WEEKLY NEWSPAPER COLUMNSCOLUMNS IN THE PILOT, SOUTHERN PINES, NC Every Sunday By Allan Jefferys WHAT IS A CONSERVATIVE? 1/ When the Pilot suggested I write some columns from the conservative end of the spectrum, my first thought was: Why me? Am I a conservative? The word refers to people who tend to want things to remain as they have always been with change coming slowly and gradually. That sounds fine to me until I ponder the fate of Iraq. A “surge” as proposed by the White House is merely a continuation of past policy with a slow and gradual change. Conservative? Most us think that won’t work. Maybe we need a bold, sweeping, dramatic plan. But, like the Democrats, I can’t come up with one. I only know that “cut and run” is not the answer. So I guess on this point, I don’t qualify as a conservative. Does it help that I can’t stand Hillary or John Edwards or John Kerry or Rosie O’Donnell (I haven’t made up my mind about Donald Trump.) Am I a conservative because I believe in giving a full week’s work for a paycheck? Congress should not disappear on Thursday stay home until the following Tuesday. If we hire you as a congressman or senator you should show up for work. (Hear that John Edwards?) We should accept responsibility for our mistakes. A five year sentence does not begin to compensate for strangling your wife and stuffing her body into the trunk of a car. I can’t understand why Mike Nifong has not been disbarred and tossed into the pokey. A second chance is one thing—letting someone slither through the gutter of dishonesty and foul deeds and get off scot free is unacceptable. If somebody does something that merits the death sentence, it should happen swiftly and cheaply. Forget about a dozen years of appeals. If you’re positive he did it, get on with the job. Despite the brouhaha about how Saddam Hussein was executed, he deserved it and hanging does not begin to cost what lethal injections do. Is hanging cruel and unusual? Try the guillotine. No lingering pain there. Chalk one up for conservative. Another clue: I think Ted Kennedy should have been thrown out of the senate years ago. How about using Chappaquiddick for a time table. Why are so many people amazed that young people shoot other young people? Where do young people learn right from wrong? When I was growing up, you learned at home from parents and at school from teachers quick with a ruler slap on the hand. Today? How can a sixteen year old single-parent know anything about discipline? How can a school teacher clamp down on troublemakers when the teacher knows a lawsuit waits in the wings. We have become a nation of victims with lawyers standing ready to pounce if anyone tries to teach the victim right from wrong. Are you still amazed? Barbra Streisand should shut up and sing. What is happening to our constitution—especially the Bill of Rights? Has any document been so abused? How many have twisted it to avoid telling the truth by taking the Fifth? Does anybody really believe the founding fathers thought the First Amendment gave people the right to spew obscenities into the airwaves? Does anyone really believe the filth spewed out on television and motion pictures does not influence the soft malleable youth who soak it in?? Whoopi Goldberg should shut up and act. Censorship has, of course, long been condemned by the enlightened. But, just as we need speed limits to keep our cars under control, so we need somebody with power to say WHOA! Sure, some of it goes too far. I can remember working for a radio station that refused to allow Cole Porter’s “Love For Sale” to be played because of its prostitution theme. Another banned a version of “Paradise” for dirty humming. Yes, some censorship did get ludicrous, but it still had its place. Is a conservative simply a backwards-thinking reactionary who balks at progress? Or is a conservative someone who stands firm in an attempt to stave off what sometimes seems inevitable: the decline and fall of still another democracy. Is there a definitive life-span for America? Are we doomed to follow the history of Rome and Greece and soar for a century or two before plummeting like Icarus because we strove to touch the sun? Can conservatives hold back destiny? These are questions that go right along with “Am I a conservative? At any rate, I welcome the platform the Pilot offers and accept. The Pilot is proving itself time and again to be more fair and balanced than Fox News claims to be. Oh yes, I think rap bears no resemblance to music and rappers should be banished to desert islands. Bottom line: I guess I have answered my own question. I am a conservative. —30— APPEASERS 1/ My previous column hop-scotched around things that bother us conservatives. This one zeroes in on a specific: those who believe you get more flies with honey than vinegar. I think you get more with a fly swatter. Although human nature has not changed much since Cain slew Abel, the world is still permeated with appeasers, rehabilitators and advocates of minimal or no punishment for evil deeds. This flies in the face of empirical evidence that says none of that works. Neville Chamberlain was perhaps the most famous of the appeasers. He took pride in working things out with Adolph Hitler in the late thirties. How did that work out? The answer was called World War II. So much for appeasement and the Munich Agreement. Recently, a Vermont judge decided 60 days was enough punishment for a child molester. And, of course, we have our own local example of a wrist slap for someone who strangled his wife. What ails these judges? Does the Vermont crackpot really think treatment is going to work for the molester? Can anyone cite an example of “treatment” protecting future child victims? Or don’t children have any rights? The Eighth Amendment to our Constitution prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments.” But who is to say what is cruel? My vote goes to Joe Arpaio. He’s that Arizona tough-guy sheriff who keeps prisoners in tents and makes them wear pink boxer shorts. When they complain, Joe points to soldiers in Iraq who are in even hotter tents wearing full battle gear. The sheriff’s suggestion to those prisoners who wail about their plight: “This isn’t the Ritz-Carlton. If you don’t like it, don’t come back.” Let’s send all child molesters to Joe Arpaio. Then there’s Australian Prime Minister John Howard’s caveat to Muslims living Down Under: "We want them to understand our history and our culture, the extent to which we believe in mateship and giving another person a fair go, and basically if people don't want to support and accept and adopt and teach Australian values then, they should clear off." Isn’t it time we took a lesson from the sheriff and the prime minister? Isn’t it time we stopped molly-coddling the criminals? If the Australians are big on giving people a “fair go” so are we. Emma Lazarus described our feeling perfectly when she wrote, “give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. . .” We have long opened the golden door to those tempest-tossed. And the immigrants did right by us. The Irish, the Jews, the Italians. . . people from all parts of the earth came to us and learned our language, learned our laws and contributed. They became Americans. Why now must everyone be hyphenated? Why must we teach in their language? Why must we adopt their ways? What is happening to the American dream? Must it be torn down by appeasers and super-lenient liberals? When are we going to stand up and face the judges who think 60 day sentences for horrendous crimes are okay? When are we going to demand that these judges get off the bench? Of course it will take some fancy foot-work to get rid of those klutzes. After all, most people in government will do anything to hang on to their jobs. When the nation was in its infancy, people used to volunteer to serve their fellow citizens for a while and then go back to plowing the fields of the farm. No more. Now, the perks are too great and the rewards too high to give up. That’s why they don’t put in a full week’s work. They have to go home to raise money to run and win again. And that’s why those who want integrity and decency in government have such an uphill battle. The obvious answer is to deep-six them at the polls. The last election points out the difficulty there. The trouble is all appeasing liberals have a vote. . . and they breed. So we need to educate them. Maybe blogs are the answer. I don’t have one yet, but I’m told they’re easy to build. And they are increasingly powerful. . . as is forwarded email. Our goal should be to seek people in high office who follow the Teddy Roosevelt approach of speaking softly while carrying a big stick. If you have to, use that stick. . . on law-breakers and on governments with a nuclear bomb gleam in their eyes. No more appeasement. —30— JUST THE FACTS, PLEASE(2/ Everybody seems to be jumping into the presidential race at an earlier date than usual. That’s scary, since most of us will have to sort out the candidates through what we can learn from biased media. At the risk of biting the hand that fed me for a long career, the worst bias and most influential will come from broadcasting. That is because everything that appears on radio and TV is Page One and because ratings and money count more than service to the public. It was not always so. I can recall talking to the head of ABC news many years ago when I was researching a book. He pointed out that the news division lost many thousands of dollars each year because of the need to have news bureaus all over the world and writers, correspondents, camera crews and engineers galore. News was a vital public service. Money came from Saturday cartoons. The twain did not meet even if the network had to borrow money to meet the weekly payroll. CBS at that time was the Tiffany network which also took its news seriously. CBS newsmen did not do Commentary; they preferred Analysis. They reported the news and then gave us a background of explanation so we could figure it out ourselves. Even those of us working side by side with those giants did not always know where their sympathies lay. Only in the relaxed area of a lounge or newsroom did they let the barriers down. I thought Eric Sevareid was going to take a swing at me one night when I made a crack about Adlai Stevenson. Given the size of this Norwegian, I backed down quickly. To Sevareid, Adlai Stevenson was almost a god, yet he kept his feelings to himself. To this great newsman, news was also a god. He was not alone. Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite, Bill Shadel, Bill Downs, Griffing Bancroft. . . the list goes on and on and they were all heroes to those of us just beginning to get our feet wet in this business. I feel privileged to have known them and worked with them. They were mentors to us tyros. We listened to them, watched them and learned from them. They cared. Top management cared, too. Frank Stanton, Leonard Goldenson, Robert Sarnoff all listened to their own broadcasts and were quick to pick up the phone if they heard something awry. They kept us on our toes. CBS retained a Columbia professor named Cabell Greet to monitor us and gently, courteously correct our on-air goofs. I still have a memo from him offering suggestions on the proper pronunciation of Saudi Arabia. Today, no one seems to care. Within the same newscast you can hear Sody, Sowdy, Sawdy and Saoody.. Most of what I know about speaking I learned, not from school, but by listening to the radio. Don’t try that today. There seem to be no standards. All that counts is opinion and slant Again, no one seems to know or care. Why should we care? Because speaking is what broadcasters do and condoning poor speech is like Okaying a surgeon using a rusty scalpel. Doing it right comes with the territory. One of the things I deplore about our language is the iffiness of it. Spanish, Italian and even French are pretty straightforward but we all know the old saw about pronouncing GHOTI. The trick answer is FISH, using the gh from tough, the o from women and the ti from munition. It’s no wonder that so many have so much trouble with it. But, again, learning to do it right comes with the territory, even if the territory varies. I remember covering an off-Broadway opening of “Iphigenia at Aulis” during my years as a theatre critic and asking a newspaper critic if he knew how to pronounce it. “We don’t care how to pronounce it,” he replied. “All we care about is how to spell it.” That was his territory. It might not matter how today’s broadcasters pronounce things if they could stick to straightforward reporting. There is room for bias. It’s called commentary or editorial and should be identified as such. Commentary is fine—editorials are fine. But let’s keep them separate from Page One. As I said, most of us are going to need help to sort out all of these candidates, especially newcomers to the national scene. (Barack O-who?) We can’t rely on what they say (think Spin), so we have to use the media. Let’s keep the pressure on the media to keep the pressure off us. Just the facts, please. JEEEZ! You got any kids? 2/ Hanoi Jane is up to her old shenanigans again. Jane Fonda never seems to learn. Despite being vilified and accused of treason for her antics during the Vietnam war and despite half-hearted apologies made a couple of decades later, she’s back at it again—this time protesting the war in Iraq. Under the First Amendment, of course, she has the right to protest and, unlike her Vietnam actions, she has not, to date, trod the treason line. Yet. I never met Jane Fonda but did know her father. Henry Fonda was a very urbane and sophisticated man who was as home in a dinner jacket in a fancy club as anyone in New York. This, despite his portrayals of farmers and cowboys on the screen. His work in movies like The Grapes of Wrath, The Oxbow Incident, The Tin Star and My Darling Clementine remain memorable to this day. Jane Fonda’s latest escapade jolted my memory back to the Jane and Henry Fonda of the 1960s. I did several television and radio interviews with him at that time. One radio interview stands out to me because it was at the peak of his daughter’s bashing of her country. We taped the interview in his home. As we walked up the steps to his elegant town house on the east side of New York, his press agent asked me to avoid any mention of either Jane or Peter. “Come on,” I replied. “Jane was on page three of this morning’s Daily News.” “I know,” she came back. “Hank is devastated about it and feels somewhat responsible. He’d really appreciate it if you steered clear of the children.” “But. . . “ “He likes you and trusts you, “she continued. “Please.” I gave in. We talked of everything but Jane and Peter. We discussed movies and his friendship with Jimmy Stewart and his love for live theatre. I steered the conversation around to westerns. He laughed as he pointed out that, despite the fact that most of his movies were non-westerns, many people thought of him as a cowboy actor. He liked westerns, however, but admitted that it took a lot of gold to get him to climb up on a horse. He then admitted that he hated horses and thought they were out-and-out dumb. “I’ve ridden across the prairie hundreds of times,” he told me, “Scared to death about what that horse had in mind. I could have been kilt (sic).” I started to laugh and then realized he was serious. He went on to describe a scene where ten men in a saloon form a posse and stride across the street to get on ten horses and ride off. The last time he did that, he told me, it took two days for that one shot “. . . because ten horses won’t stand still long enough for ten men to get up in the saddle. They mill around and you find yourself with one foot in a stirrup just before you wind up on the ground.” In the midst of this twenty minute interview, his phone rang and he asked if I could turn off the recorder. He picked up the phone across the room and, at first, kept his voice low. Soon, however, it rose in frustration and exasperation and anger. It became obvious that he was talking with one of his children, although I never knew which one. He rejoined me and I reached for the tape recorder. Before I could start it, he held up his hand and almost shouted, “JEEEZ! You got any kids?” That was the only reference made that day to Peter and Jane Fonda. Henry Fonda frequently stated that he was not a very good father, yet his actions on that day almost forty years ago belie that statement. He obviously cared. Does Jane Fonda care? Does she care about her family or even her country? It is one thing to be against a war. We’re all against war. . . especially those of us who have been in one. But few of us are willing to jeopardize our servicemen or our nation’s honor and safety by giving aid and comfort to the enemy. I wonder if Jane Fonda, Tim Burton, Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon ever give that any thought. Aid and comfort to the enemy. According to Article III of our constitution, that constitutes treason. —30— Peer Pressure 2/ A number of years ago, a friend responded to my question about what made him quit smoking by answering, “The same thing that made me start: Peer pressure.” His remarks soon led to my quitting, too. Where health fears, hypnosis, martinis and tranquilizers had failed, my desire to be like my friends took over. Peer pressure is one of the most powerful forces we humans face. It is effective in kindergarten, high school, college, the workplace and retirement. Very few of us can dismiss it. Sometimes the pressure is for good. . . sometimes for evil but it cannot be denied. There are, of course, other pressures. Authority Pressure used to be more powerful than it is today. This one is represented by parents, teachers, bosses and government. Regrettably, fear of litigation has pushed Authority Pressure into cowardly corners. And then there is Icon Pressure or Idol Pressure. This is the pressure we get from movies, radio and TV. This may well be the strongest and most dangerous pressure on our children. This is where First Amendment abuse runs rampant. This is the pressure that calls for us to raise shields and do battle. There was a time when Clark Gable’s utterance of the word “damn” in Gone with the Wind sent tongues a wagging all over the country. Compare that to what is heard in prime time on broadcast TV every night. And cable is even worse. Two episodes of HBO’s The Sopranos were enough for me to reach for the OFF button. The show was rampant with language that would make a Marine blush and had enough garroting, adultery and treachery for the sleaziest politician. Yet this program is almost universally acclaimed. That baffles me. Having spent a decade as a critic, I claim an educated opinion that says “The Sopranos” is no more than mediocre in writing, acting and direction. I suspect its greatest claim to excellence lies in its breakdown of barriers and destruction of family values. However it is, at least, not shoveled through the transom of the children’s bedroom. Not so dozens of TV shows which appeal to prurient interest. Each year new programs strive to top (or bottom) the “pushing the envelope” shows that preceded them. These scum bag offerings are presented in prime time where they are hard to ignore. Movies, of course, are even worse. What makes this smut a crime lies in the Idol Pressure that suggests to impressionable youth that this is the way we should all behave. If the sexual scenes and language say it is okay to sleep around, why are we concerned about the wide swath of divorce and teenage pregnancy that prevails? If we see enough gore and drive-by shooting on TV and film, why are we aghast when this happens in real life? Pornography and obscenity have always been around and always will be. But there was a time when they were not dropped on our front doorstep in broad daylight. Is it hypocrisy to demand that it arrive in a brown paper wrapping? I don’t think so. Nor am I suggesting that all things be “Mary Poppins” and “Snow White,” although both of those G-rated films were big money-makers and audience pleasers. I submit two of the sexiest scenes I ever saw in a movie were Rhett Butler carrying Scarlett up those stairs and Cary Grant and Grace Kelly moving closer and closer on a couch in To Catch a Thief while fireworks on the Riviera grew bigger and bigger in the background. What was about to happen did not require much imagination on our part. It was all there, thanks to fine writing, direction and acting. Critics are immune to Icon pressure. We have seen and heard it all on stage and screen. And I confess I have written a steamy scene or two in novels. But novels must be sought out. . . either bought or borrowed. They do not arrive by suddenly materializing in front of a child. There is an organization called Parents Television Council which has made a bailing-out-the-ocean-with-a-teaspoon effort to stop this swill. I send them a little money every year because they do a good job in the face of a gutless FCC and apathetic industry. But, we have a long way to go. We owe it to our children and to future generations to reverse sick trends. This is where Letters are effective. Letters to the Editor, Letters to the heads of Broadcasting and, most important, Letters to Sponsors saying we won’t buy their products if they keep supporting garbage. Let’s stop calling this stuff “adult.” Sophomoric is a better word. Let’s put a lid on this Icon Pressure. Hit ‘em where it hurts. In the wallet. —30— BEWARE THE BLOG 2/ A couple of columns ago, I suggested that broadcasting will have the greatest influence on the presidential elections for 2008. Now, I’m not so sure. On reflection, I believe the most dangerous and most powerful influence will come from the INTERNET. Don’t get me wrong, I love the Web. When I think of what we used to go through to research a subject, I marvel at and cheer the Googles, Yahoos and Ask.coms that abound. In seconds you can find out hundreds of things about people, places, things and ideas. E-Mail may be the best thing invented since the Gene Sarazen came up with the sand wedge. Before this instant communication tool arrived on the scene we sent paper letters to each other which called for full page replies. With E-Mail, you can simply hit REPLY and add “Amen” or “You said it.” Easier for you and easier for the recipient. I also like the idea of a couple of clicks which tell my bank to pay a bunch of bills. No need for stamps or checks. Saves time and money. You can download movies, music, pictures and computer applications in nothing flat. The Internet can take the place of a dictionary or thesaurus or an encyclopedia. So what’s not to like—what’s to fear? As more and more people get hooked up to E-Mail, more and more people will open their computers to extremely persuasive bald-faced lies. This is not to say print media and radio and TV are not equipped to lie, it’s just that they tend to be more subtle lest they get caught. But anybody can start a blog . This online journal of your personal thoughts does not cost very much and is easy to create. The power of a blog lies in how easily it can be forwarded around the world. Like a chain letter, you can dream up some horrible scenario and send it out. Couch it in language that excites or incenses your readers and they’ll help by forwarding it to their friends. The next thing you know, you have created an urban legend. An urban legend is just that: a legend that sounds true but isn’t. It may have a grain of truth in it, but it is basically an underbelly jab that can hurt or even destroy a reputation. No one is immune, be he liberal or conservative. These lies can be attempts at humor or downright malicious. As campaigning heats up you can expect more and more emailed smears intended to derail a candidate or merely influence your vote. They will seem plausible. A couple of examples: A long essay supposedly aired on “60 Minutes” in which Andy Rooney explained his philosophy of life. In this diatribe, Andy comes across as a reactionary racist who states “. . . the money I make belongs to me and my family, not some governmental stooge with a bad comb-over who wants to give it away to crack addicts for squirting out babies. . .” It goes on from there. Trouble is, Andy Rooney never wrote or said those things and George Carlin had nothing to do with the bit about being a “Bad American.” Another one: the story about Lee Marvin calling Bob Keeshan (Captain Kangaroo) the bravest man he ever knew. Marvin did enlist in the Marines and saw action in the Pacific but he never saw Keeshan at Iwo Jima and Keeshan got in too late to see combat. I confess I forwarded this one. Even pure fabrications sometimes sound like they should be true. Many of these stories are inspirational, others effective in maligning your opponents, some are downright funny. But most urban legends are neither urban nor legend. They are simply lies. Like spam, they are difficult to pin down and difficult to separate from truth. So beware the blogs. And if you’d like to check out urban legends, perhaps the best place to search is a web site called www.snopes.com. Barbara and David Mikkelson (I’ve never met them) run this site, investigate, pursue and unearth the truth about much of the stuff that is forwarded around the world without any verification. They are to be commended for their zealous fact-finding. If you log on to their web site, you can have a ball wandering through all kinds of areas of myth, even if (like me) you’re embarrassed to discover you have fallen for some of these legends and forwarded them yourself. Of course you don’t have to check up. For example, if you want the REAL scoop on Hillary, you’ve come to the right place. Just give me a couple of minutes to set up my blog. —30— ONE IN 300 MILLION 3/ Now that we’ve reached a population of 300 million, it should be easy to find one person.. . just one who would make a great president. Why then, with more than two dozen running, does no one stand out? For that matter, when was the last time we voted FOR a candidate. More often than not we vote AGAINST the opponent. One problem may be our habit of zeroing in on one particular flaw. One issue takes center stage in our thinking. Abortion, Gun Control, Religion, hawk or dove—each colors our judgment. If an Obama or Biden utters one gaffe, out they go. We pounce on Giuliani’s position on guns or worry that Romney is a Mormon and make our decision. We’re paying too much attention to the small branches and not enough to the tree. You can argue that we are entitled to a tree with perfect branches. But how often do we find such a tree? Think of it! We’ve had just forty-three presidents since our country was founded. Forty-three! Yet how many of them do any of us consider to be great Americans, let alone great leaders? Gerald Ford was eulogized recently as being decent, honest, and truthful. Those qualities were hailed as unique. Does this mean that a majority of office holders treat truth lightly? Ford had no trouble with the truth. In fact he once said, “Truth is the glue that holds government together.” If we get sick in a strange city, we can look in the yellow pages and find a doctor. He may not be our choice for a permanent family physician but at least we can be sure he went to medical school and is licensed. Yet all we insist on for a president is that he be thirty-five years old and born in this country. What do we really want or need in a president? What qualifications should be mandatory? He (or she) should be honest, trustworthy, experienced in governing, moral, and endowed with leadership qualities. He should be able to communicate with us and with his counterparts around the world. He should not be quick-on-the-trigger but should not hesitate to do what is necessary to preserve and protect our nation. Admittedly, that list is oversimplified. Unfortunately, too many of us vote based on one issue. I am a life member of the NRA, yet I would not hesitate to vote for an anti-gun candidate if he excelled in all other factors. I am opposed to abortion, but I’m equally opposed to rusty coat hangers in back alleys. What about charisma? A brilliant smile is certainly a big plus. There, John Edwards wins hands (or bicuspids) down. Add to that a carefully-coiffed hairdo and Mr. Edwards is the prettiest candidate in the pack (sorry Hillary.) Regrettably, that’s as far as he goes. Edwards offers not one other redeeming quality. On the surface it would seem that a former governor or mayor is more experienced in governing than a senator. Governors are accustomed to dealing with three branches: legislative, executive and judicial. Yet a senator may be more experienced in foreign policy. Ideally, a vice-president should make a logical successor. A veep should have practice in all areas. No vice-president is running in 2008. Besides, a look back discloses few vice-presidents who became good presidents. What about religion? Or Gender? Or race? Note that the above list of qualifications does not mention anything about those attributes. Nor should they. Consider, too, those who have been presidents who fell short of the mark on morals. Yes, I know. . . some of our better presidents had more than a glop of clay around their feet. So does anyone of us dare to judge? Since most of us are not experts in predicting how well a president will treat us, why not use the standards of our doctor in a strange town? Why not demand politicians be educated in government before they are allowed to run? Why not make them pass examinations and be licensed before they announce a candidacy? And why not take money out of the equation? Too frequently, the candidate with the deepest pockets has too much of a head start. It used to be all candidates got equal time. But that created a problem when some kook you’ve never heard of got the same space afforded a John McCain. Let’s just remember we are voting for president; Paris Hilton and Britney need not apply. So it isn’t going to be easy to decide who gets our vote. One scary thought: If (heaven forfend) Hillary should become president, does that mean the Clintons will bring back the stuff they took from the White House the first time around? —30— THE LEAST COMMON DENOMINATOR 3/ One of the terrifying thoughts about a total takeover by the Far Left is the goal of equalizing everybody. Now, it’s one thing to want to give someone a boost—a leg up on life. Raising the tide to lift all boats is admirable, but that’s not what the Left does. The Left sucks the water out of the pond until all the boats wind up stuck in the mud. More and more we see evidence of dumbing down. . . lowering the standards so that striving, studying, working and achieving is frowned on. Are we an overweight nation, headed for diabetes? Don’t diet—change what we call normal weight. Are too many children threatened with being held back and forced to repeat a grade? Change the curve so everybody graduates with high honors. Yesterday’s D becomes today’s B. Are we kidding ourselves? What’s wrong with that? Admittedly, luck, timing, networking and God-given talent enter into success. But so does hard work, practice and dedication. And those attributes deserve our highest applause. If a Michael Dell can start building computers in a dormitory that turns into a huge corporation, more power to him. If a Bill Gates becomes a billionaire, cheer him on. (It would help, of course, if that blasted Windows program worked better, but that’s another column.) If we can find a talented youngster and pull him up the mountain called success, good for us. But let’s make sure we’re pulling him up—not pulling down the youngster above him. I have been given a helping hand by more people than I can count. I remember a civilian flight instructor in the old Army Air Corps who stayed with me long after he needed to. Despite my near-failing ability, he kept encouraging and guiding until I finally soloed. No matter that I barely squeaked by my first army check, my instructor was determined that I was going to be a superior pilot. While others in his class learned chandelles, lazy-8s and spins, I was relegated to simple exercises. I was convinced I was going to wash-out; he had other plans. At first, I was the worst cadet in the squadron. But at the end, I zoomed by all of them. . . all thanks to this instructor. We met in a Bakersfield, California bar after I moved from Primary to Basic and I asked him why he stuck with me. He laughed. “Now that you’ve become my best student, I can ‘fess up. I really thought you were hopeless, but I’d long had a theory that grinding away with simple stick and rudder exercises until they became second nature was a great way to turn a mediocre student into a super pilot. I had nothing to lose with you so I tried it. And it worked.” It sure did. Without him, I might not have made it. Note that he made no effort to reduce the other students down to my level. A good teacher can sometimes do wonders, but not always. Richard Rodgers was certainly one of the true giants of music. . . composing hundreds of some of the greatest songs ever written and forty Broadway musicals like Oklahoma!, Carousel, and The Sound of Music. I came to know him during my own theatre career and one day, only partly in jest, asked him if he could teach me to write a song. “Sure,” he replied. “I can teach you to write a song. But I can’t teach you to write a GOOD song.” Aye, there’s the rub. A good song by his standards was beyond my ability to write. Lower his concept of a “good” song so I could qualify and he would lower all music. Which is what I think we are doing today. Given our tendency to pretend everyone is a champion, I’m surprised we haven’t let people like me into major golf tournaments. Can’t you just see it? Here is Donald Duffer at the Masters. He gets two strokes per hole thanks to his handicap and three mulligans at the Amen corner. Excellence is tough to achieve, but it is mandatory if we are to survive as a nation. We must constantly raise the bar. . . demand the best and reward those who are the best. Help, guide and, like my old flying instructor, instill confidence where it is needed. But never, never, never accept mediocrity and call it good. If that means more discipline in schools and jobs, so be it. Until recently, we have been hailed as the greatest nation. Let us regain that acclaim. Let us banish the least common denominator. —30— OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE (3/ Making the internet rounds these days is a quiz that asks us to decide whether the NBA or the NFL houses members guilty of the following: 36 have been accused of spousal abuse, 7 have been arrested for fraud, 19 accused of writing bad checks, 117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least two businesses,3 have done time for assault, 71 cannot get a credit card because of bad credit, 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges, 8 have been arrested for shoplifting, 21 are currently defendants in lawsuits and 84 have been arrested for drunk driving. All of this in the last year. So which is it? NFL or NBA. Neither. It’s the 535 members of the United States Congress. I guess a salary of more than $165,000 per year is not enough, even though a lot of other freebies and perks go with it. It’s natural, then, that a little shoplifting is called for to supplement this near poverty stipend. Before we continue, a bit of disclosure: I made a cursory search to see if the above accusations were part of a myth—urban legend. I found nothing to dispute the numbers but did not pursue it fully. No matter. We do know that malfeasance exists. We have alleged evidence close to home with mayors and state legislators accused and, in some cases, pleading guilty. We suspect others are just plain getting away with it. No wonder winning reelection is so desirable. For too many, being elected is a license to steal. And even if they are caught and dumped, fat pensions keep thick shells on the nest eggs. And don’t forget. . . the incumbent has the edge with ammunition galore to hold off invasion from newcomers. Many years ago James Madison said: "In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed, and next oblige it to control itself." Therein lies the problem. The only way to cure ethical evils is to pass laws with enough teeth to force our representatives to honor them. Who passes these laws? The legislators, themselves. Talk about foxes protecting hen houses. Oh sure, every once in a while our stalwart representatives enact chest-pumping ethics laws designed to keep us citizens from checking up on the foxes. Somehow, nothing changes. The goody bags are still within reach; the lobbyists can still get their messages across, even if it takes a little quid pro quid. The logical correction is to elect some firebrand who will rush up to Washington with saber drawn and oust these miscreants. The trouble is, as soon as our white knight gets there, he or she is tossed into a windowless garret and told to not speak until he gets some seniority. In the meantime, our constantly reelected incumbents wind up chairing committees that control things for no other reason than seniority. It is an endless circle—a study in perpetual motion of incompetence and pocket-lining. I don’t know about you but I don’t want my North Carolina congressman brushed aside by some pork barrel politician from West Virginia or Massachusetts. I have lived in and voted in New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland and Virginia. Each state is a little different and demands a representative who can pinpoint parochial problems. No state should be held hostage by a graybeard with seniority. Somehow, we must break this seniority cycle. I believe the original intent was for people to go to Washington more or less as a volunteer. It was a civic duty to take time out of your career to help run the government. When you had done your bit, you’d head home, pick up your plow and put the farm in order. No one thought of this as a lifetime career. But then the rewards were far below where they stand today. Today, the only thing that counts is getting reelected. Thomas Jefferson once said:” I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious." He should see what we have now. Why not demand that anyone running for office sign a binding pledge that, once elected, he or she will sponsor bills to eliminate seniority power, take away the power of congress to raise its own pay and pension, banish all lobbyists from personal contacts, eliminate salaries and pensions from any legislator convicted of a crime. Until we can scale back excessive government, let us at least remind it that this is a government OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people. People. Not congressmen. —30— MORE DUMBING DOWN 3/ The famous theatre restaurant Sardi’s used to have a sign over their little bar which read: “An Evening In The Theatre Is A Lifetime Of Memories.” It used to be true. I still remember fondly shows I saw when I was but a child. Today, however, I am not so sure. Has theatre started to dumb down,too? Back in the 60s New York’s Lincoln Center had a summer festival which offered twenty year-old Broadway musicals featuring stars of the original productions. Thus, you could see Ethel Merman repeat her performance in “Annie Get Your Gun” and John Raitt reprise “Carousel.” I had seen the Carousel shortly after it opened in 1945 and it had become (and remains) one of my all-time favorite shows. Therefore, it was with some trepidation that I faced seeing it again, this time as a critic. Would this be like the house you grew up in but had not seen in many years? You know how that is; the house always seems to shrink. Would Carousel shrink? Not to worry. It was every bit as superb as I remembered it and John Raitt sang, if anything, better than he did twenty years earlier. Nor was mine the only rave review. All of the critics tossed hats in the air over this gem. There was only one flaw: it was slated for a mere six week run. I wrote Richard Rodgers (who headed the festival) and begged him to move it down town—to a Broadway theatre where it could run forever. He wrote back that they would like to extend the run but Lincoln Center was booked. As for a Broadway theatre, he added, that would not work. Everyone knew that revivals never made it on Broadway. What would he think today? At least a dozen shows currently on Broadway are retreads. Has the audience changed? I doubt it. I don’t think they have any choice. There used to be some seventy brand new shows opening each year. There used to be Richard Rodgers, Jerome Kern, Cole Porter, Harold Arlen, Irving Berlin, Jule Styne and George Gershwin to write the music and Lorenz Hart, Oscar Hammerstein, Ira Gershwin, Alan Jay Lerner and Dorothy Fields to write the words. Now, they are all gone and if young replacements are waiting in the wings, they are well hidden. Also well hidden is the American musical. For decades, the musical was our domain. England could export drawing room comedy and drama but America owned the musical. No more. What is left is dumbing down. (Quick, name me two songs from any Andrew Lloyd Weber musical.) Crashing chandeliers, whirling helicopters and monumental elevators taking cats to heaven have taken over. Just as computer-generated graphics and soft porn have taken over movies, special effects have replaced creative talent in theatre. Maybe it’s an outgrowth of rock and roll concerts. Since it only takes three chords and a beat for a rock song, the sameness of it all is masked with fireworks and flashing lights. Two of the best shows I ever saw were “I Do, I Do” and “The Fantasticks” The first was a musical based on “The Fourposter.” One set, cast of two and sheer magic. The Fantasticks was almost childlike—yet it has enchanted more than one generation. Both, incidentally, were written by Harvey Schmidt and Tom Jones. No fireworks—just talent. That “lifetime of memories” began with the overture. First the house lights dimmed, then the conductor stepped into the orchestra pit, bowed to the audience, raised his baton and, in the hush that followed, gave the down beat. What a tingling moment to hear twenty-six live musicians send glorious sound into the second balcony. If you’d like to hear one of the best of all overtures, listen to “Gypsy.” Today, the overture which set the mood is dumbed down as some of the musicians are in rooms in the basement, forcing the conductor to hear them over a headset. In the balcony, a technician sits before a large audio console and mixes all sounds. Later, singers and actors wearing hidden microphones enter and mumble their lines. I’m told even the Met has succumbed to microphones. Mumbling is in. Dumbing down is in. It need not be. Some things have improved: Dancing and dancers. Dancers are far superior to those in Agnes de Mille’s day. Ice skaters are equally superb. Watch Sonja Henie (the world champion of her day) in an old movie and compare her running and spinning with the current crop of figure skaters and you’ll wonder how Sonja ever won a medal. Change is normal, dumbing down is not. Let’s encourage neophyte composers and lyricists. Let’s open the door to new George Gershwins. —30— LOCK THE DOOR BEHIND YOU (4/ Whether we moved here six months ago or (as we did) twenty years ago, we all say the same thing. “Now that I’m here, close the gates. No more people. This is Shangri-La and it’s full up. Lock the door.” We discovered the Sandhills almost thirty years ago when a colleague and I answered an ad that promised two nights at the Pinehurst Hotel, three days of meals and all the golf you care to play. Total cost for both you and your wife was $250, including airfare and limo from RDU. The catch? We had to give them an hour or so to look at some land. Fine with us, we said. We’re not going to buy. We both bought. A day after arriving here we picked out our lots and joined the Pinehurst Country Club. The following year, we each brought another couple down. See the pattern? Now we were eight. For almost ten years, this octet made at least one annual golf safari to this hallowed area, soaking up the legendary auras created by the Hogans, Sneads, Nicklauses et.al. and challenging the golf gods to do us in. Usually, the gods obliged. We learned later that during the Diamondhead and bank days, golf course maintenance consisted of little more than band aids. Everything was green on top but, beneath the surface, even the venerable Number 2 course was in disrepair. However, those of us accustomed to cow pasture golf, thought all was pristine perfection. We couldn’t wait to become permanent Tar Heelers. It took ten years but finally we were all here, determined to become scratch golfers. Okay, so that didn’t work but there were other pluses: No traffic; nothing was over eight minutes from wherever we were. The population was only 2500; Spring tip-toed into your yard a good six weeks ahead of Connecticut and winter was never onerous. What a contrast to my commute to and from New York City. My work and the hours I kept made rail commuting impossible. I wound up driving in all kinds of weather at all times of the day— a 108 miles daily round trip. At first it was fine. I’d go through the Greenwich (Conn) toll and scoot up the beautiful Merritt Parkway, seeing only a half dozen cars. However, traffic cannot abide a void. Just before we left, I recall a ride where both lanes were bumper to bumper. The impatient car inches behind me was flashing his lights, ordering me to get out of his way. I wondered how he expected me to do that—chandelle up? Like an airplane? I glanced at my speedometer. We were all doing 73 miles per hour. I vowed right then and there to stop this nonsense as soon as I could. Moving here did end that nonsense. Of course we could not keep this good fortune a secret so each year more people joined us. And, in spite of our euphoria, there were minuses. Really good restaurants were hard to come by and supermarkets tended to be unimaginative, offering little of what we were used to. Upscale shopping meant a trip to Raleigh. . . much more than eight minutes away. But the local people were friendly and even taught us some good manners. The cost of living was easy to handle, too, so we spread the word some more. Thanks to our proselytizing, some towns have quadrupled in population and traffic sometimes looks like a New York street. You no longer recognize everyone on the avenue. But it’s a good mix. Youth has integrated with a graying populace and lent excitement to the area. We have some fine restaurants, shopping is increasingly good and our right-next-door hospital is one of the best in the nation. Our golf courses are now world-renown and we have state-of-the-art Croquet courts, Lawn Bowling and superior tennis facilities. But. We now have traffic. Sometimes we get stuck at a light through two or three cycles. We’ve had to hire experts to tell us how to manage this growth. One suggestion is a roundabout. The conservative in me was initially opposed, but when you really analyze everything, it makes perfect sense. Admittedly, George Marshall Park will be changed but, looking back at pictures I took thirty years ago, I can see that it has always been changing. Knowing how marvelous a job Pinehurst Resort does in sprucing up (remember what they did with brick walks and planting during the US Opens,) I suspect it will even be even better. So welcome, newcomer. Enjoy life here as we have, but don’t brag too much about our paradise. And as soon as you’re settled in, lock the door behind you. —30— SIDE EFFECTS (4/ The recent problems caused by prescription sleeping aids should be a wake-up call for the drug industry. Apparently some people who have taken these medications have found themselves behind the wheel of a car with no recollection of how they got there. That is scary, dangerous and irresponsible. The makers of the guilty prescriptions are asleep without a prescription. It is not my call to suggest they rework the formulas for these drugs. That’s between the manufacturers and the FDA. But there is one thing they should do: Stop advertising them on television. Oh sure, they rattle off disclaimers, warning us about potential side effects, but how often do we really hear or heed those warnings. We are told to ask our doctor about such and such. But are we really asking our doctor. . . or are we pressuring him for a prescription? There was a time—not too long ago—when there were no broadcasting ads for prescription drugs, doctors, lawyers or medical procedures. Ethics was the reason given for these prohibitions. Now, it seems, those once banned ads make up the bulk of commercial interruptions. Once again, ethics is shoved aside in favor of the bottom line. As one who believes in conservative capitalism, and as a shareholder in one of the big pharmaceuticals, I should probably hail the rewards of this advertising. However, Ethics raises its accusing finger and Integrity demands to be heard. There is also the matter of good taste (no pun intended.) Some of the subject matter of these ads makes many of us squirm. Must we be bedazzled by all the intimate aches and ills of the opposite sex? Let the lady keep her bladder control difficulties to herself. Must children be bombarded with mini-soap operas about erectile dysfunction? And just how do you explain to a nine year old daughter what ED is anyway? Must we raise the curtain on all mystery? The big objection to all of this lies not in the embarrassment most of the ads create but in the dangers posed by promising panaceas that your doctor would never dare suggest. There is a risk with all medications and medical procedures. We must weigh risk versus gain and consider each very carefully. That is why prescriptions must be written by a medical professional and not just tossed to the pharmacist by us laymen. It is patently irresponsible to place us in the forefront of decision-making. This is not to suggest we be kept in the dark. Most physicians prefer educated patients. The internet makes it easy to search out virtually everything pertaining to our health and prescriptions come with documentation that explains side effects. Unfortunately, the TV commercials gloss over the negatives and lead us to think all products are safe. Even if our doctor hesitates, we assume we know better, thanks to the wisdom we think the commercials impart. For the most part, we have a superior health system in this country. Certainly most people would agree it is superior to those nations with socialized medicine. A majority of those who live in Canada or Great Britain would far prefer to be treated here where you don’t have to wait months for a test. And there is no question that we are living longer and healthier than our forefathers did. Much of that is due to improved procedures and medicines. But it is not perfect and not even as good as it could be. The proof of this lies in the number of patients who die unnecessarily in hospitals. . . in many cases because people did not take that extra step to wash their hands. And it is not perfect when pharmaceutical companies drive for the bottom line at all costs. Our health costs are rising at an alarming rate. . . far in excess of cost of living increases. Drug companies argue (with some justification) that huge profits are necessary to allow research for new medicines. But let the profits go for research. . . not for bigger ad budgets. Broadcasters and a toothless FCC must accept the blame for the irresponsibility of prescription drug advertising. Cable lacks the traditional legal restraints that major networks face so it is not totally the fault of the FCC. There is also the immense competition for audience time and sponsor revenue. Nonetheless, I remember an unspoken rule that competing products could not be heard within three minutes of each other. Recently, I counted five separate and competing automobile commercials one after another. Greed and unethical behavior are taking over. It need not be. The airwaves are owned by the public. Licenses are in the picture and ethics should be mandatory. Let us return to ethics and let us begin by banishing prescription drug commercials. —30— HAPPY TAX TIME 4/ Tax time is here and most of us have filed. Wasn’t that fun? I hope you are getting a big refund; I’m not. In fact, I had to pay them, worse luck. I am not sure why. I have gone over the forms diligently and can’t find any errors. I’m sure you did the same thing. After all, the tax code is only 16,895 pages long. The bible, in case you are interested, comes in at a little less than 1300 pages. I recall doing my taxes when we lived in Washington, D.C. I bought one of those books that tell you how to do it and wound up owing the government $87.00. A colleague recommended a particular CPA. He came up with a refund of 700 dollars. I was sure we were doing something devious and asked, “How can that be? I bought a book. Won’t I go to prison?” The CPA laughed and pointed to a wall of folders. “That’s the tax code. A bit longer than you’re paperback book, isn’t it?” He gestured toward a window and added, “As for prison, see that building? That’s where the IRS lives. I wouldn’t dare play games with that crowd.” Obviously, that tax preparer had read the tax code. But not all tax preparers do and not all can understand this bloated bunch of rules, anyway. We can do it ourselves, hire someone or use one of several software programs designed for do-it-yourself types. The problem with all of it is that every year congress changes rules. Nobody can keep up with it. A bigger problem looms: If Nancy Pelosi and her cronies get their claws on the code, she’ll be taking more of what you worked for and passing it out to those who don’t work but do vote. The logical solution is to keep Congress away from this tax code. That won’t be easy since Congress looks upon taxes as a way to gain votes, skew money sources and pay back donors. Taxes are power tools for those in power who want to remain in power. The best way to remove that power is to simplify taxes so we don’t need an ever-changing multi-thousand page document. I note that Rudy Giuliani has recently endorsed Forbes’ Flat Tax. Years ago, when I read about that I thought it was the answer. However, I am neither an economist nor an accountant and some of them have pointed out flaws in a flat tax. Recently, a friend loaned me a book called The FairTax Book by Neal Boortz and John Linder. At first, I was skeptical, but the more I read, the more sense this made. There may be pitfalls I have not discovered or flaws hidden but I have yet to find them. This FairTax abolishes the IRS, ensures Social Security and Medicare funding, enables retirees to keep their entire pension and enables workers to keep their entire paycheck. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities. To avoid discrimination against the poor, people will be refunded any sales tax up to the poverty level. It would thus seem to be a win-win-win approach. It would eliminate any need for off-shore tax shelters in places like the Cayman Islands. It would reduce, if not eliminate, cheating. Of course, a lot of lawyers, accountants and that vast army of the IRS would be out of work, but I’m sure we can find something for them to do. Perhaps something constructive for a change. The proposed federal retail sales tax is estimated to be 23%, which may sound like more than your current bracket. However, since the seller of goods or services will not be paying any tax, the price of these goods can be reduced far below that 23%. Most important, it will take away the power of the Congress to play cat-and-mouse games with us. Just think what we could have done with the hours spent this year alone preparing our taxes. Of course we’d have missed all that fun but. . . Sound too good to be true? Maybe it is. I can’t find anything wrong with it compared to the tangled and snarled web we crawl through every year. But maybe you can. The book is relatively inexpensive and available from local libraries. If you Google FairTax, you can unearth the full particulars of the plan. If you like it as much as I do, maybe we can stir something up. —30— LAWLESSNESS FLAUNTED (4/ What makes high profile people think they can flout the law and then flaunt it and then get away with it? More and more we see more and more prominent leaders skirting and violating ethics and laws. A couple of examples: Imus. Surely he should have known better and recognized that he was flirting with disaster. Oh sure, he was known to be a shock jock and had gotten away with slurs and slams for decades. But the issue that brought him down was clearly a case of choosing an innocent and undeserving target. (Personally, I mourn the loss of this year’s peach crop far more than I care about Imus.)District Attorney Nifong. From the beginning, this arrogant meanie was out to get the Duke Lacrosse players and, seemingly, did not care how he did it. Since the role of a DA is to seek justice as opposed to simply winning, how did he dare go as far as he did; how did he dare withhold evidence to feather his own nest? Will he be disbarred? I care more about the peach crop than I do about Nifong. Nancy Pelosi. She is to all intents and purposes guilt of violating the Logan Act. That is a felony punishable by prison. The Logan Act is a federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. It is short and to the point. It was passed in 1799 and last amended in 1994. It seems quite clear that Pelosi’s visit to Syria clearly falls under that act. Not only was she not authorized by her government to talk with President Hafez al-Assad, she was specifically requested by the president of our country not to do it. Will she be charged? The scary part of Pelosi is that she is second in line to become president of the United States. Should something happen to George Bush and Dick Cheney “Hail to The Chief” would be played at Nancy Pelosi’s entrance. It is a far easier path than Hillary faces and totally unearned. Here I part company with the peach crop. I care more about the fate of this country and, with Nancy Pelosi running loose, I worry about it. I could cite dozens more. . . like Jim Black and Paul Wolfowitz and Bill Clinton’s buddy Sandy Berger but you get the idea. Could it be the punishment doesn’t fit the crime? Martha Stewart didn’t look like prison was a big deal. A number of years ago I did an all-night radio program in New York. I avoided garages and muggers by parking right underneath a NO PARKING sign in front of the radio station. Of course, I got the occasional ticket but it was worth it. The ticket cost $5.00 which meant I could get twenty of them in a year (about the average in those days) at a cost of $100. . . much less than the cost of a garage. Then one day, the City of New York raised the price. Now, a ticket cost $25.00. I became an instant law-abiding citizen. Is there a message here? If our above mentioned miscreants and felons were sent to my favorite prison in Arizona where they would be kept in pink underwear and tents, would they treat the law so cavalierly? I know, I know. I’ve convicted them without a trial but then isn’t that what Nifong did? White collar crimes abound and country club prisons exist to give wrist slaps. What about applying the Rudy Giuliani approach: nail them for stealing hub caps and they’ll be less likely to steal the whole car the next time out. Of course the A.C.L.U. would have conniptions over that approach. Aren’t all wrongdoers victims? Why do people cheer lawbreakers and pay homage to crooks? Is it the Robin Hood syndrome? Personally, I don’t think Robin Hood gave anything to the poor. I think Robin squandered all his loot on Maid Marian. Many people think all that is needed to escape punishment is a heart-felt apology. Think of the Imuses of the world who have become experts at mea culpa. It droppeth off their lips like the gentle rain. And too often it works. . . so they do it again and get away with it again and send a message to the Paris Hiltons of this earth that anything goes if you can afford it. Sometimes no apology is even offered. For years, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton turned deaf ears to the vulgarities of hip hop. Listen ( if you can stomach it) to the average rap star and hear the same garbage that brought Imus down spewed forth in million-dollar-income-producing-lyrics filled with denigration and hate. What ever happened to Star Dust? —30— QUESTIONS BUT NO ANSWERS (4/ This is a column with lots of questions but no answers. I apologize for that but the only solution I offer is for you to come up with the answers. I have tried and failed. The horrible events at Virginia Tech pose questions that have been asked before but bear repeating. Isn’t this a perfect example for the need for gun control? It would seem so. If all guns were confiscated, no one could shoot anybody, right? Wrong. And not just because of the Second Amendment. The plain truth is that, with at least two hundred million guns parked in every nook and crevice in America, there is just no way we can ever confiscate them all. Even if we could, it is too easy to make a gun capable of killing someone. Making a precision fire arm dedicated to competitive shooting takes great skill—but making a killing weapon is easy. And, no, I’m not going to tell how to do it. Admittedly, it is not quite as easy as making a bomb. All that takes is some fertilizer and crank case oil and. . . no, I’m not going to tell you how to do that, either. If there were no gun-free zones, the Virginia Tech killer would have been brought down earlier, so why not arm everyone? Good theory. . . bad practice. More and more of today’s killers are suicidal, whether in Baghdad or Virginia. Hence, they are not going to be deterred by the threat of being shot. You have to shoot them. But, how do you know which one to shoot? And if you wait until they start shooting, it may be too late for you. If we can diagnose a mental illness, why can’t we prevent the sick person from carrying out his tragic plot? Why not separate him from the innocent people he would harm? Why not expel him from school or ban him from society? Why not lock him up? Why not cure him? Why not, indeed? Cure, of course is the ideal. Yet, so far, cures have eluded us. Freudian approaches have, at best, merely postponed inevitable misdeeds. Surgical cures work no better today than they did in the dark ages. Medication holds evil at bay but no one can force the mentally ill to take them. Expelling, banishment and locking up are forbidden by law. It would seem that “rights” prevail for all but the innocent victims. Surely someone must have noticed by now certain clues: If school officials are fearful of lawsuits, much time is going to be wasted seeking to protect flanks and rears. Discipline is meted out so sparingly that is seems it is never administered at all. Why, when lawyers lie in wait, ready to pounce and take their third of a pound of flesh, should a teacher or principal or dean step into a sticky situation? Why is it forbidden to report an errant student to his parents? Must we always wait until the horse is stolen to lock the barn door? Should the media have fallen prey to the killer’s need for notoriety? Should NBC have offered him a soap box or pulpit for his depraved ranting? Doesn’t the airing of the killer’s video play right into the hands of all copycats? Are ratings and commercial income more important than the lives of students? The horror of the Virginia Tech murders will never be forgotten but the instant reactions have now subsided. What persists is analysis. Experts and non-experts alike are weighing in daily to analyze the killer, analyze the school’s response, and analyze the analysts. What caused this massacre? What can be done to avoid a repeat? Does our persistent broadcast of every aspect of it fan burning coals that can burst into new horrific actions? Questions. In truth, many of the questions do have answers. . . some of them quite obvious. We all advocate free speech and privacy, but maybe we have gone too far. Most high school and college students are not prodigies. Most have a great deal to learn. They should be encouraged to voice their own thoughts and opinions but they must also be guided by people (parents and teachers) with far greater experience. If that means setting down tougher rules and regulations, so be it. If that means not catering to obvious psychotics, so be it. Will this mean eliminating repeats of Virginia Tech? Perhaps not, but maybe. . . just maybe it will postpone or minimize repeats. —30— SOME PEOPLE I HAVE BEEN PRIVILEGED TO KNOW (5/ One of the perks of interviewing is that you meet so many interesting people. Sometimes you only see them for an hour or two and then you both move on. Sometimes you become friends. Occasionally, you meet people you would just as soon not see again. In over two thousand interviews with subjects from a president of the United States to some of the most creative geniuses this earth has ever known, I can only count two I’d skip if given another chance: Milton Berle and Barbra Streisand. I suspect they felt the same about me. Berle and I just didn’t synch—no animosity, we just did not hook up. As for Streisand, nothing I said evoked more than a one syllable answer. Strange, because now she has adopted a Jane Fonda mouth that yammers intensely against her own country. I met her just after she finished a run in “Funny Girl.” She had a glorious voice and could still sing a song with a simplicity that moved you. This was before she adapted the overblown, contrived approach of today. Listen to her rendition of “People” (from Funny Girl) in the original cast album versus what she does with it in later recordings. Mimi Hines replaced Streisand in “Funny Girl” and sat through about a dozen performances in order to learn the role. Mimi, then still teamed with Phil Ford, was an experienced professional and thus appalled when she watched La Barbra “camp” her performance at the end of her run—as if to say, “Forget Fanny Brice. Look at me. . . Barbra. Some people paid top dollar and waited weeks to see that show. They did not get their money’s worth. Contrast that with a star who always gives a professional performance: Angela Lansbury. We met just before “Mame” opened and developed a friendship I treasured. She, Jerry Herman and Jerome Lawrence (who along with Robert Lee made up the creative team of that show) became favorite friends. It thus really hurt when I felt compelled to give an unfavorable review to their next venture: “Dear World.” That was the part of being a critic that was no fun: The longer you did it, the more people you became close to and the harder it was to be negative about their efforts. But that’s the nature of the beast and everyone understands it. I stood in awe of some others: Composers like Richard Rodgers, Harold Arlen (who gave us “Blues in the Night,” “Over the Rainbow” and so many others,) Burton Lane (of “Finian’s Rainbow” fame,) Arthur Schwartz(“Dancing in the Dark”) and lyricists like Alan Jay Lerner. Awe or not, they became friends and were easy to deal with. I thought moving here would end those meetings but some genuine celebrities turned up in the Sandhills. Tommy Hamm was one. Tommy was one of the original Mello-Larks. . . a superb singing group. We got to know each other when I directed the Sandhills Little theatre’s first musical, “Anything Goes,” and Tommy was musical director. Even though we never met in New York, we knew many of the same people. We still get together to reminisce about the show business of yesteryear. Then there is John Derr. John and I met as volunteers for the Chamber of Commerce. We had never met, either. We exchanged books we’d written and told each other old broadcasting war stories. We bump into each other in the post office from time to time and lie about our golf scores. John was honored this year by the Masters Tournament. It was long overdue because John Derr has covered the Masters since 1935. This former head of CBS Sports has broadcast 62 Masters and knows the course and most of the pros that have played it. I got a call from an astonished John a few years ago. He had just come upon an old golf broadcast featuring Ben Hogan in the early 50s. Hogan would play a round and invite everyone across the country to play against him on their own courses. The program interviewed Bing Crosby, Edward R. Murrow and picked up reports across the country. He was stunned to hear himself say, “Now for a report from the Nation’s Capital, here is Allan Jefferys.” “I don’t remember hiring you,” he barked. “Was I any good?” I asked. “Hell, no,” he replied. That is John Derr. . . right to the point. At ninety, he is still as sharp as a straight razor and a raconteur equal to the best. If you need a great speaker, with knowledge and wit, call on John Derr. You won’t regret it. Congratulations, John. You don’t need one but take a mulligan anyway. —30— HOW MUCH GOVERNMENT IS TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT (5/ Both Republicans and Democrats pretend to favor small government. The key word, here, is “pretend.” In truth, the Democrats think they know what is best for us and are determined to dole out their wisdom in the form of higher taxes and more government control of our lives. The Republicans think we can handle our own lives and are responsible for our own actions. The Democrat believes in protecting us from ourselves and is thus eager to micromanage and, when we do foolish things, to bail us out. The Republican is willing to let us paddle our own canoe…mindful that canoes tip if you’re not careful. Of course, people can get themselves into deep water with or without a canoe. People build on the water’s edge in areas known to be hurricane prone. When the big wind comes along—and blows their house down, the people want the government to step in and give them enough to do it all over again. The liberal goes along with that; the conservative says, “You did a stupid, selfish thing; you pay for it.” The taxpayer wants the government to ban building in harm’s way. Americans are a generous lot. Let a tsunami or earthquake destroy and we are quick to reach for our wallets to help. That’s as it should be. But let’s not forget that these destructive forces can also be warnings. If people don’t rebuild with earthquake-proof materials, people should not be surprised to find an increasing reluctance to repeat our generosity. On the other hand, if someone we should be able to trust seems to offer us a deal we cannot refuse and it blows up in our face, can we not feel we have been scammed? A case in point: Recently the stock market dropped precipitately on reports of sub-prime mortgage foreclosures. Yet on the same day that happened, I saw commercials offering mortgages of 125% of a home’s value. Isn’t that begging for more foreclosures? Some say that is the responsibility of the borrower. He should know that is risky. True, but where is the lender’s ethical responsibility? Would you tell a friend to dive off a bridge into the river if you know the water is only two feet deep in that part? We do need laws that protect. The government has bureaus whose job it is to monitor and police: FDA, USDA, FCC, FAA etc. How good are they? Not as good as they should be. Part of the problem lies in how nearly impossible it is to fire somebody in the government. It used to be that a civil service job offered lots of time off and other perks but not too much in pay. Now, the pay is frequently high and the perks remain. That combination can lead to boondoggling. So here’s our dilemma: How do we, who believe in accepting responsibility for our actions, take over the job of all those government agencies whose function it is to keep us free from harm? Do we know how to inspect meat? Check out new drugs? Arrange air traffic? We don’t, so we must rely on government to police these things. But who polices the police? Who keeps politics out of the picture? Who protects us from Joe’s brother-in-law who got the government job because Joe made a contribution and voted the right way? There is no easy answer. Thomas Jefferson got it right when he said, "I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious." It would thus suggest that the solution lies in dumping the Democrats since they are the guiltiest. Would that it were that simple. The truth is both parties are guilty. Perhaps we need a series of unbiased people to represent us, the taxpaying public. Ombudsmen, if you will. Of course, theoretically we have a government of checks and balances that should ferret out incompetence and fraud automatically. Regrettably, that does not always seem to be the case. What most elective officeholders put first on their agenda is hanging on to their job. Is the answer term limits? Again, maybe. But setting a term limit often means losing a really competent representative. We see that frequently in local, mostly volunteer government. A dedicated councilman or hard-working board member is dumped because her time is up. The paradox here is that the local representative is far more reachable than the federal counterpart who can hide in the cloakroom of Congress. I think what we really need is LESS. Less numbers, less power, less time in office and less access to the public cash register. —30— IS THE PENDULUM SWINGING BACK? (5/ Imus is gone; Rosie is on her way out. There are other oinkers on the verge of walking the plank. Some TV performers who always looked like they were trying unsuccessfully to grow a beard are turning up clean shaven. I have even noticed some shirt tails tucked in. Does this mean the taste pendulum has reached its nadir and is turning back? For too long it appeared like ugly was king. I don’t mean physical ugly; I mean the deliberate move to rebel and show everybody how gross, how vulgar, how crude you could be: Tank tops and cut-off jeans in theatres and restaurants, loud yelling into cell phones in libraries, using the golf course as a urinal, spewing out four-letter obscenities at the top of your lungs in public places. Welcome pendulum. The pendulum keeps us civilized. When things go too far, something comes along to check it. It’s like the slightly off-color jokes young marrieds used to tell. We giggled as each tried to top the last story-teller. Then one would go too far. Suddenly embarrassed silence. The pendulum stepped in to bring us back to decorum. When I first starting covering theatre for television, the news director insisted I wear a tuxedo. I balked and said that was okay for a big musical opening but not for the typical off-Broadway effort where you were likely to see rats scurrying up the aisle. Do you want the job? I was asked. I wore out three tuxedos and got pretty good at tying a black tie in the dark. Now, I seldom wear any kind of tie, but I do tuck in my shirt tail. We are fortunate that pendulums exist. Unions come along because management goes too far. When a play folded in East Podunk, actors were just dumped with no pay and no way to get back home to look for another job. Actors Equity was born from just such scenarios. So were other unions. The pendulum went too far. How can a conservative make such a statement? That is part of the pendulum swing. I used to belong to three unions as did one of my favorite presidents. Ronald Reagan was president of the Screen Actors Guild before he became governor and before he became president of the United States. He came into that last job with a fat amount of experience running things. Of course, unions can go too far, too. Witness problems caused by the UAW. The pendulum swings both ways. Most of the solutions for those problems come, not from the government, but from the marketplace. All of a sudden, things don’t work. Labor looks at foreign outsourcing and agrees to sit down with management. That’s the beauty of this country. If government keeps its nose out of it, we can usually sit down with each other and work things out. That’s the pendulum theory in action. Some people, of course, are forever yammering about their “rights.” And a henhouse full of lawyers eager to line their own pockets are forever encouraging them. But what about the of those who don’t wish to be offended? rights What about those who don’t want to be subjected to the cell phone screamers or the unkempt and unclean? Thank goodness for the pendulum, for nature or physics or something seems to swing things back to normalcy just as they are about to go into orbit. It doesn’t always work, of course. Just when you think your golf game can get no worse, you stare at a triple bogey. Which may be why I now play croquet. Nor are we back to what I call the golden years of quality. Those were the times when a solo artist could captivate you without any vulgarity or light shows or fireworks: Think of Tony Bennett, all by himself at the Copacabana, loosening his tie and singing just for each of us. Or so we thought. Who can forget Judy Garland at the Palace sitting on the apron and reprising “Over the Rainbow” with just a slight catch in her voice. No matter that she turned on that same catch night after night. I still remember Carol Channing at the top of those stairs prancing to the strains of “Hello Dolly” or Angela Lansbury opening a “New Window” in “Mame.” When does the pendulum swing back to talent like this? Will it ever happen? Will we finally escape from the filth of hip hop? Are we at last going to flee from the rap star? Are we once again going to walk down the path of civilization? Or am I guilty of wishful dreaming? Swing low, sweet pendulum. Carry me back. —30— SALUTE TO ONE NATION INDIVISIBLE (5/ We are approaching days of honor: Memorial Day, Flag Day and Independence Day. Monday is Memorial Day. Well, not really. Traditionally, back when it was called Decoration Day, it was honored on May 30. But that was before we looked on these holidays as excuses for three day weekends, no mail delivery and big discounts. Now, we do our best to wrap everything around the weekend. I spent most of my working career in a 24/ Memorial Day, or Decoration Day as it was first called, was originally a day of remembrance for those who had died in our nation’s service. When it was first conceived, in 1868, it honored those who died in the Civil War. Then, in 1915, a lady by the name of Moina Michael devised the idea of wearing red poppies to honor those who died in all wars. Flag Day is June 14, unless they’re planning to back that one up to stretch the weekend as well. So far, the Fourth of July is still the 4th of July. Increasingly, we are forgetting the reasons behind these “holidays”—forgetting the need to honor them. In our zeal to flaunt the First Amendment, too many are not only ignoring the sanctity of these days, they are defying them, shaming them and embracing treasonous statements. And far too many of those guilty of these statements are members of the government. It is one thing to have an honest disagreement, an honest debate or attempt to change laws. It is something else to give aid and comfort to the enemy. Somewhere along the line too many of our government members do not see the difference. Some feel that if they served in uniform, they have the right to bash our leaders and speak ill of our nation. Having served in uniform in combat, I know otherwise. All most of us knew at the time of our battles was what took place in this foxhole, this deck, this cockpit. The big problem lies in who and where the enemy is. When Memorial Day came to be, we had two oceans to protect us and you could usually tell the bad guys by the color of their hats. Today, we face an enemy that knows no border or barrier and wears no identifying uniform. He or she comes in all disguises and ages. He is not only unafraid to die; he seeks it, looking upon martyrdom as a key to Nirvana. He is also determined to destroy America and all we stand for. And he is not going to surrender or quit. Our only hope is to fight him on his turf and not on ours. Assuming our country survives, we will undoubtedly argue for generations about the wisdom of invading Iraq. Both sides of that issue have valid arguments. However, we are in it. More and more Americans are dying each year, thus qualifying to be honored on Memorial Day. This is not the time for self-serving egoists to be holding press conferences to denounce this nation. This is not only a time to honor those who gave their lives for their country, it is also the time to honor the living who day in and day out lay their lives on the line. Above all, it is not a time to shortchange our troops either on the frontlines or in our veterans’ hospitals. Memorial Day, Flag Day and Independence Day are holidays yet they are also days to be honored. At best, however, they are reminders because there is reason to celebrate this nation’s achievements and honor its people every day of the year. If that means wearing a poppy or displaying our flag, let it be done. There are some who look down on public displays of patriotism. They oppose “flag-waving.” But there is nothing wrong with taking a pro-USA stance. Perhaps Irving Berlin said it best. Berlin was an immigrant who never lost his love for his adopted nation. He gave us “White Christmas,” “Easter Parade,” and “God Bless America.” In a musical called “Mr. President” he wrote a song about patriotism. It ended like this: “If this is Flag Waving. . . Flag Waving Do You Know of a Better Flag to Wave.” —30— THE CHRISTIANS AND THE LIONS (6/ Why are we so obsessed with the Paris Hiltons of the world? Why do we care about Anna Nicole Smith or Britney Spears or any one of a dozen people of minimal talent and maximum celebrity? Probably for the same reason we watch NASCAR races. We may pretend to admire the skill and strategy of the drivers but, in truth, we are secretly hoping to be in on a fiery crash. We may be horrified when the Coliseum hosts the Christians and the lions, but we are there watching and cheering just the same. We line the streets of Paris to gawk at the doomed in the tumbrels en route to the guillotine. We encircle the gallows to witness justice carried out. Or even injustice, as the case may be. We slow down as we pass the police car with flashing lights to rubberneck the smashed cars on the side of the road. There is a word for this: Schadenfreude. It is a German word to describe taking pleasure at the discomfort of others. Does this word apply to us? Aren’t we humans compassionate—empathetic—ever ready to step in and help the helpless? Isn’t it the fault of the media that embellishes and harps on the foibles of celebrities to gain a bigger audience? Or, as the media is wont to insist, are they merely giving us what we desire? I may be in the minority but I have never cared whether Paris Hilton went to jail or not. Had I been the judge I would have sentenced her to ignominious oblivion. Get her off the tabloids and hysterical TV imitation-news programs and we’d all be better off. Andy Warhol once claimed that everyone will be world-famous for fifteen minutes. Well, Paris and others of her ilk have had their fifteen minutes. So it is time for them to get off the stage and go hide in a corner. If we ignore them and ignore the media that promote them maybe they will go away. Or maybe they won’t. Maybe we need something salacious to watch or read about. At least it takes our mind off a war and a divisive government determined to undermine each other’s political party. What alternatives do we have? Debates? It is difficult to stay glued to debates when nobody on either side stands out. Although I did my share of straight (or hard) news, my main beat was the entertainment world—feature stuff. In my day, such back-of-the-book activities were more tolerated than highlighted. Today it is the opposite. Virtually every so-called news program eagerly leads with gossip in their zeal to gain a bigger audience. We have always had the Walter Winchells and Louella Parsons to dig in the mud for us, but they were never considered the pinnacle of news. I confess I would have made much more money had my time been more like today, but I am not sure I would have thought it was right. My beef is not so much the gossip lead as it is the interminable milking of the subject. Imus, Rosie, Anna Nicole. . . the media never quits. Perhaps the reason is the news never quits. I remember the days of the fifteen minute television newscast, which became thirty minutes and then an hour and now twenty-four hours. How do you fill up that much time? Drag it out, milk it and sometimes even make it up. I also remember (and have commented in this column) when broadcast news was a money-losing operation but a vital part of our lives. Broadcasters made money from entertainment programs. No more. Which is why I worry about a Rupert Murdoch trying to buy the Wall Street Journal. Murdoch leans toward a hands-on tabloid approach to news. That’s fine for the New York Post but the Journal is one of the few papers left that places integrity ahead of sensationalism. Leave it alone. What we need is diversion. Why don’t we hire the Super Bowl, turn loose several prides of lions on the fifty-yard line and then toss in Paris Hilton, Rosie, Imus, Britney and a half dozen others we can all name. We’ll make a fortune. Everybody will come to watch; the news media will fall all over themselves to cover it and, if all works out, we won’t be bothered by Paris, Rosie. . . etc. anymore. On second thought, we cat lovers think that bunch is hardly fair to the lions. No, let us not use lions. Replace them with. . . .let’s see. How about tarantulas. Schadenfreude. —30— ANOTHER ACTOR FOR PRESIDENT? (6/ Former Senator and current “Law and Order” actor Fred Thompson is about to make it official and become a presidential candidate. Why does this not excite me? After all, actors are some of my favorite people. I have been one, directed some and reviewed many as a critic. Also, one of the presidents I honor most was a former actor. Why then my hesitancy to cheer Fred Thompson? I have nothing against Mr. Thompson, personally. I have never met him nor even seen him in person. I think he does a good job in the rather one-dimensional role of the D.A. in “Law and Order” and he comes across as a conservative which is another plus in my book. His gruff, old-shoe approach appeals to those of us who wince at some of the strident pseudo-eloquence of some of the other candidates. Most impressive of all is the fact that he could hold his own head-to-head with Hillary. That, in itself, should be enough for people who, like me, think she would be dangerous to our nation. But I’m still convinced that out of three hundred million people in this nation, there should be some giants willing to enter the race. What is a giant? Someone who can communicate not only with us. . . the people, but also with leaders of the world be they friends or foes. This giant should be confident but not so stubborn and ego-bound that dispute is not tolerated. The giant should come to the job with administrative experience that allows for delegating, yet he (or she) should not shy from making the big decisions alone. The giant should have a high moral character and be loyal but not foolishly loyal. I could go on. . . but then so could you. Fred Thompson is heavy on some of those attributes by skimpy on others. . . especially in experience. Ronald Reagan is too often proclaimed as an actor. He had been one, of course, and in at least two pictures (“Knute Rockne, All American”and “King Row”) a pretty good one. There is also no question that an acting background can stand you in good stead in your presidential role as a communicator. . . especially if you can find someone like Peggy Noonan to write your material. But those are not the attributes that made Reagan such a giant. He came to the job with credentials—experience in running things. Like many of us, Ronald Reagan began as a Democrat. He was a liberal who supported FDR and became president of a union: The Screen Actors Guild. This job was not only good experience in running things but it opened Reagan’s eyes to some of the Machiavellian maneuvers of liberals in Hollywood. Reagan became a Republican. More experience in running things: He served as governor of California for two terms. So when he stepped into the Oval Office he was neither a neophyte nor a poseur. He had earned the job. I have long felt that a minimum requirement for anyone running for the presidency is that he needs a track record of running things. Being governor comes to mind. However, that theory falls flat when faced with the track record of Jimmy Carter, former governor of Georgia and former president. There aren’t too many good things most of us can say about what Jimmy Carter did as president or what he has stood for since. Nonetheless, I still feel that being president of the United States demands more than on-the-job training. The most important element is that a candidate must win. It does not matter how good he or she is if your favorite gets left at the post. By my standards, Mitt Romney offers a great deal on the Republican side. He has succeeded at most things from organizing the Olympics to running Massachusetts. For a Republican to get elected governor of Ted Kennedy’s home state is something special. But. Can he win? Can he beat Hillary or Barack Obama? Obama also comes up short in experience but he does have charisma and doesn’t waste $400 on haircuts. Mike Huckabee also offers much to the nation and the Conservatives. Mike who? There’s the rub. This former governor of Arkansas has experience and speaks well but has yet to overcome the “Mike who?” problem. All of this brings us back to Fred Thompson. He may be the best knight in shining armor we can field. The big trouble is that we will again be faced with voting against instead of for. I, for one would certainly vote for Fred Thompson over any Democrat currently running. But I would not vote for him against Ronald Reagan or any of the real giants. Where are the giants? —30— YOUR FAIR SHARE (6/ One of the most overused and abused phrases in this nation is “Your fair share.” It is also downright un-American. A Rolls-Royce anecdote explains the last part. It used to be that when someone drove by in a Rolls-Royce in Russia, a comrade would thrust his fist at the car and say “Who does he thinks he us, driving a luxury car like that. He should be forced to give it up and walk like the rest of us.” Conversely, an American, witnessing the same drive by would say, “Some day, I’m going to have a car better than that.” That’s always been the American way. No matter how far down the ladder we start, there is no limit as to how far up we can go. Rags to riches; pauper to Daddy Warbucks; that’s us. None of that has anything to do with fair share. Fair share is simple: If ten of us want to do a joint project which costs a thousand dollars, we each owe a fair share of $100. That’s it. No need for an accountant or a lawyer or a liberal. $100 each. If you happen to be a billionaire and I cannot scrape up my $100, the fair share amount remains the same. If you have a good heart and advance my $100 in addition to your own, you are paying your fair share and mine. Call it charity, a loan or simply good business (assuming I have something to offer our project beyond money,) the fair share amount remains the total cost divided by the number of people participating. This subject came up recently when a friend and I were exploring the FairTax idea. He said it would never pass because there would be those who thought the wealthy would be getting a free pass. They would be paying less than their “Fair Share.” That, of course, would be an untrue but possibly vote-getting argument. And votes are the keystone to our present tax code. As long as congress has control over who pays what, politicians have power over all of us. The FairTax takes power away and simplifies how much we pay. As I said in an earlier column, it almost sounds too good to be true but I have been unable to find a chink in its armor. What does it do? It abolishes the IRS, closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation, ensures Social Security and Medicare funding, allows American products to compete fairly, enables retirees to keep their entire pension and enables workers to keep their entire paycheck. Who loses? Only the politicians who want to trade deductions for votes. The poor don’t lose; the rich don’t lose; the country does not lose. Will it ever pass? It is a tough sell but there are blogs, books and it is featured on talk shows. Presidential candidate and former governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee is in favor of it. A reader recently told me of a FairTax rally. There are a number of members of Congress in favor of it, but more oppose it—I suspect for selfish reasons. Our problem is, in too many cases we let bloat take over while we are looking the other way. The immigration problem is a perfect example. No one can come up with any reasonable way to deal with 12 to 20 million illegals. But we could have handled several thousand had we only stepped into the problem in time. Now, it would appear that only a total revision of our immigration laws can solve this. The same thing applies to our tax laws. I doubt that even the IRS knows how many convoluted pages are in the tax laws. Which brings us back to Fair Share. If we 300 million citizens are faced with a budget of 2.9 trillion the fair share for each of us comes to around ten thousand dollars. Some will escape their fair share with carefully worked out deductions. Others will pay more than they should. That’s where the unfairness and complications set in. None of this would matter under the FairTax. The only time you would pay a tax is when you spent money, yet nobody would get hurt or go broke. That cannot be right. It is too simple. I must be wrong. Somebody please set me straight. If I’m not wrong, let us work to pass the bills in congress that will make the FairTax the law of the land. Just think. You get to keep all the money you earn—all your pension—all your interest and dividends. All of it. Wow! —30— WHAT MAKES A MOVIE STAR A MOVIE STAR (6/ Some fine actors never become movie stars. Some movie stars never learn to act. A few fine actors become movie stars. One of my favorites in the latter category was the late Lee Remick. I first came to know her during the filming of “A Face in the Crowd.” She was making her debut in that movie as a baton-twirling sexy majorette. Her double, who actually did the baton twirling, was a former Miss Florida, named Sandy Wirth. Sandy and I were both on the television show “Super Circus” so we knew each other. I got a chance to do some bits in “A Face in the Crowd.” (When you see Andy Griffith chomping vitamins, I made the sound; When you see a bunch of men at a bar watching Griffith on TV, one of them says skeptically, “Uh huh.” I am the voice you hear.) I also did the commercial for Griffith’s vitamins. It was disappointing to work closely with Elia Kazan in these things and never be asked to star in a sequel to “On the Waterfront,” but that’s show business. However, it was nice to get a full day’s pay for one “Uh Huh” We broke for lunch one day and Sandy, Lee Remick and I wound up sharing a booth at one of the nearby delicatessens. I remember that Lee was friendly and down-to-earth. I don’t remember predicting that she would become a super star. But she did and zoomed up the ladder of stardom, with such memorable movies as “Days of Wine and Roses” and “Anatomy of a Murder.” As I witnessed her meteor like rise, I often thought of that lunch. When I met her again, years later, she had forgotten it. I guess I never made any more of an impression on her than I did on Kazan. Finally, she came back to Broadway as the star of “Wait Until Dark.” The part demanded that she appear to be totally blind. In my role as an entertainment editor, I sought her for an interview. In those days, I used a news film crew comprised of a cameraman, audio man and lighting man. We filmed in hotel rooms, restaurants, back stage. . . just about anywhere. Lee Remick agreed to the interview but requested that we do it in a TV studio where a director could have total control of lights and angles. Not for her was the harshness of a 16mm news camera. My boss went along with it and arranged for a TV studio. He then said to me, “Look, she’s a big movie star. Why don’t we act like we have class? Hire a limousine and pick her up.” I did just that. She had a house across Central Park from our studios, so it was not much of a trip. She was ready when I arrived at 10:30 in the morning. When we reached the TV building, I asked the limo driver to wait and ushered her in. I think everyone in the building was waiting for a glimpse of those deep blue eyes. People who worked in television were accustomed to celebrities wandering through the halls, but Lee Remick was something extra-special. The studio and crew were ready when we entered and the interview was over in less than twenty minutes. I walked her back to the car. “Can I buy you lunch?” I asked, thinking back to that “Face in a Crowd” lunch more than a decade ago. She hesitated for a moment and then replied, “I’d like to but I promised the kids I would take them to the children’s zoo. Can I get a rain check?” As I remember, it never rained from that day on. About a month later, an irate news director called me into his office and waved a bill in front of me. “What’s this highway robbery tab from Carey Cadillac?” he demanded to know. “It shouldn’t be for more than a couple of hours,” I responded. “I picked her up at 10:30 and she was back at her house before noon.” “That limo,” he growled, “Went to her house, then to the children’s zoo, Bloomingdale’s, Saks, Sardi’s, and then sat for two hours in front of the Ethel Barrymore Theatre (where Wait Until Dark was playing). The driver clocked in after midnight.” I glanced at the bill again and could not help but smile, “Well, you said it first, Ed. She’s a big movie star. And movie stars ride around in limousines, even if it’s our limo.” The news director paused then shook his head as he grinned as well. Lee Remick was a real movie star. . . one of my favorites. Regrettably, she passed away at too early an age. —30— A FOURTH OF JULY SUPREME COURT (7/ As I marched up the broad steps and stared up at the sixteen Corinthian columns I felt I was climbing toward Olympus or Valhalla. I was about to participate in the first broadcast ever to originate from the US Supreme Court building. The year was 1951 and the occasion: the 175th anniversary of Independence Day. CBS radio had scheduled a mammoth commemorative broadcast that would crisscross the nation as it picked up words from movie giants, high government officials, military leaders and the President of the United States, Harry Truman. The finale to the whole event would be a salute from the Chief Justice of the United States, Fred Vinson. Following his words, a very young, very nervous announcer would sign off the program with a long credit-filled close. I was that announcer. The show was still more than two hours away when the engineer and I arrived. We were met by a custodian eager to show off his domain. At first, we saw this marble-encrusted hall in total awe. This was more than history; this was the seat of justice. This is where the gods of law sat, discussed and settled the great issues. Which gods were they? Was Themis one of them? She was called Justice, after all. Yet that was impossible. There were no women on the Supreme Court. Nor, we three agreed, would there ever be. Neither was the building the Valhalla I first thought. No slain heroes were honored here. This was the highest court of the land. To one brought up in the Norman Rockwell age, this was the place where fairness and impartiality dwelt. This was. . . The custodian interrupted my reverie as he led the way through a foundation longer than a football field in all directions. We were shown parking under the building. We learned that you did not have to be a lawyer to be a Supreme Court justice. It was a lifetime job, paid pretty well and you did not always have to be right (consider the five to four decisions.) When we learned that you got the full summer off, this dedicated golfer decided that this was a job I would willingly do. Ten presidents have failed to nominate me, I am still waiting. At first, the engineer and I almost tiptoed through our tour. However, the casual familiarity of the custodian was contagious and we soon relaxed. We learned that each justice had the right to design his chair. Sure enough, at close examination, they were all different. We sat in each one and swiveled it around to the delight of our audience of one. The time for the broadcast drew near and brought us back to earth. Entering the office of the chief justice dispelled most of our frivolity. Awe returned. The engineer placed a microphone on the desk and another one (for me) on the short side adjacent to where the chief justice would sit. I would be less than three feet away from this former congressman, former secretary of the treasury and close friend of the President of the United States. More than a friend, Vinson was Truman’s original choice to be the next president. Fred Vinson entered his office, sat down at his desk and, after a curt acknowledgement of our existence, began to study his script. I studied him. Although he was only 61, he seemed older—more austere. His eyes had the half-closed appearance of a riverboat gambler. A roman nose sat above a wide, thin-lipped mouth. Stern was the word that popped into my head. I wondered if he ever laughed or had fun. I decided it would be better if I never had to appear before him in court. The broadcast began and we all listened quietly. Finally, it was Vinson’s turn. He acquitted himself well in an unexciting fashion and then I received the cue to sign everything off. I got through it in good shape, hoping no one could hear the slight quavering of nervousness. The Chief Justice thanked us and then the phone rang. He picked it up, listened for a moment and then with a broad grin, said, “Harry? You were great. How was I? Did I sound okay? Could you tell I was nervous?” He listened to a critique from the President of the United States and then roared with relieved laughter. This god—this highest ranking justice was human. Like the rest of us, he needed reassurance that his performance was a good one. He needed the same applause that all of us who appeared in public sought. He was human. My awe melted but my respect grew. He was human. Was it possible that all members of the Supreme Court were human? They are, aren’t they? —30— WE HAVE TO FIGHT FOR FREEDOM 7/ Ask most of us what the greatest thing is about this country and my guess is the majority will say Freedom. Our constitution proclaims it—our Bill of Rights spells it out. It is because our constitution is a living instrument that we have constantly amended it and improved it. Freedom. It is our right. The Bill Of Rights is also the most misunderstood and abused part of our constitution. People are constantly trying to twist amendments into their private, special interest. “I have my rights,” they scream. The Officer’s Guide, a book for new army officers (I don’t know if it still exists), used to talk of RHIP and RHIR. Rank has its privileges and rank has its responsibilities. It is that last one that seems to have been forgotten. Before you can demand rights, you must be willing to accept responsibilities. Rights call for much more than simply sitting on your haunches with your hand out. An example is the illegal immigrant who receives more than $30,000 annually in government benefits and pays about $9,000 in taxes. Who pays the $21,000 difference? You got it: you and I. Where did those “rights” come from? Where is the responsibility? Why are some people in Congress trying to sneak into law handouts to those who have yet to earn them? How do you earn them? First and foremost you should be a citizen. You should learn to speak our language, which happens to be English. You should be willing to serve your country. You should know its history and recognize the curbs that must be put on some of your rights. You don’t walk down crowded streets with a loaded submachine gun, despite how you might wish to interpret the Second Amendment. Nor can you abuse the First Amendment with vitriol and obscenities. (Some of us don’t like to listen to this garbage and we have our rights, too.) Earned rights are more than privileges—they are blessings. Unfortunately there are millions of people scattered across the globe whose solemn vow is to destroy us and our freedom. They are willing to die for their vow. Violence is their mantra. We are in a war with those people, whether we like it or not. It is our duty to block them before they can carry out their terrorist tactics. That is our first responsibility. We pragmatists think that sometimes that can only be achieved by lending extra power to our leaders and keeping secrets from Jihadists. Note the word “lending.” Ad hoc powers must be returned when the danger has passed. Much has been said, of late, about too much power in the hands of the White House. But this is not the first time that a gleaming sword has been laid on the desk in the Oval Office. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was given more personal power than any president before or since. During the Eisenhower administration, the secretary of state John Foster Dulles and his brother Allen (head of the CIA) usurped enough power to bend foreign nations to their will. In both cases, the media kept news of such ventures on a back burner. The loaned out power was removed and our nation survived. To be sure, we need checks and balances. But sometimes Draconian action must take precedence. Sometimes we have to fight in the same manner as the enemy. Sometimes we have to table the Marquis of Queensbury rules. Today, the press is determined to block any and all attempts to keep secrets—to enhance the rights of those who did not earn them—to open our doors to vicious people determined to harm us and to threaten the freedom we cherish. Think of it! If anybody takes us over, the first thing that will go is that constitution. Our first big loss will be Freedom. So it is imperative that we join forces to keep that freedom. It is vital that we keep bills simple enough for all of us to comprehend them and plug up the little loopholes that let sleaze operators enter little anti-American earmarks and giveaways. A line item veto would be a good start. We cannot ignore our responsibilities and our first responsibilities are to protect our nation. . . to preserve our freedom. . . to maintain the rights of our citizens. . . to keep the golden door open for legitimate immigrants. If our elected government cannot do this, elect one that will. And let that be the top priority, far above the candidate’s stand on abortion and gun control and getting us out of Iraq. Never mind his or her religion; ignore the number of marriages. Elect people who will protect our freedom. And remember, Freedom must be bi-partisan. —30— ANOTHER CHALLENGING SPORT (7/ While the US Women’s Open was exciting thousands of fans over at Pine Needles, another challenging sport was intriguing spectators at Pinehurst. This was a far lower profile event and the results were neither as profitable nor as important but, in its own way, it was a most welcome competition. I refer to Association or International Rules Croquet. The six best players in the world. . . from England, Scotland, South Africa and Australia were here to challenge the best players from North Carolina. It was not as one-sided as we expected. If our team went down to ultimate defeat, they put up a valiant fight and did win some games. Most of all they introduced croquet to people who had heretofore never given the sport a second thought. We understand that. My wife and I have been playing croquet for more than a dozen years. For eight years prior to that we used to drive a golf cart past the Pinehurst courts and glance up at those dressed-in-white players thinking: that’s the game we gave up along with badminton years ago. Then one day we accepted an invitation to try it out. We soon learned that what was being played here was a far cry from the old backyard game. This was a challenging cross between billiards and chess using mallets and one pound balls that had only one-sixteenth of an inch clearance through the wickets. No placing your foot on a ball and whacking it into the next county. That is backyard or nine-wicket croquet. What we were learning was the six-wicket American rules game. Like golf, you are in control of your own game. It is not as fast as tennis nor as strenuous as most other games which means there is no age limit to who can play. Nine year-olds can successfully challenge adults; Women can beat men (and frequently do) with no forward tees or mulligans and people can play well into their nineties. The two biggest advantages of croquet are the size of the court and time to complete a game. All that is needed for a full-size court is a flat lawn measuring 105 by 84 feet. Most games are played against an hour and twenty minute clock. The average croquet player owns his own mallet which costs about what a golf club does. However you only need one. . . not fourteen. Most clubs adhere to a dress code of all white which is neither expensive nor difficult to acquire. If this sounds like a pitch, it is. All of the croquet courts I know of in Moore County are private. What is needed is for towns to create public venues with open door policies especially for young people. Let a school develop a few teams and they will quickly hear from teams all over the country eager to compete and meet new friends. It happens with adults, too. Over the years we have come to look forward to tournaments where we can greet old friends as much as the pursuit of trophies. Will croquet conquer obesity? No. Will it turn youth into rocket scientists? No. But it will get youngsters out in the air away from the obsessions of video games. Like golfers, croquet players are honor bound to call faults on themselves. That code is a great intro to how life should be played. Most important, croquet is fun and offers a chance to share that fun with some ultra-nice people. If you or your town or school would like to get started you will find a lot of willing and able helpers eager to guide you into building a court or learning the game. A good place to start is at the website for the US Croquet Association at http:/ Admittedly, this little essay hardly qualifies as a conservative column. In fact, some of our favorite players are out-and-out liberals. But you can’t have everything and we overlook their failings. I’ll get back to the business of pointing out the foibles of the lefties right quick. In the meantime, forgive me for getting in a couple of licks about croquet. I know this is golf country, but croquet is a lot of fun and a sport worthy of any of the towns in Moore County. Give it a try. You might be pleasantly surprised. —30— POLITICS AND PARDONS (7/ It comes as no surprise that the Democrats have weighed in so heavily on President Bush’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s sentence. What does come as a surprise is that Bill Clinton had the gall to add his condemnation of the act. Picture the Oval Office. Now add Clinton and toss in Monica Lewinsky. Pretty sickening isn’t it. Let’s face it: It isn’t so much what he did as where he did it. What he did is between him and his wife. Where he did it is between him and us. Add to that a hundred forty pardons on his last day in office, including an international fugitive and you wonder why he is not skulking around back alleys avoiding public scrutiny. Not only is he not skulking, he is center stage as he supports the candidacy of his wife. He makes speeches and people pay him hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to listen to him spout off. About what? His accomplishments? I can’t think of any. Anybody can balance a budget if you cut the legs off our military. His conquests? Which bimbo shall we start with? Should Libby have been pardoned? Should he have been sentenced? Personally I never thought Martha Stewart deserved to go to jail. Here is an intelligent woman, worth millions, accused of insider trading worth a few thousand. Doesn’t add up. What about Clinton? He admitted to lying under oath and never served a day in the big house. Libby at worst is guilty of misremembering. Is he simply a scapegoat who has earned a pardon no matter what he did? Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives Bush (and Clinton) the right to pardon. Guilt has nothing to do with it. The big problem lies not so much with guilt or innocence as with the knee-jerk ambushing depending on who pardons whom. This is pure politics that has nothing to do with justice. It is this pure politics that is destroying our nation. It is one thing for two parties to disagree and have to compromise. It is something else when each automatically lashes out at the other with only one thing in mind: votes. Each week headlines scream about the amounts of money contributed to the candidates, leading us to wonder: Can you buy a presidency? Joe Kennedy thought you could and many think he did with his son JFK. If the Oval Office can be bought, look out for Michael Bloomberg. The current mayor of New York City has more money than all the candidates put together. However, third party candidates seldom do more than hurt other candidates. You and I have the right to vilify any or all of the candidates. But when they defame each other, they do much harm to the electing process and more harm to the country. Point out differences, if you will, but let’s drop the automatic party politics that ignores what your side does and magnifies what the other side does. George W. Bush has made more than a few mistakes but overuse of the pardon power is not one of them. . . contrary to Bill Clinton. Why then do the Democrats pounce on the Libby situation and ignore the egregious use of pardons by Clinton? The answer is votes and a hope of encouraging more donations. What does any of this have to do with the qualifications of Hillary? Let’s not get into her record. . . especially with sweetheart financial shenanigans with commodities or Whitewater. As has been pointed out time and again, there is no truly outstanding candidate for the presidency on either side. And (Michael Bloomberg, Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich notwithstanding) none waiting in the wings. This continues to puzzle me since being president is not all that bad a job and when you’re finished, you can walk away with millions of dollars selling books and making speeches. (Do you really think Bill Clinton could have sold more than a few dozen books based solely on literary content?) Issues, of course, are of paramount importance. But where is the issue connected with finger pointing accusations against Fred Thompson because he is married to a “trophy wife.” Does this tell us how he feels about health care and the war in Iraq? People make a big deal out of abortion and gun control. I happen to oppose laws against both—not out of a moral conviction but because such laws just won't work. Under prohibition, bad booze killed a bunch of people and we still had the same quota of drunks. We have strong laws against drugs and hundreds of thousands of addicts. So let’s concentrate on the real issues and stop the ambush tactics. . . on both sides. —30— WHAT QUALITIES MAKE YOU A STAR? (7/ One of my favorite theatre critics was the late Richard Watts, Jr. He had been a critic for the New York Herald Tribune and then, when that venerable paper folded, moved to the New York Post. He once told me that it was amazing how similar our approach was in judging straight plays. We frequently used the same pegs, singled out the same small-part actors for praise and came to the same conclusions as to the worth of the production. After I quit covering theatre, it made it easy to decide which show to see. All I had to do was read Watts’ review to know whether I would like the play. We parted company, however, when we critiqued a musical. On those occasions you’d swear we were not only in different theatres but in different cities. Admittedly we still spotted the same pretty girl in the chorus but that eye-candy had little to do with the merits of the show. Musicals were, after all chock-full of pretty girls. Maybe I was easier on musicals. I did like most of them. In my day, critics never discussed the show they were reviewing. It was an unwritten rule honored by all. I suspect the reason was that you had to make judgments in a hurry and did not want to be swayed, so you talked about last week’s show or the weather or whatever. One Broadway opening night, Dick Watts and I were standing on the sidewalk during an intermission, when a very pretty girl approached. She was a well-known leading lady in musicals, although she was more often a replacement than a creator of a role. The three of us chatted for a couple of minutes and then she left to greet other friends. Dick wat |