Triad Today

There’s only one politician in American history that supposedly never told a lie, and he earned his rep early on. According to legend and to children’s book author Bella Koral, when George Washington was about six years old, he chopped down one of his father’s prized cherry trees that had been shipped over from England. When asked, “George, do you know who chopped down my cherry tree?” the future Commander in Chief replied, “Father, I cannot tell a lie. I did it with my little hatchet.” Rather than become angry, young George’s father said, “That was my favorite tree, but I’d rather lose a thousand trees than have a son who lies.”

Washington went on to lead our nation into independence, establish a Bill of Rights, voluntarily set term limits, and, so far as we know, he never told a lie. How then did we go from being led by such an honest politician to being victimized by candidates who will say anything in order to get elected?

The fact is that lying in a political campaign has become commonplace. So much so that the Supreme Court is poised to rule that political lies are protected speech. Last week the high court heard arguments from U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, and others, that an Ohio law that criminalizes lying in a political campaign is unconstitutional.

Currently, Ohio and 15 other states have made it illegal to communicate lies through political advertising, however, it seems that very few folks from either party are happy with those laws. The aforementioned Solicitor General, for example, who speaks for the Obama administration, has argued that lying in a political campaign is protected under the first amendment. Said Verrilli in defending political liars, “Petitioners have sufficiently alleged that a credible threat of prosecution will chill them from engaging in deceptive speech relating to elections for public office.” Are you kidding me? That’s like arguing that we shouldn’t make robbing a bank illegal because it would discourage criminals from stealing money. Mr. Verrilli has obviously never been the target or victim of political slander and libel. Many others have.

In the Fall of 2010, for example, the North Carolina GOP ran an attack ad against Democrat House Majority Leader Hugh Holliman, saying that the incumbent was soft on crime, and, “Thanks to Hugh Holliman, death row inmates can leave prison early and move in next door to you.” In fact, Holliman was tough on crime, supported the death penalty, and even attended the execution of the man who raped and murdered his daughter. But the damage had been done to Holliman’s reputation, and he lost the election. Fast forward to this year’s primary battle for the GOP 6th District nomination, and Bruce VonCannon is suing a PAC, which supports Phil Berger Jr., for running an ad that said VonCannon is a banker for the Chinese. Things never change.

I suppose it’s possible that the conservative Supremes will uphold Ohio’s law against lying, but it’s not likely. Failure to do so, however, will have a catastrophic effect on our society, as explained by AlterNet’s Eric Zuesse. “The idea behind this law is that any democracy in which lying in political campaigns isn’t penalized by severe penalties, won’t remain a democracy much longer, but will instead descend into a kleptocracy – the theft of elections themselves.”

SCOTUS has already allowed corporations and unions to donate huge sums of money to a single campaign, and the Court recently ruled that individuals can now donate the maximum amount of money to as many campaigns as they wish. Those decisions, coupled with a possible ruling to strike down the Ohio law, will give millionaires and billionaires free reign to shape the national conversation, and elect candidates who serve their interests.

Back in 2010, I called on State legislators and Congress to criminalize political lying, but only a handful of states have attempted some kind of reform. What’s lacking is federal oversight. If he wanted to, President Obama could create an inter agency commission consisting of the FEC, the FCC, and the FTA, which would govern, monitor, and penalize any campaign or candidate found guilty of transmitting lies through print, speech, or broadcast. After all, we already punish TV pitchmen who lie about their product (Kevin Trudeau just got ten years in prison for making false claims about his weight loss pills.) Of course, political hacks will argue that there’s a difference between lying about a weight loss pill and lying about a candidate, but there’s not. They are both products to be marketed and sold to the detriment of competing products, but that process should be done honestly. When it’s not, those responsible should be punished and chopped down to size. Alas, there’s never a boy with a hatchet around when you need him.

I grew up in the 1950’s when times were simpler, and customer service was more personal.

Sealtest delivered milk and dairy products to our back door. The dry cleaner came and picked up clothes that needed special attention. Southern Foods delivered meat right to our freezer when we could afford it, and the local automobile dealer would even bring my Dad used cars to test drive every few years. And then there was the family physician.

Back then if you were sick, your doctor would make house calls. It was just like in Gunsmoke where Doc Adams would pay a visit to an ailing resident of Dodge City. And just like the doctors of the old west, our family medicine man showed up at our house carrying a little black bag. It contained all sorts of miraculous items, including pills which almost always cured what ailed us. We trusted our doctor to give us the right medicine because it was the right thing to do, and not because he had been paid to prescribe it. That was then and this is now.

Over the intervening years, most doctors have stopped making house calls, and their black bags have become stuffed with cash instead of cures. Last week the Greensboro News & Record published a report on doctors who accept money from pharmaceutical companies, and I was astonished to learn about the amount of green that was changing hands.

According to the report, Dr. Scott MacDiarmid, a urologist with Alliance Urology Specialists was paid nearly $609,000 between 2009 and 2012. His fees came from Allergan, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer. During that same period, Dr. Stephen Smith and Dr. Richard Aronson, both with Guilford Medical Associates, made $383,000 and $263,000 respectively from Eli Lilly, Merck, Forest, and Glaxo Smith Kline. There were plenty of other doctors receiving six figures for consulting, giving speeches, and, by implication, endorsing a particular brand of drug. Those included physicians from Eagle Family Medicine, Cone Health Cancer Center, and LeBauer Healthcare, among others.

I spoke with a local physician who told me that big pharma has always cozied up to large medical practices. In the beginning, he said doctors were paid to show up in Hawaii or some other exotic locale and do nothing to earn their kickback except kick back and get a tan. That raised some eyebrows and red flags, so, as time went on, those vacationing Docs were expected to deliver a speech in exchange for payment. Others were compensated for having conducted clinical trials ostensibly designed to bolster credibility of the industry sponsor’s product. Charles Ornstein, a reporter with Pro Publica, explained the problem, saying, “Patients trust their doctors to prescribe the right drugs for them and not be influenced by financial interests.” The bad news is that pay perks continue today. The good news is that they are not as pervasive as they once were.

According to Pro Publica, payments to physicians from pharmaceutical companies declined between 2011 and 2012, primarily due to increased transparency, and to drugs losing patent protection. The former is a result of the Physician Payment Sunshine Act, which now gives patients and the media unprecedented access to data regarding cash deals between doctors and the drug industry. Glaxo Smith Kline, for example, announced back in December that they would no longer pay doctors to make promotional speeches. However, GSK still compensates physicians to conduct clinical trials, a practice which has increased nationwide among many big companies. In fact, according to Pro Publica, over 1,300 researchers now have personal or promotional ties to drug companies.

Fortunately, most academic medical centers have adopted strict rules that govern the way clinical trials are conducted, and the kinds of speeches their doctors can deliver when being paid by a pharmaceutical company. Dr. John McConnell, CEO of Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center shared with me his hospital’s conflict of interest policy which establishes specific guidelines. For example, Wake’s policy precludes its doctors from being involved in “any marketing program designed by an industry solely to influence purchasing or prescribing decisions.” Also, compensation or honoraria accepted by a doctor for delivering a speech “must be reasonable and reflect fair market rates.” Moreover, Wake physicians who deliver outside speeches can’t even use power point or slides provided by an industry sponsor. In addition, WFBMC has its own Conflict of Interest office that monitors and reports on industry funded presentations. And while such oversight by teaching hospitals is admirable, it is discouraging to know that so many area physicians in private practice are still accepting large sums of money from big pharma.

Old Doc Adams carried a black bag alright, but he wasn’t a bagman for drug companies. Truth is he never took a dime from anyone except for his patients, and often times not even from them. That’s because a good doctor thinks more of healing than he does of being well-heeled.

Greensboro Mayor Nancy Vaughan and Winston Salem Mayor Allen Joines had met briefly a couple of times, but not until last week had they ever been interviewed together. The pairing occurred when they stopped by the WXLV studio to tape an extended segment for Triad Today.

We covered a lot of ground during our twelve-minute session, beginning with a discussion about recent rumors that the drone industry was looking to locate in Greensboro or Winston Salem. Given public outcry about NSA spying, I wondered if the Mayors would welcome an industry that manufactures high tech, armed surveillance equipment.

Vaughan: We have not had any discussions with the drone industry at this point, so I’m not sure what plans they might have for Greensboro. We would like to bring economic development out to the airport, but I’m just not sure that’s the type of development we’re looking for.

Joines: Certainly we’re looking for jobs, and that’s a legal industry, but I think we would need to look at what the parameters of the investment might be.

Meanwhile, the Mayors touted two projects that are far from controversial. For Joines it’s the Innovation Quarter.

Joines: That’s one of our big economic engines. At 240 acres we think it’s the largest urban research park in the country. Right now we have over 3,000 people working there, and we have another 2,000 people living in and around the Quarter. We think within the next fifteen years we’ll have as many as 15,000 people working there.

For Vaughan, it’s the newly approved Performing Arts Center, which is slated to open by June of 2016.

Vaughan: I think it will be a huge economic catalyst. $30 million dollars will be tax payer funded, and $35 million dollars in private investment. It is significant that the private sector stepped up to make that kind of contribution to the community.

Vaughan’s pride over private sector funding was understandable, especially since here in the Triad, so much of our development involves incentives. Speaking of which, I wondered if the two Mayors would like to do away with incentives which mostly just shift jobs from one locality to another.

Vaughan: Unfortunately incentives are a necessary evil, and if you want to be in the game, you’ve got to play the game. If the federal government wanted to step forward and say ‘no more incentives anywhere’, and we all had to bid on jobs based on our own merits, that would be great. But until that happens, we’re going to have to look at some sort of economic incentives in order to be competitive.

Joines: I agree. If we stopped doing it, it would be like disarming ourselves unilaterally. However, the way we structure incentives is pay as you go, or pay to perform. And we use new taxes from that company to make incentive payments, so it’s not coming out of city coffers.

Then came the big news. Years ago Joines and then-Mayor Keith Holliday appeared on Triad Today together, and announced that they had a verbal agreement in place not to bid against each other when a company is threatening to move from Greensboro to Winston, or vice versa. I was encouraged to hear that Joines and Vaughan would carry on that tradition.

Joines: Yes that was a gentleman’s agreement that we don’t work against each other. If a company in Greensboro is trying to get us to make a proposal to try and get them to move to Winston-Salem, we always say no.

Vaughan: I would agree. Mayor Joines and I were at a conference last week which talked about regionalism and the importance of working together, and not against each other. Certainly it doesn’t serve any of us if we start driving the price up against each other.

Toward the end of the interview I asked Vaughan and Joines to talk about the most rewarding part of their job.

Joines: To me it’s seeing a project to completion, like the new ballpark.

Vaughan: For me it’s just being out in different communities and building relationships. I love local politics because that’s where you can have the biggest impact.

In fact, both Mayors have already had a big impact on their respective cities, and after speaking with them, it’s easy to see why.

They are honest, likeable, competent, and hard working. Most of all, they discharge their duties in a bipartisan manner. Those qualities have kept Joines in office for over a dozen years, and may do the same for Vaughan.

Vaughan: I would certainly like the ability to continue to serve a few more terms. The last couple of Mayors haven’t been quite so fortunate, so I hope that I’m going to break the jinx.

I’m pretty sure she will.

When he retires next year, David Letterman will have been at a late night desk for 33 years. That’s longer than anyone else, and it’s a record that will never be surpassed. But Dave wasn’t an overnight success. In fact, he spent the first half of his life preparing to host a late night show, and the last half actually doing it. His time in the wilderness included jobs as a DJ, TV weatherman, TV sitcom writer, ensemble cast member of a variety show, stand-up comedian, and host of a failed talk show that wasted his brand of wackiness on the wrong audience at the wrong time of day. In 1982, NBC corrected that mistake by giving Dave his own show at 12:30am, following Johnny Carson, the man he idolized and eventually wanted to replace. In the end, Carson lobbied for Dave, but NBC gave Jay Leno “The Tonight Show”, and Dave found a home at CBS.

Though Dave’s hero was Carson, it would be a mistake to say that he was solely a product of Carson’s style. In fact, Letterman is what I refer to as a hybrid pioneer of late night. His wacky stunts and lightning fast wit is all Steve Allen. My favorite Allen ad lib slipped out while he was interviewing a little girl, who said she liked to go to the beach. “What do you do at the beach”? asked Steve. “I dig,” said the girl. “I’m hip,” quipped Allen without a pause. Fast forward to last week, when Dave introduced a high school student who had been accepted to all eight Ivy League colleges. Dave looked into the camera, and as an afterthought said, “He’ll probably end up just going to four or five of them.” Pure Allen.

What Dave inherited from Carson was mastery of the wry comeback. Take for instance the night he tried to interview space cadet Joaquin Phoenix who showed up incognito. At the end of the segment Dave said, “I’m sorry you couldn’t be here tonight.”

Then there’s the gravitas of Dave which was handed down to him by Jack Paar and Dick Cavett. It’s a rare ability which served Letterman well immediately following 9/11. It let him know just when to return to the air, and just what to say when he got there. Dave also inherited Paar and Cavett’s intellectual curiosity, which he has demonstrated time and again when interviewing serious people about serious topics. Like last week, for instance.

That’s when former President Jimmy Carter visited the Ed Sullivan theatre to plug his new book, “A Call to Action: Women, Religion, Violence, and Power”, which details horrific abuses against women throughout the world. Within moments after the interview began, Dave had abandoned his notes, and engaged Carter in a lively, unrehearsed dialogue about how to combat abuse. He then wandered seamlessly into a discussion about everything from the Crimean conflict, to alternative sources of energy.

But Dave is also a master of timing, and knew when and how to break the tension of a serious conversation. At one point Carter mentioned that he has 12 grandchildren and nine great grandchildren, “21 in all” said Carter. “You have your own Congressional district, don’t you?” quipped Dave. And at the end of the interview, Dave lifted the mood by saying to the former President, “I thought you were going to be a lot funnier.” The Carter interview was vintage Letterman, and it’s why we watch him, because no other TV host in any time slot, on any channel, could have pulled it off with such aplomb.

Much has been written lately about how the new generation of late night hosts is taking younger viewers away from Dave, the same kind of viewers he had attracted in years past. But guess what? Back then, those viewers included the likes of Fallon, Kimmel, Meyers, Hall, Ferguson, Stewart, Colbert, and O’Brien, all of who have, in some way, copied or embraced the Letterman style. In that regard, Dave not only influenced those guys, he made it possible for them to carve out their own non-traditional niche within a very traditional genre.

Dave once said, “I can’t sing. I can’t dance, and I can’t act. So what else would I be but a talk show host?” Maybe so, but David Letterman turned out to be the most complete and best damn late night host in history, and that’s no small feat. Although I don’t know what the size of his “feat” have to do with anything.

Dave, I’ll miss you. You’re hip, and I dig.

I’ve interviewed hundreds of celebrities, but never all at once. That is, not until last week, when I spoke with Rich Little by himself. I phoned “The Man of a Thousand Voices” to talk about his career, and his upcoming one man show, “Jimmy Stewart and Friends”, which goes up Saturday April 19, at the Brock Performing Arts center in Mocksville.

Born in Ottawa, Ontario Canada, Rich discovered at an early age that he had a special talent for mimicry.

Rich: “I remember doing my homeroom teacher. I used to do all of my teachers when I was about fourteen. I was just doing it as a hobby, but I knew there was a future in it because it wasn’t long before the teachers were charging a two-drink minimum.”

But it was young Rich’s fascination with film legend James Stewart that eventually made him the world’s most famous impressionist.

Rich: “Jimmy Stewart was the first movie star I imitated. I saw The Far Country when I was about fifteen, and for two or three days after that, I was talking like Jimmy, and drove my parents crazy.”

Rich also tried to drive the girls in his high school crazy, but it didn’t always work out.

Rich: “I used to get dates by finding out who the girl’s favorite star was, and then calling her up as that star, and asking her for a date.

“Then I would show up, and she’d be disappointed.”

Undaunted, Rich kept doing voices, including during his stint as a DJ in Canada. Then came his big break on The Judy Garland Show. That was followed by regular appearances on TV variety shows, talk shows, and sitcoms. He even had his own series, The Rich Little Show.

He also guest starred on dramatic series like Mannix, and Murder She Wrote. But my favorite Rich Little appearance came in 1996 when he did a cameo as Johnny Carson in The Late Shift. It was a bravura performance because he played the iconic character straight.

Rich: “It was great that I was able to do that because most producers think of me as just a comic. They say, “Well he does characters funny, but I don’t think he can do them straight”, and that’s not true.”

Little is also renown for serving as emcee at various benefits and roasts, and has imitated a number of Presidents with them in attendance.

Rich: “Sinatra had a benefit and asked me to be on it, and Gerald Ford was sitting in the audience, right below the stage. I had the podium made out of cork so I could trip like Ford and break it. But that night I hit the podium so hard that it shattered into a million pieces, and I fell off the stage and landed in Gerald Ford’s lap. I put the microphone up to his mouth, and he went, “Oops”.”

These days, Little maintains a grueling schedule, including traveling throughout the country to hone his Broadway-bound show. I wondered what he did to keep his voice in shape.

Rich: “If I’m tired, my voice isn’t as good, although it’s deeper, so some of the voices actually improve when I’m tired – like Johnny Cash or John Wayne. But generally speaking it’s better to be well-rested because the voice is stronger.”

Today, Rich’s voice is stronger than ever, and that’s good, because he performs over 30 different characters in “Jimmy Stewart and Friends”. Speaking of which, I asked him how he decided to develop a show around Stewart.

Rich: “The Jimmy Stewart thing came about because I knew him better than anyone I impersonated. I spent a lot of time with him, and I remember telling him that I had this idea of doing a one-man show on his life. And he said (uses Stewart voice) ‘Rich, I don’t think you should do that. I don’t think that would go over well at all’. And I asked, ‘Why not?’ And he said, ‘For one thing, the way I talk, your show would be about four hours long’.”

Jimmy Stewart and Friends is not four hours long, but if it were, I’d still want to see it. If you want tickets to see Rich perform on April 19, visit daviearts.org or call (336) 751-3000.

You’ll hear a lot of famous characters that night, except for maybe one.

Rich: “I’m still working on President Obama. I’m having trouble doing him. Of course, he’s having trouble doing himself right now.”

Last week was replete with stories about people who share a common affinity. First there was Michael Smith, a northern redneck from Maine, who walked out onto his front yard to yell at a state contractor for cutting down dangerous trees on his property. A few hours later, Smith awoke from a nap to find himself surrounded by a team of SWAT cops. Why? Because when confronting the timber men, Smith was shirtless, thus revealing what appeared to be a Glock tucked into the front of his pants. Upon closer inspection, the police discovered that the gun was actually a tattoo. It gave a whole new meaning to the phrase “draw your weapon”.

Meanwhile, a Brooklyn man caught a lot of heat last week when he had his dog shaved and tattooed, not with a small series of  numbers for emergency ID, but with a large red heart pierced by a cupid’s arrow. I’m not sure if the guy is having an affair with his dog, or if he just likes tattoos. Either way, the procedure was kind of creepy.

Then there was last week’s Glamour magazine cover which featured Lena Dunham. Dunham is the recently crowned wunderkind of Hollywood because she produces and stars in the over-rated TV series “Girls”. Dunham’s signature schtick is appearing nude in almost every episode, however, she is well dressed for the Glamour cover. The problem is that her dress is sleeveless which shows off a very large and unattractive tattoo. What were the Glamour editors thinking? There is nothing glamorous about a grimy-looking tattoo on a woman’s arm. Even Kanye West had a melt down over the magazine’s decision to feature Dunham, because his wife Kim, though devoid of talent, does not look like a convict, and would have been a more appropriate choice for the cover.

Finally there was the Winston-Salem Journal story last week about 28-year-old Corey Raynor. Corey, it seems had body art inked all over his back while in a drunken state, then developed what is known as tattoo remorse. The original tat cost him $200, but now he’s having to pay Carolina Laser and Cosmetic Center $3,000 to have the ink removed. Not only is tattoo removal expensive, it is painful. Raynor told the Journal’s Richard Craver that the pain was “greater than a 10, almost unbearable”.

In fact there are all sorts of pain which can result from tattoos. For one thing, there are health risks, including hepatitis, herpes, HIV, staph, tetanus, and tuberculosis. Then there’s the pain of  underemployment. According to a 2011 study by CareerBuilder, 31% of surveyed employers ranked “having a visible tattoo” as the top personal attribute that would dissuade them from promoting an employee.

But even given these economic and health risks, the number of people getting tattoos continues to rise. A Pew Research Center study finds that 45 million Americans have at least one tattoo, and they spend upwards of $1.6 billion dollars per year to do so. Moreover, 31% of inked-up folks say tattoos make them feel more sexy, while 5% say that a tat makes them feel more intelligent (the guy in Maine disproves that).  

So here’s my question. Why are so many people getting tattoos despite the stigma, costs, health risks, and potential loss of earning power? Perhaps a few of our more outspoken sports journalists have hit on the answer. Guys like Jason Whitlock, a prominent African American columnist, who said of the new thug look, “Popular culture has so eroded the symbolic core principles at the root of America’s love affair with sports, that many modern athletes believe their allegiance to gangster culture takes precedence over their allegiance to the sports culture that made them rich and famous”.

And by disrespecting the traditions of their sport, athletes have also made tattoos the cool thing to have, whether you’re a shirtless idiot in Maine, or a teenage girl who thinks it’s neat to despoil her body.

Of course, tattooing isn’t a new phenomena. In Moby Dick, Queequeg the harpooner sported massive tattoos which had been applied by a tribal elder who hid encrypted theories on astrology within the designs. Perhaps that’s what’s happening now. Maybe all these gangstas, rednecks, and impressionable youth are actually cosmic geniuses who are leading us to the promised land. Or maybe not. In any event, perhaps the solution to the downside of tattoos is to get the washable kind which can vanish without consequence.

As I reported a couple of years ago, there was a man in England who claimed to be the world’s biggest fan of Miley Cyrus because he had over a dozen permanent tattoos of the singer put all over his body. Of course that guy could have just gotten temporary tattoos which would have saved him money and still showed his love for Miley. After all, what could be more appropriate than a “Henna” Montana?

“Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel.”

That advice supposedly originated with Mark Twain, but if so, then Twain missed his calling as either a psychic, or a Supreme Court Justice.

In the early 1960’s, the New York Times published a series of articles about civil rights abuses and protests in the deep South. That prompted some segregationist officials in Alabama to try and squash those articles by suing the paper for libel. Fifty years ago last week, the Supreme Court heard New York Times v. Sullivan, and held for the paper. That landmark decision was, no doubt, applauded by anyone who abhorred racism and who supported freedom of the press. Unfortunately, however, Sullivan had an unintended effect on other freedoms. From that point forward, anyone who believed they had been defamed by a newspaper publisher or broadcaster, faced an uphill battle proving it in court.

For one thing, plaintiffs in such cases must prove that the defendant carelessly and knowingly published or spoke lies, and that those lies caused the plaintiff harm. Second, the 1964 Supremes had no way of knowing that within four decades, everybody and his brother could claim to be a publisher or broadcaster. Thanks to the internet and social media, “trolling” and defaming has now become a favorite American past time. According to studymode.com, “trolling” describes a person who posts inflammatory messages in an online community with the primary intent of provoking readers. The problem is that such irresponsible posts and website articles are causing great harm to individuals and corporations. So much so, that an entire industry of image fixers has sprung up who attempt to remove libelous material about their client from the internet.

In the meantime, attorneys for damaged parties have, in recent years, cited various laws and acts that they hope will punish cyber defamers, but the application of those laws and subsequent sentencing have been largely ineffective.

The Communications Decency Act of 1996, for example, was originally written to restrict internet porn, but it added a provision for dealing with online defamation. However, section 230 of that Act essentially lets ISPs off the hook, and forces plaintiffs to seek damages from the individuals who initiated the libel. The problem is that, in addition to the aforementioned burden of proof, plaintiffs can’t be made whole by jerks that post hate speech all day, while sitting on empty wallets.

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act has also been trotted out before juries to help remedy online defamation, but its most high profile application fell short. An adult named Lori Drew set up a MySpace account under a false name, and sent libelous and harassing messages to a 13-year-old neighbor girl who subsequently committed suicide due to the cyber bullying. Drew was initially convicted under CFAA, but later went free on appeal.

In 2010, Sean Duffy, a YouTube defamer, became the first person to be sentenced under the Malicious Communications Act, but there has been no indication that prosecutions under that Act have deterred cyber bullying and general online defamation.

The real problem is that today’s bloggers, tweeters, and web writers don’t operate under the same guidelines as do real journalists and broadcasters, yet the libel and slander they commit can reach more eyes and ears in ten minutes than the New York Times can in ten years. Add to that the protections afforded them under Sullivan, and victims of hate speech and defamation have no guaranteed relief.

That’s why I am in favor of comprehensive federal legislation that would make it easier to convict and sentence online trash talkers.

I know that my proposal may frighten social media hounds. After all, most of them just want to let their friends know what they bought at the store, or what they thought of last night’s game. And yes, most people who tweet and blog have no intent to cause a suicide, bankruptcy, Arab Spring, or flash mob violence. But whether they like it or not, their words can hurt. Their words can do serious harm.

And what message are we sending to our kids if we continue to have no organized strategy for preventing and punishing internet idiots? A 2011 survey by the Pew Research Project found that 88% of teenage social media users have witnessed other people being cruel on social networking sites. Increasingly, our nation’s young people type before they think, while we adults think nothing about their typing.

British public relations legend Alasdair Campbell, speaking about the rise of internet journalism and social media, was reported to say, “The audience have become the authors”. But as more of us become online “authors”, we should accept more responsibility for our words and our actions. Until then, those of us who are potential victims of online libel and slander should take to heart Twain’s paraphrased warning: “Never pick a fight with someone who buys bytes by the barrel”.