Triad Today

Since the late 18th century, America has been known as the world’s melting pot, so called because families immigrated here to seek a better life in a new home. Somewhere along the way, though, it became fashionable for Anglo- Americans to import their own multinational, multiracial families.

In recent times, for example, Angelina Jolie and other celebrities have been seen as humanitarians for their efforts to rescue at-risk children from Third World countries, as well as from more developed nations such as Russia.

It’s not surprising then, that advocates of foreign adoption, like Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, willingly supported the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption because the treaty would, according to the Associated Press, “establish ethical standards for international adoption.” But the Hague treaty had the opposite effect on foreign adoptions from what Landrieu and others had anticipated. Commenting to the AP last week, Sen. Landrieu said, “When I helped to pass this treaty, it was everyone’s hope that the number [of foreign adoptions] would go up…. Instead, it’s down by 60 percent.” Landrieu is correct.

In 2004, Americans adopted 22,991 foreign children, but by 2012, that number had dropped to 8,668.

A Nov. 17, 2011 report by NPR’s Alan Greenblatt revealed the decline of foreign adoptions was due primarily to corruption, longer wait times, and closing of adoption centers. South Korea, China, Ethiopia, Guatemala and Russia have all scaled back on the number of children available for foreign adoption, while Romania has halted such adoptions altogether.

But Greenblatt also proffered another reason for the decline in adoptions: “There seems to be a consensus within international child welfare circles that orphans should be kept with their own families or communities, and adopted domestically.”

No matter the reasons for the decline in foreign adoptions, Sen. Landrieu decided that congressional action was needed to ensure the health and safety of orphans in other countries. And so, in September of last year, Landrieu introduced the Children in Families First Act, which has since garnered a modicum of bipartisan support in both chambers. Primarily the bill would encourage more Americans to adopt foreign children, but Landrieu also wants to create a new bureau inside the State Department that will focus exclusively on international child welfare. However, many in Congress as well as officials in the State Department aren’t too excited about creating more government bureaucracy.

Senator Landrieu’s efforts are noble and commendable, but they are neither fair nor practical. As a mother of two adopted children, she is blinded by her own compassion for foreign orphans, and that’s okay for her. But legislation driven by that blind compassion may not be best for our nation as a whole. Depending upon which source you cite, there are currently about 3 million orphans in the United States. How, then, in good conscience can any American adopt a Russian or Ethiopian child, when 3 million children need homes right here in America?

I am reminded of a line from the film The American President in which an overzealous politician is described as “someone who claims to love America, but clearly can’t stand Americans.” The analogous reference is harsh and not directed at any of the 200,000 American parents who have given good homes to foreign orphans over the past 15 years.

But going forward, the last thing we need is a new law and a new bureaucracy that favors international orphans over their American counterparts. If such a government structure is put into place, then we are relegating our own American-born orphans to permanent second-class status, and signaling to them that they must continue to take a back seat to foreign kids when it comes to placement.

For now, we should accept the standards that have been established, respect the wishes of governments that want to curtail the export levels of children in their respective countries, and allocate whatever resources we can here in America to placing our own orphans in good homes.

Sen. Landrieu herself said it best:

“Every child needs and deserves to grow up in a family.”

There are three million American orphans who couldn’t agree with her more.

In 1964, Surgeon General Luther Terry issued a report in which he cited the health risks associated with smoking. That led to the passage of a new law requiring cigarette manufacturers to print a warning on every pack. In the 50 years since then, we’ve seen scientific revelations, massive litigation, fines and settlements; yet still, tobacco companies and the government continue to lock horns over the extent of damage that smoking can cause, and how best to rectify and prevent any further harm to consumers.

Whether planned or coincidental, last week’s anniversary of Terry’s landmark report was marked by two major developments. First, our current Surgeon General Boris Lushniak announced that in addition to causing lung disease and cancer, smoking also causes diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, erectile dysfunction, macular degeneration, and liver and colon cancer.

The second development occurred six days earlier, when an agreement was reached in US District Court requiring tobacco companies to undertake a massive mea culpa. It will include admitting in print and broadcast ads that smoking is addictive, and that cigarette manufacturers manipulated nicotine delivery in their product so as to feed and better sustain that addiction. According to the Huffington Post’s Michael Felberbaum, the agreement (which follows a 2012 ruling ordering big tobacco to pay for corrective statements in advertisements) requires each of the companies to publish full-page ads in the Sunday edition of at least 35 newspapers and their respective websites. They must also air prime-time TV ads on ABC, CBS or NBC five times per week for a year, and print their transgressions on cigarette packs for the next two years.

These so called corrective ads must also be preceded with the statement that tobacco companies “deliberately deceived the American public,” and they must include the following statistics: Smoking kills more people than murder, AIDS, suicide, car crashes and alcohol combined, and that second-hand smoke kills over 38,000 Americans each year.

The affected companies are calling the corrective ads “forced public confessions… designed to shame and humiliate” them. If so, then that’s okay with the American Heart Association, American Cancer Society and American Lung Association, who released a joint statement saying that the ads are “necessary reminders that tobacco’s devastating toll over the past 50 years is no accident. It stems directly from the tobacco industry’s deceptive and even illegal practices.”

What strikes me about the latest health warnings and punitive actions is that it’s taken far too long for us to get to this point. Noted scientists Wyndren and Graham reported as far back as 1950 that 96.5 percent of lung cancer patients were heavy smokers. And in 1963, an in-house attorney for Brown & Williamson circulated a memo admitting that nicotine is addictive and that “we are in the business of selling nicotine — an addictive drug.”

Think of the lives that might have been saved had someone from B&W grown a pair 50 years ago, and blown the whistle on their manufacturing practices. That didn’t happen until 1996 when Jeffrey Wigand, a B&W researcher went public with confidential information about nicotine manipulation. Would people have still smoked had they known the real health risks and accelerated addictive properties of cigarettes early on? Probably, but they should have at least had access to the facts.

The other amazing thing about this 50-year saga is that no one in a position of leadership at the major tobacco companies has ever gone to prison. When the heads of the seven major cigarette makers testified on Capitol Hill in 1994, all seven men said under oath that nicotine is not addictive. The Waxman committee knew those CEOs were lying because six years earlier the surgeon general ruled that nicotine was, in fact, an addictive drug.

Yet no one went to jail for committing perjury. Let some poor slob off the street commit perjury in court and he goes to the slammer. Let some party perv spike a woman’s drink with a date rape drug, and he’ll get to see the inside of a jail. But let tobacco executives lie about spiking their product with a drug that has helped to kill millions of people, and their only punishment is to fund some foundations and run apology ads.

For eight years I watched my father die a little bit each day from COPD. He had been a heavy smoker for over 40 years, then managed to quit, and was smokefree for the last 20 years of his life. But it was too late. The damage to his lungs had been done. Tobacco company executives didn’t force my dad to smoke cigarettes, but we now know they did everything they could to make sure he kept smoking.

Thanks to cigarette makers and their addictive product, thousands of people live the last years of their lives in a sort of prison, tethered to oxygen tanks and wheelchairs. Meanwhile, tobacco bigwigs are living large, untethered, and complaining that having to finally (and publicly) tell the truth will somehow shame and humiliate them. Their feigned suffering would be laughable if my heart wasn’t so heavy.

There are a number of things that I really dislike. Among them: religious zealots, homophobes, violence, and the Olympics.

Strangely enough, they could all intersect next month in Sochi. Not so strange is that Russia is once again in the middle of a growing Olympic controversy. More on that in a moment, but first, some historical perspective.

In 1956, the Netherlands, Spain, and Switzerland all boycotted the Summer Olympics as a way of protesting Russia’s invasion of Hungary. Hungary, however, decided to compete, and when that nation faced off against Russia in a water polo event, violence broke out both in and around the water.

In 1980, the games were held in Moscow, but President Jimmy Carter refused to let our Olympians compete because Russia had invaded Afghanistan. Then, in 1984, the Ruskies invoked what’s known as the “tit for tat” rule, and boycotted the Summer games which were held in Los Angeles. The official reason given for Russia’s pull out was inadequate security to protect their athletes while on the left coast. In truth, it was just the Communists’ way of paying back America for Carter’s boycott four years earlier.

And now here it is, 30 years later, and once again the Russians are causing trouble just prior to another Olympics.

Next month’s games in Sochi have generated controversy for a number of reasons. First, there’s the threat of violence from terrorists. Recent suicide bombings in Volograd killed 34 people, and now, Chechen rebel leader Doku Umarov is urging his disciples to attack the Olympics. It is Umarov who described the Sochi games as, “satanic dances on the bones of our ancestors.”

OK, so this guy is a nut and a religious zealot, but he’s a zealot with soldiers and bombs, and that’s reason enough for American Olympians to stay home next month.

Second is the controversy over Vladimir Putin’s war on homosexuals. There is an official government ban in effect on any so-called gay propaganda, which means just about anyone who speaks or distributes pro-gay messages can be jailed. But Putin’s ban isn’t born out of a narrow view by a select few politicos.

In fact, there exists in Russia today a free rein of gay bashing, including recent comments by noted actor Ivan Okhlobystin, who, according to The Hollywood Reporter, said, “I would have them (gays) all stuffed alive in an oven.” He also said, “I don’t want my children thinking that being a faggot is normal.” It’s no wonder that anti-gay violence is on the rise in Russia.

And so there you have it. Chechen terrorists and homophobic Russians are independently poised to hurt or kill people in Sochi for one reason or another.

If ever there was a good reason for America to boycott an Olympics, this is it. Yet what does our President do? He decides to send a contingent of notable gay American athletes to Russia to represent us in the opening and closing ceremonies. Meanwhile, according to the Associated Press, a number of American athletes are planning to wear symbols that protest Russia’s treatment of gays.

To date, President Obama has made no formal request of Russia to repeal its gay ban. Instead, he is offering up our athletes, both gay and straight, as cannon fodder for terrorists, zealots and homophobes. Hey Mr. President, the Olympic ceremonies are in Russia, not San Francisco, and Sochi is no place to stage an erstwhile gay pride parade.

Sure, I hate the Olympics, but I also hate terrorists, zealots, and homophobes, and Sochi is a ripe staging area for those idiots to do a lot of damage. Mr. President, you’ve already announced that neither you nor Vice President Biden will attend the games, so I urge you to order our athletes to stay home as well. I know you’re still pissed at Putin for granting temporary asylum to Edward Snowden, but for God’s sake, let’s not use that as an unofficial excuse for rubbing the Russians’ face in our western tolerances.

Some will say there is a precedent for Obama’s not so subtle defiance of a foreign leader. After all, we did stuff Jesse Owens down Hitler’s throat at the 1936 Olympics. But that was an entirely different circumstance, a different venue, and a different era. First, the scope of Hitler’s monstrous deeds and his plans for world-wide domination were not yet fully known. And second, American athletes, though disliked by the Fuhrer, were completely safe in Berlin. There’s no way Hitler would have allowed unauthorized violence to erupt during the games.

Not so in Sochi, where neither Putin nor the IOC can fully protect our athletes given the culture of hate that exists in that region.

Personally I could care less about the Olympics, but I do care about preventing violence wherever and whenever possible. Sadly, the only way to keep our Olympic athletes safe is to keep them home.

Thanks to the NC General Assembly, a slew of new campaign laws went into effect last week, including a repeal of the “stand by your ad” law, so that candidates will no longer be required to declare that they “approved this message.” That’s understandable because the new reforms also provide for an increase in the maximum allowable donation to political campaigns while lessening disclosures. Why the change? Because our state lawmakers believed that the limits on political donations should keep pace with inflation. If only they applied that same rationale to minimumwage rates.

The hypocrisy of our elected officials couldn’t be more transparent.

It’s also pretty dispassionate and offensive. These politicians want donations to their re-election campaigns to increase, yet they seem to care nothing about the meager wages of their constituents. Not so in at least 13 other states where increases in minimum wage just went into effect. They include Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington state.

Of course, the rate hikes in those states are minimal and mostly symbolic, but it’s a start, and, in some cases, may have triggered substantive increases in select cities. For example, San Jose’s minimum wage just rose to $10.15 per hour, while San Francisco’s rate jumped to $10.74. And, voters in Seattle just agreed to give 6,000 airport workers a raise from $9.19 to $15 per hour. Moreover, of the 13 states who just raised minimum wage, 10 of them have tied those increases to the cost of living index.

On the other hand, 31 states that don’t currently mandate a higher minimum wage must adhere to the federal hourly wage, which, as Huffington Business columnist Dave Jamieson points out, hasn’t been increased since 2009. That’s the year Congress so generously raised the rate to a staggering $7.25 per hour. Even worse, according to The Economist, in the years since then, the real value of that wage rate has slipped back to where it was in 1998.

Clearly it’s time for Congress to establish a federal minimum wage that gives workers a fighting chance to survive. Last year, US Sen. Tom Harkin attempted to do just that when he introduced the Fair Minimum Wage Act, which calls for a minimum wage of $10.10 per hour, phased in over two years. But guess what? The bill has stalled in committee, and there have been no roll call votes to advance it. Opponents of the bill continue to perpetuate the same old myth: “If we raise minimum wage, businesses will have to cut jobs.”

Thankfully, a number of respected organizations and economists have come forward over the past year to dispel that myth. The Economic Policy Institute, for example, conducted an extensive nationwide survey, and in March 2013 released a report which concluded the following: “Raising the minimum wage would help reverse the ongoing erosion of wages that has contributed significantly to growing income inequality. At the same time, it would provide a modest stimulus to the entire economy as increased wages would lead to increased consumer spending, which would contribute to GDP growth and modest employment gains.” By the way, those modest gains would include the creation of an estimated 140,000 new jobs.

Meanwhile, the Chicago Booth School of Business chimed in with its own survey, concluding that “leading economists agreed by a 4-to-1 margin that the benefits of raising and indexing the minimum wage outweigh the costs.” Princeton professor Paul Krugman put it all much more succinctly, saying that a rise in minimum wage would have “little if any negative effect on employment.” In addition, Bloomberg News reported that “studies find minimum wage increases provide an economic boost as strapped workers immediately spend their raises.” And the Harvard Business Review is on record saying that raising the minimum wage will benefit employers who, by paying the higher rate, will experience a reduction in employee turnover and increased productivity.

Today over 30 million Americans are paid minimum wage, and they deserve better. They deserve a living wage. That’s why we need to pass the Fair Minimum Wage Act. Until then, my solution is for everyone making $7.25 per hour to run for the state legislature this year. If elected they can then vote on raising the minimum wage, while making a respectable salary, and raking in lots of maximum allowable campaign donations to boot. I’m Jim Longworth, and I approved this message.

Each week I use the last few seconds of my “Triad Today” television show to comment on weird and wacky stories in the news. Here are some of the weirdest and wackiest from 2013.

BEARS GONE WILD

A zoo in Scotland was desperate for their two panda bears to mate, so zoo officials piped in Marvin Gaye music to get the female panda in the mood. The male Panda reportedly asked, “What’s Going On”?

PROSTITUTES GONE WILD

Last week a prostitute in South Africa collapsed after having sex with her client, and she was pronounced dead. However, after being placed in a coffin, the professional woman sprang back to life. Medical experts are trying to explain why she rose from the dead, but odds are it was because she had to use the John. Meanwhile, a British nursing home is in trouble with authorities because they’ve been hiring prostitutes to entertain elderly male residents at night. Now that’s what I call assisted living!

QUID PRO COOKIES

A Washington state male prison guard has been arrested for giving his female inmates cookies in exchange for sex. Rumor has it he’s been charged with “baking and entering.”

IMAGINARY CANDY

Meanwhile the Cadbury candy company is in trouble for claiming to have an imaginary factory in India, so it can save $46 million dollars in taxes. “I thought the factory really existed,” said Cadbury CEO Manti Teo.

ANCIENT TIMES

Last week a 4,000-year-old Egyptian mummy underwent a CT scan at a Virginia hospital. Museum researchers who ordered the expensive test hope to learn three things: What was the Mummy’s name? What did he die from? And will his Blue Cross pay for the CT scan?

FOOT FETISH

Researchers in the Netherlands now say there is such a thing as Foot Orgasm Syndrome, and that women who are affected can experience five to six orgasms every day. In other news, the Nike shoe company is bringing back its slogan, “Just Do It.”

RECORD-BREAKING RELATIONS

In order to get into the Guinness Book of World records, a 21-year-old Polish woman is traveling to every country in the world in hopes of having sex with 100,000 men. So far, she has had relations with 284 men, or as Madonna calls it, a slow night.

SHEDDING SEX

Last week, a Charleston couple was arrested for having sex in a display shed at Home Depot. The two lovers were understandably confused by Home Depot’s lack of hospitality in having them put in jail. After all, Home Depot’s motto is, “You can do it, we can help.”

CITY OF SISTERLY LOVE

Two Philadelphia women got into a fight at a shopping mall on Black Friday, and one woman used a Taser on the other. Asked if she was surprised by the Taser attack, the victim reportedly said, “Yes, I was stunned.”

EAR TODAY, GONE TOMORROW

Last week, two men in Stamford Connecticut were fighting over loud music, and one of the men bit off and swallowed the other guy’s ear. The victim is hoping that justice will be done, but, ironically, the matter will have to be settled at a “hearing.”

FUTURISTIC SEX

A private foundation plans to send a married couple to Mars in the year 2018, so that they can study what happens if two people have sex in outer space. Scientists assigned to the husband are especially interested in what effect weightlessness will have on begging. Meanwhile, in a recent Huffington Post poll, 18 percent of respondents said they would have sex with a robot. “That seems like a low number to me,” said George Jetson.

EXTRACTIONS AND REMOVALS

Last week London firefighters were called to the home of a man who had somehow managed to get his penis stuck in the toaster. The firemen successfully extracted the man from his appliance without hesitation, but several of the rescuers said they would never eat another pop tart. Meanwhile, televangelist Pat Robertson told his 700 Club audience that it is the wife’s responsibility to keep her husband from cheating. “I agree,” said Lorena Bobbitt.

METEOR BOY

In a story that sounds out of this world, a Florida man told police that his son was stricken by small meteorites while playing in the driveway. “Yeah, that’s what happened alright,” said the little boy across the street throwing rocks.

SHIP AHOY

And finally this item in the news. An Illinois man is building an authentic pirate ship on which he and his fiancée plan to be married. In keeping with the pirate theme, following the wedding reception, the groomsmen will share the booty.

In December 2009, I wrote about the growing use of misplaced invocations. Now, four years later, that trend has not abated, so I’ve pulled my objections out of mothballs just in time for Christmas.

’Tis the holiday season when many of us celebrate and reflect upon our spirituality and religious beliefs. Some folks believe that God is responsible for everything man does, and for every event that occurs. Others believe that God gives man the capacity to make his own successes and messes. But regardless of your interpretation, most of us agree that prayer to God is being cheapened these days due to frequently misplaced invocations of His name.

As a nation we ask God to protect our currency, while Congress calls on Him to guide them through each legislative session. But does that mean God is responsible for our bad economy, or for the corruption and stupidity running rampant in politics?

The government asks God to be on our side when we go to war. But does this mean God planned for us to invade the wrong country in 2003, and murder over a million people in the process?

Athletes ask God to favor them before each contest, but does that mean the Almighty wants half of the sports teams to lose each week?

Meanwhile, some of our preachers ask God to punish folks who are different from the majority of us white bread, straight Americans. Does this mean God condoned slavery, and that He hates gays?

Increasingly, politicians, athletes and preachers seem to invoke God’s name inappropriately, and they do so unashamedly. Let’s start with sports.

Today, it is commonplace for a college football team to pray to God for a victory. Notre Dame even has a monument named “Touchdown Jesus.” But holy invocations are not limited to students who attend religious institutions. When scoring touchdowns for the University of Florida, Tim Tebow began each post-game interview by attributing his accomplishments to “My Lord Jesus Christ.”

But, football isn’t the only sport where God is called on to save the day. Baseball players routinely genuflect before stepping into the batter’s box, and point to heaven following a homerun blast.

And then there are the comments made by golfer Zach Johnson following his 2007 victory at the Masters. Johnson gave God the credit for his win, and added, “Regardless of what happened today, my responsibility was to glorify God.” Come on Zach, you were hitting a little white ball around, not doing missionary work in Darfur.

These athletes seem to think that God has willed them to victory, and that He is responsible for their success. Such invocations cheapen the Almighty, and make it difficult to understand why He can’t deliver every time. Athletes who use prayer for their own personal gain, therefore, put God in an untenable position.

So too, do Christian politicians and world leaders, who have justified their actions by hiding behind the Almighty. Following the World Trade Center attack, President Bush invoked God’s name repeatedly in an effort to gain support to invade an Islamic nation that had nothing to do with those attacks. On Sept. 20, 2001, Bush told a joint session of Congress: “God is not neutral.”

And while invoking God’s name to win a football game or a war is wrong on so many levels, I am almost equally offended by those who pretend to speak for God in matters of social conscience.

OsDir.com quotes Rev. Pat Robertson as having said that the “widespread practice of homosexuality will bring about terrorists bombs, earthquakes, tornados and possibly a meteor.” It is that kind of sick rhetoric that continues to divide our nation and fuel prejudice.

For Christians, this is a time to celebrate the birth of a peaceful, compassionate and tolerant man. A man who never invoked his spiritual Father’s name for trivial pursuits, or to justify violence, or to condone prejudice. And just for the record, Jesus also never profited from invoking God’s name.

that practice was started in earnest by the Roman Catholic Church, who frightened their followers into tithing or else face the prospect of not entering heaven. And that pay-for-pray practice continues today with televangelists and motivational religious speakers who collect millions of dollars by promising their donors a better life and even increased wealth.

Prayer can be a wonderful thing, especially selfless prayers of intercession for others. In fact, nothing could be more noble than calling upon God to help those less fortunate. But misplaced prayer and inappropriate use of God’s name is far from noble.

Perhaps an appropriate News Year’s resolution would be for all of us to be more judicious with our divine invocations, and to reject the influences of those who aren’t.

Deer Santa,

All I want for Krismas is for our politishuns to get well. I herd on TV that you hav to see a doktor if an elekshun lasts for more than 4 hours, so pleeze give them shorter elekshuns next yeer.

Yur frend,
Jimmy Longworth
2nd grade

Back when we used to have an official war on drugs, First Lady Nancy Reagan told kids to “Just Say No.” It was a naive, simplistic and unrealistic campaign, yet her message was commendable.

Too bad we can’t “Just Say No” to the “N” word, and be done with it. Actually the Detroit branch of the NAACP attempted to do something similar back in 2007 when it officially declared the “N” word dead and buried.

Problem is that not everyone attended the funeral, and the dreaded “N” word is still part of our common lexicon. Unfortunately it’s going to take more than a slogan or a publicity stunt to lay that vile word to rest.

In the mean time, young people of all races are receiving mixed messages about whether (or if) it’s okay to use the “N” word, and in what context. Chris Rock blurts the word frequently in his act, but the late great Richard Pryor abandoned it in his last years.

Professional athletes are divided on its usage, and so are black sports columnists. Mike Wilbon admits he uses the “N” word all the time with family and friends, while Stephen A. Smith, a graduate of Winston-Salem State University, abhors the word.

But if, as the cliché says, “Children are our future,” then what exactly are we teaching them about the use and abuse of this hurtful word?

A few days before Thanksgiving, the Fritz Pollard Alliance requested that the NFL impose a 15-yard penalty for abusive language on the field, and that includes the “N” word. Their recommendation comes on the heels of a season full of high-profile, racially charged incidents including one with a white player from the Philadelphia Eagles who got drunk and yelled to a crowded night club, “I’ll fight all you n***ers!” Then there’s Miami Dolphins lineman Jonathan Martin who quit the team because his white teammate bullied him and used racial slurs. And most recently, the NFL had to fine one of its own black umpires for calling a player the “N” word.

Perhaps a 15-yard penalty is a good remedy because it would serve as a constant reminder to players and fans not to use hateful language. Perhaps since kids follow pro football, the penalty will be enough to help us phase out the “N” word by the next generation. But perhaps not. I am reminded of a time not so long ago when educators, doctors, and elected officials worried that parents weren’t teaching their kids about sexually transmitted diseases and the unwanted teen pregnancies that can result from unprotected sex.

The remedy was to offer family life education classes at school. Perhaps we should consider a similar strategy for diffusing the “N” word. That’s what TV producer David E. Kelley suggested in a 2002 episode of “Boston Public.”

Sparked by a fight between two black youths because one called the other the “N” word, their white teacher took it upon himself to conduct a series of classes about the history of and controversy surrounding the “N” word. He used as his text, a book titled, N***er, by Randall Kennedy, a black Harvard law professor.

Kennedy offers a historical perspective on the “N” word (from the Latin “niger” for the color black), and how its earliest uses were descriptive not derogatory, which it became by the mid 19 th century. Kennedy points out that today when whites use the “N” word, they are “widely perceived to be showing their true colors as bigots.”

But what about blacks who use the word with each other?

In “Boston Public,” a black student paraphrases Kennedy, saying, “When blacks use the ‘N’ word, we’re taking it away from the white supremacists and making it our word. We’re taking power away from the racists.” But a black teacher in the TV episode opposed any use of the word by anyone, saying, “As long as people continue to use it, they give it life, and it lives as a symbol of hatred.”

David Kelley did a great job of demonstrating the importance of having open dialogue on this controversial word and what it represents, so I asked two area superintendents if they would allow a high school teacher to conduct a class on the “N” word.

Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools Superintendent Beverly Emory said that schools in the district “tackle this issue in a myriad of ways that directly relate to the curriculum standards… and with so many efforts to send the message of treating everyone with respect and kindness…. To make this message singularly about such a derogatory word doesn’t benefit our district.”

Guilford County Schools Superintendent Mo Green told me that while he would have reservations about discussing the “N” word in class, he would allow it, so long as the teacher “has an understanding of the historical context,” and first meets with the diversity officer and the principal so they could help him frame the discussion.

I also asked Winston-Salem Human Relations Director Wanda Allen-Abraha for input. Allen-Abraha has conducted a number of student forums, including a recent one on racism.

“By teaching the history, hurtfulness, and hatefulness surrounding the ‘N’ word, all students would gain a greater understanding that assigning the word to a particular race is, in itself, racist,” she said. Allen-Abraha also said she would be willing to sponsor or develop educational forums for the school system which would include discussions about the “N” word.

I’m just an old white guy with no right to dictate to kids of either race what words they should or shouldn’t use, but I do believe that education is the key to changing minds and habits. So let’s get those class discussions started, and let’s bring on those 15-yard penalties.

First of all, I apologize for the profanity-laden headline, but last week was supposed to be all about giving thanks, and instead it was all about people, companies, agencies, and organizations sticking it to us.

Here, then, in no particular order, is a summary of selective sh*t that happened last week.

It is common knowledge that Blue Cross Blue Shield supported Obamacare because the insurance giant stood to pick up as many as 40 million new customers. Meanwhile Big Blue and the White House knew all along that about 15 million Americans subscribed to healthcare plans which wouldn’t meet Affordable Care Act guidelines, and that, despite the President’s pledge to the contrary, those folks would not be able to keep their plan. And so, earlier this month, BCBS started mailing out cancellation notices.

President Obama came under fire from both parties for lying to consumers, so he backed down and ordered that anyone who had his policy canceled could have it reinstated. There’s only one catch. In order to keep the policy they had all along, these canceled customers would have to pay Blue Cross a higher rate than they did before, even though their policy didn’t suddenly become more compliant. Last week our useless Insurance Commissioner Wayne Goodwin aided and abetted Big Blue’s ballsy move by approving a huge rate increase in premiums, as much as 23 percent for some customers. Thanks Wayne, you are a real champion of the people. Congratulations are in order to Blue Cross and Mr. Goodwin for making sh*t happen last week.

Not content just to mislead us about our healthcare plans, President Pinocchio’s nose also grew when it came to the military. Back in September 2012, Obama promised to have all soldiers out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014.

That was an important pledge to those of us who felt we never should have sent troops to any Middle Eastern country to begin with, and it was a pledge that helped propel the President to a second term in office. But guess what sh*t he pulled last week? Mr. Obama announced he was extending the deadline for withdrawal.

Not by 60 or 90 days, but by 10 freakin’ years! That’s right, our troops will now remain in Afghanistan until the year 2024. It seems President Karzai is worried that radicals will take over the Afghan government if we pull out. Hey Mr. Karzai, having radicals take over your government isn’t so bad. It happened to us in 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012.

Speaking of putting people in harm’s way, George Zimmerman, that notorious vigilante who murdered Trayvon Martin, last week pulled a gun on his own girlfriend. Police arrested Zimmerman and found a small arsenal of weapons in his home. Crazy George’s ex-wife then told the media, “He’s a ticking time bomb.” Hey lady, where the hell were you when your psycho racist ex-husband was on trial for killing a defenseless black man? Thanks a lot for the helpful newsflash. Together, you and George made sh*t happen last week.

The next category comes under the heading of salary sh*t. Last week the News & Record’s Travis Fain reported that Greensboro Housing Authority CEO Tina Brown makes $242,000 per year. That’s more than her counterparts in Durham, Raleigh and Charlotte, who make $114,999, $210,402 and $198,162 respectively (Charlotte has twice the housing budget than that of Greensboro). It also makes her the highest paid housing director in the state, and puts her in the top 30 in the nation, out-earning housing chiefs in cities like Chicago and Boston! And to avoid violating a federal pay cap, part of Brown’s salary is derived from rent paid by local tenants. It all just seems obscene to me.

Speaking of obscene, last week we learned about surveillance-related sh*t, including that the NSA spies on those of us who look at pornography online. The NSA says this helps them discredit radicals who might try to incite the populace. And just as the NSA story broke, the Center for Media Justice reported that Wal-Mart, the company who pays poverty wages, has plenty of money to spend on data collection. CMJ says the retail giant now possesses information on 145 million Americans.

And while that may seem a bit creepy, it’s not the worst thing Wal- Mart has done. According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the manager of a local Wal-Mart asked his low wage employees to donate food to other low-wage employees so they could enjoy Thanksgiving.

What’s the lesson here? Simply that Wal-Mart is doing to its workers what pornographers are doing online, so the NSA should start spying on Wal- Mart, and get rid of the real sh*tty radicals.

They make mistakes. But the mark of a great President is his willingness to admit when he’s wrong, and then to correct his mistake. No, I’m not talking about Barack Obama’s botched Affordable Care Act, and his broken promise to let everyone keep their existing health plan. I’m talking about John Kennedy, and how he misread history, unintentionally insulted the state of Virginia, and was compelled to make amends.

The story begins on Wednesday, Dec. 4, 1619. That’s the day 38 English settlers from the London Company, navigated their ship down the James River and onto Berkeley Hundred (Harrison’s Landing), in what is now Charles City, Va., just 20 miles upstream from Jamestown, which had been settled 12 years prior. The landing party was led by Capt. John Woodlief, who, as prescribed in the company charter, ordered a day of Thanksgiving

to be observed upon their arrival, and every Dec. 4 thereafter.

Over time, Berkeley became known for its historic firsts. The first bourbon whiskey was made there in 1621 (by a preacher no less). “Taps” was played for the first time while the Union army was encamped at Berkeley in 1862. And, of course, it was the site of America’s first Thanksgiving. More on that in a moment.

In 1907 Berkeley was purchased by John Jamieson, who had served as a Union drummer boy during the Army’s encampment at the plantation. Ownership later fell to his son (and my friend) Malcolm, who passed away in 1997. Mac loved Berkeley and was aggressive in marketing the historic site, including through the use of promotional videos and commercials, which I helped to produce. He invited the public to tour the house and grounds, sold Berkeley boxwoods and bourbon, and held an annual Thanksgiving pageant, which attracted tourists from across the country. But the celebration wasn’t always widely recognized.

One hundred years after his father beat the Yankee drums at Berkeley, Mac was upset by something another Yankee did. In the fall of 1962, President Kennedy issued his yearly Thanksgiving Proclamation in which he recognized his home state of Massachusetts as the site of America’s first Thanksgiving. And so, on Nov. 9 of that year, Virginia state Sen. John Wicker was prompted by Mac to write to the President and point out Kennedy’s faux pas. In his telegram, Wicker referenced historical records about Berkeley’s celebration, which took place one full year before the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth in 1620.

Later that year, Kennedy confidant and noted historian Arthur Schlesinger sent a reply to Wicker with a tongue in cheek apology from the president. According to Berkeley records, Schlesinger “attributed the error to unconquerable New England bias on the part of the White House staff.”

The following year, on Nov. 5, 1963, President Kennedy had to eat crow during his annual Thanksgiving proclamation, saying, “Over three centuries ago, our forefathers in Virginia and Massachusetts, far from home, in a lonely wilderness, set aside a day of thanksgiving”. Kennedy’s New England bias wouldn’t allow him to disavow Plymouth entirely, but Mac was happy that Berkeley finally gained official recognition for holding the first Thanksgiving, even if it was a shared honor. Sadly it was to be Kennedy’s last such proclamation. He was assassinated 17 days later in Dallas.

Last week the airwaves were replete with Kennedy documentaries and movies to commemorate his death. Some were excellent (JFK: The Final Hours, narrated by my friend Bill Paxton) and others were sophomoric (Killing Kennedy).But good or bad, they all brought back traumatic memories of JFK’s murder. After watching several of the disturbing documentaries, I tried to make myself think of something pleasant. The holiday season was upon us, so I naturally recalled my visits with Mac Jamieson and his funny fervor over bragging rights to the first Thanksgiving. I remember him almost making me ill on two occasions. Once when he drove his car erratically over the trails of Berkeley, and the other when, knowing I didn’t drink spirits, he shamed me into sampling some Berkeley bourbon.

Perhaps it’s appropriate that I am reminded of toasting America’s first Thanksgiving. Perhaps we all need to raise our glasses now and give thanks for the family and friends we love, and for the bounty we share. Perhaps we also need to pledge to help those who are less fortunate, and who continue to struggle in an unforgiving economic downturn. Perhaps we would all do well to emulate those weary English settlers, and be thankful for just surviving another day of our long journey.

So here’s a toast to Captain Woodlief, Berkeley, old Mac, and to that Yankee president who set the record straight. Happy Thanksgiving!

The other day I read about a 52-year-old wife and mother who fulfilled her lifelong dream by trying out for and making the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleading squad. I suppose her story was inspiring on some level, and I’m not knocking anyone’s aspirations. I’m also probably the least qualified person in the hemisphere to comment on or criticize cheerleading. Nevertheless, we should all be concerned about the safety and impressionability of our children, and, by association, the relevance of the professional cheerleaders who they seek to emulate. Let’s begin with those NFL role models.

In October 2010, New York Times columnist Bill Rhoden made a case for eliminating NFL cheerleaders altogether. Said Rhoden: “Today’s NFL cheerleaders are little more than props that reinforce objectified sex roles. The professional cheerleader has become feminized and eroticized.”

At least six NFL owners agree. Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Chicago, Green Bay, and the New York Giants have abandoned their cheerleading squads, and Detroit never had one. Giants owner John Mara told Rhoden: “Philosophically we have always had issues with sending scantily clad women out on a field to entertain our fans.”

Despite such criticisms, 16 other NFL teams continue to field a cheerleading squad, and while most fans can’t hear or see what the gals are doing on the sidelines, the TV cameras love to show skin and sexy dance moves. So don’t look for pro cheerleading to go away any time soon.

Meanwhile, millions of girls from middle school through college age see the NFL cheerleaders as role models, and like the 52-year-old mom, want to dress and act like their heroines. OK, so sexy costumes and suggestive dance moves have never hurt anybody. But the bi-product of that culture has.

Today, 3.6 million people in the United States participate in cheerleading, most of whom are girls and young women. But get this. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and XOJane.com, 66 percent of all catastrophic injuries among female high school athletes are due to cheerleading. And, according to Provena’s Human Motion Institute, the number of children ages 5 through 18 admitted to hospitals for cheerleading injuries grew by 100 percent between 1990 and 2002, from 10,900 to 22,900. These are disturbing and totally preventable statistics.

In ancient times when I was growing up, cheerleaders just had pom poms and strong lungs. Back then it was an extracurricular activity. Today cheerleading is widely recognized as a sport where young people form human pyramids, toss girls 20 feet into the air, and perform all sorts of dangerous acrobatics. But if cheerleading is a legitimate sport, then why aren’t we as a society as outraged by the incidence of serious injury in cheerleading as we are in football?

The NFL, for example, has finally come to terms with its role in causing concussions and long-term brain damage, by eliminating helmet-tohelmet contact and other types of violent collisions. Even so, the impact of those harmful hits is being felt in the heartland. Last week, the chief medical officer of the Pop Warner football association reported that the number of children participating in PW football is down 10 percent over the past two years because parents are concerned about the possibility of head injury. Yet, while the number of boys playing football is dwindling significantly, the number of girls participating in cheerleading has grown by 600,000 in recent years. This despite the aforementioned injury statistics. Sure the two “sports” are different, but that doesn’t mean we should turn a blind eye to the dangers of cheerleading. Says AAP board member Dr. Cynthia LaBella: “Relatively speaking, the injury rate (in cheerleading) is low compared to other sports.

But the number of catastrophic injuries continues to grow.”

There is obviously a societal disconnect here.

Fortunately groups like the AAP and StopSportsInjuries.org have advocated for stricter guidelines to reduce the risk of serious injury from cheerleading. Those include limiting human pyramid formations to two body lengths, restricting the number of people who can toss a squad member in the air, and requiring that a thrower remain behind the flyer at all times. But here’s the rub. According to AAP, only 29 state high school athletic associations recognize cheerleading as a sport, and those who don’t are not required to provide certified trainers, hire qualified coaches, or have a system in place for surveillance of injuries. Clearly, all 50 states need to agree on the classification of cheerleading, then institute uniform regulations and enforcement of same.

In the meantime, more and more girls will sign up for cheerleading, and many of them will become seriously injured. Do I think those injuries are a direct result of children watching sexy adults cheerlead on TV? No. But it is a shame that the glamour of one has distracted us from a national referendum on safety reforms for the other.

In his address to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 9, 2009, President Obama outlined his vision for healthcare reform. At one point during his speech, the President was reassuring his audience that illegal immigrants would not be covered under the proposed Affordable Care Act (ACA), when he was rudely interrupted by South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson who shouted, “You lie!” Those in attendance and many of us watching at home were appalled by Wilson’s behavior. After all, this was the President of the United States, and it is just not proper for anyone to interrupt him during a speech. I condemned Wilson at the time, and I still think his actions were inappropriate. But last week we learned that Obama deliberately misled Congress and the nation in order to gain passage of ACA, so now, I must regrettably admit that Mr. Wilson’s concerns were valid.

On July 21, 2009, and 36 times thereafter prior to the passage of ACA, Barack Obama publicly stated the following: “We will keep this promise to the American people. If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your healthcare plan, you’ll be able to keep your healthcare plan. Period.”

It was that promise which eventually persuaded a handful of skeptical congressmen and senators to switch their vote, and help ACA pass by a razor-thin margin. That was then, and this is now. Earlier this month, many Americans started receiving cancellation notices from their insurance company, while NBC’s Lisa Myers reported that the White House knew all along that nearly 15 million people would eventually lose their existing coverage which the President had promised they could keep.

News of the deception went viral, and soon, even liberal pundits were starting to use the “L” word to describe our President. Those included Piers Morgan, John Stewart and Bill Maher, the latter of whom had contributed $1 million to Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign. On Nov. 5, the President attempted damage control, implying that his previous promises had been misquoted or misunderstood. “If you had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law, and you really liked that plan, what we said was, you could keep it if it hadn’t changed since the law had passed.” Sorry Mr. President, but that’s not what you said. You said repeatedly that if we liked our healthcare plan, we could keep our healthcare plan. Period. Obama was now pulling the old bait and switch, which Merriam-Webster defines as “the ploy of offering a person something desirable to gain political support, then thwarting expectations with something less desirable.”

White House and Democrat spinmeisters tried to explain that there was no lie, and no bait and switch. They said that the millions of people receiving cancellation notices had inferior policies anyway, and if they were allowed to keep those policies, the rest of us would end up footing the bill, and our premiums would rise. Hey White House lackeys, here’s a newsflash for you: First, you can’t justify a broken promise by pretending that 15 million Americans don’t matter, when the very reason for reform was to make sure everyone had coverage; and second, those of us with grandfathered policies are still going to pay higher premiums even after 5 percent of our population tries to replace their healthcare plan which was just canceled.

For months now I have criticized radical Republicans in Congress who kept calling for a repeal of Obamacare, but now the very architect of that plan has himself given credence to the repeal movement. Simply stated, had the President told Congress that millions of their constituents would not be able to keep their healthcare plan, then ACA would not have passed.

Those of us who believed Obama deserved a second term, have lately had to face the harsh reality that the man who promised various reforms and a commitment to transparency, has delivered just the opposite. And the healthcare debacle isn’t his first offense. He also promised there would be no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens, and that he would cut the deficit in half. And we’re still not exactly sure why he left our embassy at Benghazi unprotected, or why not a single Wall Street pirate has gone to trial for their role in causing the 2008 recession, from which we still haven’t recovered.

Barack Obama has, to say the least, been a disappointment. He was to be a breath of fresh air following the hawkish Bush/Cheney administration, which waged war on the wrong country, and was responsible for the deaths of over a million innocent Iraqi men, women and children. Obama was supposed to be the man who would restore America’s image overseas, and lift our spirits here at home. Instead, our allies are pissed off at him for tapping their phones, and his own people are pissed off at him because they still can’t make a living wage, and now can’t keep their healthcare policy. There’s just no respectful or polite way to say this, but Barack Obama is not just a bad President, he’s a liar. Period.