorance by offering one piece of simple advice, “You can’t do to a four-year-old child what you’re not allowed to do to a 300-pound lineman.”

Of course, society has been in denial about domestic abuse too. When we all saw the first video of Ray Rice dragging his fiancée out of the elevator, there was no public outcry. That changed when the complete video surfaced, showing Rice’s knockout punch. Same with Adrian Peterson’s crime. There was no uproar over his admission of corporally punishing his toddler, but then photos were made public, showing the bloody and bruised body of the little boy, and all of a sudden, everyone was appalled. In this viral video world of ours, it seems that we have to see a problem before we will admit that there IS a problem.

Finally, we as a society are guilty of enabling abusers, especially athletes who commit violent acts. After serving only a year in prison for torturing, burning, and murdering dogs, Michael Vick was hailed as a reformed hero, and paid millions of dollars to throw a football. His jersey became the biggest seller in the country, and most people forgave and forgot. Why? Because poor Michael revealed that he grew up with dog fighting and didn’t know any better.

Fast forward to Peterson who last week said that one of his high school coaches used to paddle him with a board. Translation? Adrian’s actions toward his son are understandable. Meanwhile, former NFL coach Tony Dungy excused Peterson’s abusive behavior as a cultural phenomena. And NBA legend Charles Barkley played the race card by implying that if what Peterson did is a crime, then every southern black parent should be in jail because they all hit their children. Newsflash Sir Charles, child abuse is a pervasive, racially blind problem.

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, over 550,000 children are physically or sexually abused every year, and the Tennyson Center for Children says 80 percent of kids who die from abuse are under the age of four. Moreover, of those who survive their beatings, 30 percent of abused children will go on to abuse their own children. “Excusing this abuse as regional and cultural is how other Americans used to defend having eight-year old boys working in coal mines six days a week, or how people in the South used to defend slavery and lynching,” said ESPN’s Keith Olbermann.

The question is, why are so many infants and children beaten by their parents? Perhaps the answer lies in a 2013 Nielsen survey that showed that four out of five parents believe spanking is appropriate. Another reason is that corporal punishment is legal in all 50 states. Of course, each state has its own threshold for what constitutes abuse, but their guidelines are open to interpretation and tough to enforce. According to TIME.com, in Texas, abuse only exists when punishment “results in substantive harm to the child.” In Louisiana you can beat your child, so long as you don’t “seriously endanger their health.” And the state of Maine allows beatings so long as it results in “no more than transient discomfort.”

It’s easy to see why 39 other countries have banned all forms of corporal punishment, which begs the question, why does America still allow it?

We need to push for a federal ban on corporal punishment while the NFL scandals are still fresh in our easily distracted minds. Meanwhile, the league must work closely with colleges to require sensitivity training for all male athletes, so that there are no excuses for violence against women. Finally, punishment for collegiate and pro athletes who commit domestic violence must be swift and severe. No more one-game suspensions for punching a woman unconscious, or for bloodying a toddler.

Athletes are not the only men who physically abuse family members, but right now their crimes are front and center of a debate that must give rise to reform.

Football is still a beloved sport, but we can’t play games with domestic violence any longer.

In the early 1900s, liquor flowed freely in restaurants and bars. Americans could walk into any pharmacy and purchase a gram of pure cocaine for 25 cents because it was prescribed as relief from hemorrhoids, toothaches, and indigestion. Companies began to mix cocaine in their soft drink and wine products, and, according to MentalFloss.com, there were even cocaine-laden cigars for sale. Meanwhile, liquid opium was used for everything from coughs to sleeplessness. And by 1906, the AMA approved heroin for general medical use. It was a time when government treated adults like adults, and took a laissez faire approach when it came to social mores.

All that changed in 1920. That’s when Congress passed the 18th Amendment, making the sale and possession of alcohol a federal crime. Bans on drugs soon followed. Prohibition lasted for 13 disastrous years, during which time organized crime controlled the manufacture and distribution of whiskey and narcotics, and America was introduced to automatic weapons, drive-by shootings, car bombings, and assorted murderous mayhem. Bodies were piling up, yet newly banned substances were readily available in back alleys and speakeasies. Prohibition was an abject failure and caused thousands of collateral deaths. Congress ended Prohibition in 1933 with passage of the 21st Amendment, but legislated temperance would continue to rear its ugly head from time to time, including next month.

On October 1st, the Federal government will reclassify oxycodone as a Schedule II narcotic, making it more difficult for people in pain to get relief. This comes on the heels of other boneheaded decisions, like North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper’s war on Sudafed, which treats sinus sufferers like meth dealers.

It seems that since the dawn of the 21st century, we’ve been living in an era of “Prohibition 2.0”. Remember New York City Mayor Bloomberg’s ban on super-sized soft drinks? Or how about the increasing list of foods that are disappearing from schools, including potato chips and brownies in favor of such delights as gluten-free lemon bars. Then there’s the aforementioned war on sinus medicines, and now the reclassification of oxycodone.

All of these initiatives have one thing in common: politics. For example, elected officials know they’re losing the war against drug lords, so they pass laws that punish and imprison innocent people, just so they’ll look like they’re doing something.

Meanwhile, one group is actually offering substantive solutions. The Global Commission on Drug Policy is comprised of 21 former world leaders, and last week they met in New York City to discuss their new report, which calls for a complete overhaul of drug policies around the world. Their recommendations include legalizing and regulating illicit drugs like marijuana. They also call for every nation to ensure equitable access to essential medicines, in particular opiate-based meds for pain, such as oxycodone. GCDP wants us to offer treatment instead of incarceration for non-violent offenders, and to stop criminalizing the use and possession of recreational drugs.

The GCDP recognizes that the war on drugs has failed and it’s time for the Obama administration to heed that organization’s proposals. Instead, our current President and his predecessors have made the United States the world’s leading jailer, with today’s prison population totaling over 2 million, 50 percent of which are locked up for non-violent, drug-related crimes.

Treatment isn’t just the right moral policy, it’s also the right economic policy. According to the Justice Policy Institute, treatment of a drug user costs taxpayers $20,000 less each year than incarceration. Moreover, the Washington State Institute for Public Policy reports that we save communities $18 for every one dollar spent for treatment.

The FDA claims that reclassifying oxycodone will cut down on deaths caused by overdose, but whom are they kidding? Just as alcoholics were able to obtain spirits during Prohibition, anyone wanting to purchase pain pills will still be able to do so in whatever quantities they can afford. Meanwhile drug-related street violence will only escalate. And then there’s the hypocrisy of it all. People die from alcohol and tobacco use every day. They commit vehicular manslaughter every day. They use guns in commission of violent crimes every day. Yet the federal government won’t ban cigarettes, booze, cars, or guns. Why? Because those items have powerful lobbies behind them.

Oxycodone, on the other hand, is an easy target for grandstanding legislators. Besides, Uncle Sam always knows what’s best for his wards, right? Wrong. Whatever happened to laissez faire? Whatever happened to the time when our elected representatives stayed out of our personal lives, and tended instead to matters of state?

Will Rogers once joked that “Communism is like Prohibition. It’s a good idea, but it won’t work.” If Rogers were alive today, I’m sure he would update his joke to say, “The Drug War is like Prohibition. It’s a good idea, but it won’t work.”

Today, government intrusiveness is more ill advised than ever before, and it pains me to say that. Unfortunately I can’t get any meds to make the pain go away.

Back in 1831, North Carolina Congressman Robert Potter castrated two men whom he suspected of sleeping with his wife. His colleagues in the House took no action against him. Later, when serving in the State General Assembly, Potter was caught cheating at cards, and was immediately expelled from the chamber. The moral of the story is that it’s OK to cut from the bottom of a dick, so long as you don’t cut from the bottom of a deck. Clearly, legislators just don’t have their priorities straight.

Then as now, Congress is still ethically challenged. Today it nurtures and condones a revolving door system for its retiring members, which allows them to go to work for industries whom they have previously championed, or for whom they intend to obtain access, or both. The most recent example of this is Republican Congressman Eric Cantor from Virginia. The powerful House Majority Leader had built a substantial power base during his 13 years in Washington, where he was an advocate for big business. Last week he accepted a job with investment bank Moelis & Co., who is paying him a $1.4 million dollar signing bonus, and a $2 million dollar annual salary.

Upon hearing of Cantor’s windfall, Democrat Senator Elizabeth Warren implied to Katie Couric that Cantor will be selling access to his former colleagues “who are still writing policy, and who are still making laws.”

Such criticism is not particularly new. ThinkProgress.org reminds us that former Reagan OMB Director David Stockman once described Cantor as a “Bag man for Wall Street.” Stockman was referring to Cantor’s support for TARP, and his opposition to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. It’s no wonder that Cantor’s Tea Party opponent used the Bag Man tag to defeat the incumbent in a recent primary election. According to ThinkProgress.org, David Brat said, “All of the investment bankers in New York and D.C., they should have gone to jail, but instead went on Eric’s rolodex and sent him big checks.”

Cantor’s primary defeat was unexpected, especially since that same investment banking industry had lined his campaign coffers with nearly $8 million over the past few years. But while Virginia voters finally got wise to Cantor’s antics, Congress itself continues to turn a blind eye to the practice of revolving door power brokering. In recent years, Senate Banking Chairman Phil Gramm took a job with UBS. House banking subcommittee chairman Rick Lazzio went on JP Morgan Chase’s payroll, and former Representative Larry LaRocco became a lobbyist for the American Bankers Association. In fact, today, 50% of all retiring Congressmen now go on to become lobbyists. That compares with just 3% in 1974.

To be fair, such influence peddling hasn’t been limited to Congressmen. Revolving door politics has also been a problem in the West Wing. That’s why on his first day in office, Bill Clinton signed an executive order that barred retiring senior staffers from lobbying their former colleagues for five years. However, in the last few days of his second term, Mr. Clinton revoked his own order so that his outgoing staff could transition into the private sector without delay. History repeated itself nine years later when President Obama had his staff and appointees sign an Ethics Pledge. But the terms of Obama’s pledge had loopholes big enough to drive a truck through, including a provision by which the director of the OMB could issue waivers to certain White House insiders.

That brings us back to the Legislative Branch and people like Eric Cantor who are supposed to serve the public, but end up mainly serving themselves. Under current federal law, Senators are barred from lobbying Congress for two years after leaving their post, and House members are barred for one year. But here’s the rub. Folks like Cantor can leave office and immediately go to work for one of his pet companies without breaking the law. That’s because he can “advise” his new employer on how to navigate the halls of Congress without directly lobbying former members himself, who, by the way, he’s free to meet with socially, wink-wink. But Cantor isn’t necessarily even being paid to help Moelis in the future. As The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart pointed out, the millions Cantor is reaping from Moelis is just compensation for services already rendered. Stewart is right on target. If nothing else, Cantor is being richly rewarded for protecting the interests of the investment banking industry while serving in Congress.

Republican Rep. Michael Bennet and Democratic Senator Jon Tester would like to see retiring members of Congress barred from any kind of lobbying for life, but their attempts have fallen on deaf ears, and will continue to do so, at least until we can send enough fresh faces to Washington who aren’t interested in lining their pockets. Once that happens, then we might see some viable ethics reform enacted. My suggestion is to tie the length of a lobbying ban to the actual number of years served in Congress. For example, if a one term representative leaves office, he could go to work anywhere he wishes after two years. But if that same official remained in Congress for 10 years, then his ban would last for a decade. In Washington, power and influence only come with time served, so my plan would render powerful incumbents virtually powerless to influence policy upon their retirement.

In the meantime, we need to keep pushing for term limits and vote out as many incumbents as possible. Otherwise we’ll be stuck with elected officials who look the other way while they and their contributors (and future employers) screw the American public. It makes you mad enough to want to castrate those corrupt officials. Where’s Robert Potter when you need him?

On August 9, Ferguson Missouri police officer Darren Wilson shot and killed Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old black man. Initial reports indicate that Brown had his hands up in the air when Wilson fired multiple times. The Brown family lawyer proclaimed that Wilson was guilty of murder. Riots ensued, and SWAT teams and national guard were called in to restore order using military equipment and weaponry. The riots have since ended, but there’s still unrest, distrust, and anger simmering in the St. Louis suburb. And why not? After all, Ferguson was a public safety disaster waiting to happen. The population of Ferguson is 63% African American, yet the police force is 94% white.

It is amazing to me that in America you are guaranteed a jury of your peers, yet we can’t guarantee policing by your peers. This is something that Attorney General Eric Holder should try and rectify as a violation of basic civil rights. I also think that police officers should live where they work. Anyway, that’s my input, and while it would take time to implement those proposals, at least they’re viable. That’s in contrast to the irresponsible and bone-headed input by some in the news media over the past few weeks.

The FOX news team, of course, was quick to paint Wilson as the victim and Brown as the criminal. But my favorite skewed coverage was on CNN. Commenting on the Ferguson riots and police use of tear gas to disperse crowds, CNN anchor Rosemary Church suggested, “Why not use water cannons? At least it’s not something that is going to have the same kind of effect.” Typical of today’s beauty queen news anchors, Ms. Church made the mistake of opening her mouth and showing us how little she knows. She also demonstrated a thorough lack of historical perspective and sensitivity. Those of us who came of age in the early 1960’s remember all too well the disturbing images of southern cops blasting innocent black citizens with water cannons. It was inexcusable behavior by racists parading as public servants. So thanks for your suggestion Ms. Church—you freaking idiot.

Meanwhile, not all insensitive coverage was initiated by the electronic media.

Syndicated cartoonist Taylor Jones amplified the 1960’s water cannon era by portraying a Ferguson storm trooper as Barney Fife. In the foreground of the cartoon is a black man with raised hands while Fife, armed with an assault rifle and pointing a semi automatic pistol at the man, says, “We’ve got to nip it in the bud!” For me, Jones’ illustration and political commentary was the last straw in the media frenzy about Michael Brown’s killing, and for two reasons.

For many years now I have grown increasingly embarrassed to tell people that I work in television because increasingly, local and network news operations have filled their ranks with airheads whose main qualification is that they are young and attractive. Ironically, though, when attempting to ad lib, what they say is often very unattractive. The killing of an unarmed black youth by a white man in authority is becoming an all-too familiar occurrence in this country, and any news person who fails to grasp the significance of that racial divide is not fit to wear a microphone.

The other reason I reached my boiling point last month is because a tragedy born out of prejudice is never well served by satire born out of prejudice. Jones’ cartoon wasn’t funny because his metaphor wasn’t appropriate, and smacked of prejudice against the South. If ever there was a kind and gentle law enforcement officer, it was the fictional Barney Fife, loyal deputy on “The Andy Griffith Show”. To portray Fife as a violent, racist cop even in jest is a misrepresentation of the character Don Knotts created, and an insult to the millions of white people in the South who live with and respect people of color.

To be fair, Jones isn’t the first media professional to pick on Mayberry. Two years ago producers of the prime time EMMY awards show presented a parody of “The Andy Griffith Show” in which Andy and Barney were portrayed by characters from “Breaking Bad”. The segment ended with Bryan Cranston (“Andy”) and Aaron Paul (“Opie”) murdering Barney.

For some big-city media types, it is stylish to make fun of the South, and when based on facts, those parodies can be helpful. But no TV anchor, pundit or cartoonist has the right to indict all southern towns for something vile that takes place in a single locality. Barney Fife is nothing like Darren Wilson. For proof, just heed Fife’s own words; “It’s a wise man who knows it’s illegal to take the law into his own hands.” Barney also said, “I’m a student of humanity. I guess that’s the difference between a sharply honed lawman, and a jerk wearing a badge.” And once when Barney was swearing in extra deputies, he told them, “That badge means something. Don’t any of you disgrace it.” I believe that the majority of police officers and deputies in the South feel the same way as Barney, and that’s something of which we southerners can be proud.

Later this month, the town of Mount Airy will host its annual “Mayberry Days” event, where visitors can celebrate what’s good about small town America. There will be plenty of good food, good music, and good conversation. And yes, there will be plenty of good cops around to keep an eye on things. There’s no doubt that the Ferguson police force needs swift reform, but not all small towns are full of racists. Anyone who seeks to lump us all together should just nip it right now

In the movie Tootsie, Dustin Hoffman played a struggling actor and drama coach who told his students, “You’re an actor. There’s no excuse for not working.” That fictional admonishment was a real-life mantra for actor Ed Nelson, who passed away at his home in Guilford County on August 9, at the age of 85. He is survived by Patsy, his wife of 64 years, four daughters, two sons, 14 grandchildren, and 10 great-grandchildren.

Ed Nelson was always working, and was the busiest actor I’ve ever known. He appeared in hundreds of stage plays, and over 140 television series, including a starring turn in the long-running ABC drama, Peyton Place. He also acted in over 50 films, the last of which was Runaway Jury in 2003, starring, appropriately, Dustin Hoffman.

Ed was born in New Orleans, but his family soon moved to North Carolina where his father worked as a contractor at Camp Lejeune. Early on, Ed frequently found himself getting into mischief. During a 2010 interview on my Triad Today TV show, Ed told me, “I was not the ideal student. I mean, my mother came to school more than I did.” (laughs).

Ed also told me about his high school days.

ED: I was raised on the coast of Carolina. I went half a year to Jacksonville High School and half a year at Swansboro until they opened a school on the base, and that was Camp Lejeune High School.

It was there that young Ed developed a strong work ethic.

ED: Even though my father was not in the Marine Corps, he was one of the construction people that helped build the base. He was a steam fitter, and I was his helper during the summers.

Ed also applied that work ethic to a variety of sports.

ED: If you could walk, you were a four-letter man in sports (laughs). So I played them all.

Regardless of Ed’s desire to succeed in athletics, his football team often came up short.

ED: We lost every football game except one. We beat New Hanover High in Wilmington. We beat them one night in a driving rain storm with about four inches of water on the field.

JL: And those folks from Wilmington still hate you to this day.

ED: They do (laughs).

After school, Ed pulled a stint in the Navy, then went on to attend Tulane University where he hoped to study law. But his focus changed when he was smitten by his future wife Patsy, and by his new mistress, acting. He later went to New York City to study television production, and that led him back to New Orleans, and a job as assistant director at WDSU-TV.

As fate would have it, famed B-movie director Roger Corman came to New Orleans to shoot Swamp Women, and Ed found himself working for Corman both behind the scenes and in front of the camera.

By 1960 Ed was fast becoming a fixture in prime time, appearing as a guest star on a myriad of TV shows, including Rawhide, starring a young Clint Eastwood. Upon hearing of Ed’s passing, Clint emailed me the following statement: “I knew Ed in the Rawhide days, and saw him briefly throughout the years since. He was a terrific guy.”

Ed was proving to be a talented, reliable character actor, and was working regularly in Hollywood when he was offered what was to become his signature role of Dr. Michael Rossi in ABC’s Peyton Place.

ED: I had been under contract to Universal for three years, and they wanted me to re-sign. My agent called and said he didn’t want me to re-sign. I said, “Wait a minute. I’m getting a check every week, and I’m working with all these great stars. What’s the show you have for me?” And he said, “It’s a big show over at 20th Century Fox called Peyton Place and they want you”. Then he asked me what I wanted. “Give me a parking spot on the lot with my name on it.”

Ed got his parking space, and more.

Peyton Place was an immediate hit, airing twice a week at first, then three times a week by the second season. The show was TV’s first prime time soap opera (though Ed hated that term), and the forerunner of Dallas, Dynasty, and all other dramas with continuing story lines.

One of Ed’s co-stars on Peyton Place was newcomer Ryan O’Neal, who was saddened by the loss of his friend. In an email to me last week, Ryan wrote, “Ed Nelson was a man amongst men. He will be sorely missed by us all.”

Peyton Place left the air in 1969, but Ed never wanted for work, and continued to stay busy on stage, in films and on television, including five appearances on
Murder She Wrote. My friend Angela Lansbury told me, “Ed Nelson was always a huge addition to the cast of Murder She Wrote on so many occasions. He will be sadly missed by me and his many friends in our industry.”

Another of Ed’s friends was Ed Asner, with whom he served on the Board of the Screen Actors Guild. Nelson was a staunch conservative, and Asner was the polar opposite. Nevertheless, the two Eds found common ground. Asner told me, “I found Ed to be a hard working actor for the union. I appreciate his efforts on behalf of the union, and even though we might have differed occasionally on some politics, I liked him. He was a good man.”

Ed and Patsy had planned to retire to their beloved New Orleans, but hurricane Katrina destroyed their home, so they relocated back to Ed’s adopted state of North Carolina, and settled in Guilford County near their daughter Beth, who lives in Oak Ridge.

In 2008, Ed and his friend Dr. Alvin Cotlar collaborated on Nelson’s biography, titled, Beyond Peyton Place.

Meanwhile 20th Century Fox released the first two seasons of Peyton Place on DVD. Ed was never more popular, and, well into his eighties, he was still in demand at nostalgia shows around the country, including the Western Film Fair in Winston-Salem.

My fondest memory of Ed was one afternoon in the TV station parking lot after we had taped a segment for Triad Today. Ed knew television inside and out, and we shared some common experiences. We had both started out working behind the camera, and while I never went into acting (a real break for the public), both of us enjoyed interviewing people. In fact Ed once hosted his own morning talk show for ABC. But no matter what Ed did, he did it well. I told him that I always looked forward to his guest starring roles because he made every scene he was in work better. I asked him about his success as an actor.

ED: When I first started in theatre in New Orleans, a film director told me “Just let yourself go.” Of course, you can’t let your physical body go.

JL: I have.

ED: (laughs)

Speaking of physical strength, Ed had that in spades. After we concluded our parking lot summit, he slapped me on the shoulder out of friendship. The only thing is, his slap knocked me off balance, and I outweighed the man by a good 70 pounds. Ed also had strength of character, and a work ethic that would put a beaver to shame. During our last interview, I asked him if he had ever turned down a role that he wished he hadn’t.

ED: I never turned anything down. My agent complained that I worked too much, and should have held out for the great roles. But I love to work. It was a relief to me, and God knows what I would have been if I hadn’t been an actor. I enjoyed it so much, and I worked at it very hard. I Ioved it.

Ed Nelson was a well respected, dedicated actor, and as far as he was concerned, there was just no excuse for not working. Those of us who saw him act were fortunate he felt that way.

(Ed’s funeral service will be held at 10:00am Saturday, August 30, at St. Pius X Catholic Church in Greensboro, NC)

Filed in Commentaries