I have it on good authority that a candidate will announce a run for the Greensboro City Council district one seat within a few weeks.
It is someone who I think will be a formidable candidate who would add a dimension of energy and transparency to council that is currently lacking should re get elected. I wish I could say more, but I think you'll be excited when you hear.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
It's alllliiiiive -- Davenport comments
A commentator identifying himself as Charles Davenport, Jr. replies to this blog post. Here is his comment followed by my reply:
------------
11:17 PM, May 26, 2009
Anonymous
I don’t recall ever receiving an e-mail fom Roch, but I will take his word for it. Although I receive a significant volume of mail, I make an effort to respond to every correspondent, especially those with whom I disagree. I do not, however, waste time answering sophomoric, juvenile, ad hominem attacks, which is Roch’s field of expertise. He does not counter my arguments; he prefers tossing around the usual debate-ending terms--“racist,” “homophobe,” “bigot,” etc. But I am honored by his spastic name-calling, which I consider a concession of intellectual defeat. When Roch disagrees with a column, he throws a temper tantrum, like a petulant 2-year-old. I do not expend ammunition responding to every schoolyard taunt from pompous, venom-spewing bloggers.
Roch, you have called me a “cowardly bigot,” but I welcome the opportunity to go head-to-head, on any topic, in writing, with anyone worthy of my time. If you are so eager to engage, I propose that we write a pro-con, on the subject of your choosing--gay marriage and diversity hiring really seem to get under your skin--for a neutral publication. I’m looking forward to hearing from you.
Charles Davenport Jr.
-------
8:55 AM May 27, 2009
Roch101 said...
Hi Charles,
Welcome to the party. I am not sure what you have in mind for a neutral publication. Perhaps something freely accessible to the public at large to which you and I can publish without editorial interference, maybe with some facility for us and readers to engage in an on-going back and forth discussion of the subject at hand.
Hey! How about this Internet thingy?
You are welcome to comment at your pleasure on anything I've written here. (To avoid spam, after 60 days, comments are disabled so let me know if you find an older post on which you'd like to comment and I'll start a new thread. You can email me at sysop@wirecom.com -- I read and reply.)
For example, I observed that, despite your protestations that we should confine our discussions to the facts, you have a habit of making assertions unsupported by facts. You can refute or comment on that right now.
You might also start responding to comments on your N&R columns (where of the last ten, you have joined in the comment threads a total of zero times). Maybe you might even start a blog of your own. One of your first posts might be to answer the simple question I have yet to see you answer: Why do you oppose gay marriage?
I remain open to other venues for conducting a discussion, but this and other local blogs, the comment threads on your articles and the possibility of starting your own blog offer convenient and immediate opportunities that need no further delay, negotiation or complication.
------------
11:17 PM, May 26, 2009
Anonymous
I don’t recall ever receiving an e-mail fom Roch, but I will take his word for it. Although I receive a significant volume of mail, I make an effort to respond to every correspondent, especially those with whom I disagree. I do not, however, waste time answering sophomoric, juvenile, ad hominem attacks, which is Roch’s field of expertise. He does not counter my arguments; he prefers tossing around the usual debate-ending terms--“racist,” “homophobe,” “bigot,” etc. But I am honored by his spastic name-calling, which I consider a concession of intellectual defeat. When Roch disagrees with a column, he throws a temper tantrum, like a petulant 2-year-old. I do not expend ammunition responding to every schoolyard taunt from pompous, venom-spewing bloggers.
Roch, you have called me a “cowardly bigot,” but I welcome the opportunity to go head-to-head, on any topic, in writing, with anyone worthy of my time. If you are so eager to engage, I propose that we write a pro-con, on the subject of your choosing--gay marriage and diversity hiring really seem to get under your skin--for a neutral publication. I’m looking forward to hearing from you.
Charles Davenport Jr.
-------
8:55 AM May 27, 2009
Roch101 said...
Hi Charles,
Welcome to the party. I am not sure what you have in mind for a neutral publication. Perhaps something freely accessible to the public at large to which you and I can publish without editorial interference, maybe with some facility for us and readers to engage in an on-going back and forth discussion of the subject at hand.
Hey! How about this Internet thingy?
You are welcome to comment at your pleasure on anything I've written here. (To avoid spam, after 60 days, comments are disabled so let me know if you find an older post on which you'd like to comment and I'll start a new thread. You can email me at sysop@wirecom.com -- I read and reply.)
For example, I observed that, despite your protestations that we should confine our discussions to the facts, you have a habit of making assertions unsupported by facts. You can refute or comment on that right now.
You might also start responding to comments on your N&R columns (where of the last ten, you have joined in the comment threads a total of zero times). Maybe you might even start a blog of your own. One of your first posts might be to answer the simple question I have yet to see you answer: Why do you oppose gay marriage?
I remain open to other venues for conducting a discussion, but this and other local blogs, the comment threads on your articles and the possibility of starting your own blog offer convenient and immediate opportunities that need no further delay, negotiation or complication.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
What does a Montgomery Alabama mayoral candidate have to do with video gambling in North Carolina?
This is odd. The (Greensboro, NC) News & Record's Doug Clark points us to the web site for the NC Entertainment Group, a group lobbying to get video gambling legalized in North Carolina. The "Contact us" link on the NC Entertainment Group web site is to info@briddell4mayor.com. Briddell4mayor.com is the web site of Michael Briddell who is running for mayor of Montgomery, Alabama. I don't get the connection.
.
.
Earl Jones' flawed bill to legalize video gambling
North Carolina state legislator Earl Jones of Greensboro is sponsoring a bill that would legalize video gambling.
Representative Earl Jones did not reply to a request to discuss this bill nor did he respond to questions submitted by email. Here are the questions Jones' failed to answer:
----------
1. The bill allocates a total of 100% of the gross revenue to machine owners, licensees and the state. Doesn't this assume 0% paid out as winnings?
2. The bill contains no consumer protections. What are your thoughts about adding the following to the bill?
a. Requirements that machines display the odds of winning; that if the odds change as the machine is played, the odds be updated and displayed in real time.
b. Requiring games that use representations of real-world gaming implements, such as cards or dice, give players the same odds as one would have playing with a physical deck of cards or dice.
3. Why was the Department of Revenue chosen to enforce the licensing provisions of this bill instead of ALE?
-----
A law that would allocate one hundred percent of revenue to operators and taxes and zero percent to players should not pass. A bill that does not require any kind of transparency on odds should not pass. As it stands, Jones bill is an attempt to legalize a ripoff.
Representative Earl Jones did not reply to a request to discuss this bill nor did he respond to questions submitted by email. Here are the questions Jones' failed to answer:
----------
1. The bill allocates a total of 100% of the gross revenue to machine owners, licensees and the state. Doesn't this assume 0% paid out as winnings?
2. The bill contains no consumer protections. What are your thoughts about adding the following to the bill?
a. Requirements that machines display the odds of winning; that if the odds change as the machine is played, the odds be updated and displayed in real time.
b. Requiring games that use representations of real-world gaming implements, such as cards or dice, give players the same odds as one would have playing with a physical deck of cards or dice.
3. Why was the Department of Revenue chosen to enforce the licensing provisions of this bill instead of ALE?
-----
A law that would allocate one hundred percent of revenue to operators and taxes and zero percent to players should not pass. A bill that does not require any kind of transparency on odds should not pass. As it stands, Jones bill is an attempt to legalize a ripoff.
I might just have to buy a newspaper
I saw a Rooms to Go TV commercial last night that invited me to get store coupons in the newspaper or online. The Rooms to Go web site offers no clue as to where to find these online coupons the Rooms to Go TV commercial told me I could find there and the site's search feature yields zero results in a search for "coupon."
Lame.
UPDATE: A Rooms to Go representative told me through online chat that the coupons will be "online tomorrow." What a major screw up, one that could at least be minimized by putting a note on the web site saying that the coupons will be online tomorrow. I expect our economic recovery to be long and painful because of the moron factor.
.
Lame.
UPDATE: A Rooms to Go representative told me through online chat that the coupons will be "online tomorrow." What a major screw up, one that could at least be minimized by putting a note on the web site saying that the coupons will be online tomorrow. I expect our economic recovery to be long and painful because of the moron factor.
.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Festival Park, Center City Park, ballpark -- Greensboro's intellectual heavyweights take the facts off the rails
Joe Guarino recycles a few paragraphs from a Rhinoceros Times article in which Rhino editor John Hammer bemoans the removal of some trees from City-owned Festival Park downtown. The legitimacy of his complaints is undermined by his totally unsubstantiated remarks that the deed was done at the direction of city patron/bogeyman Jim Melvin.
In the comments, Ed Cone rightly notes how Hammer floats away from the facts with that accusation. But then Ed, followed by Sue Polinsky, does the same damn thing. Ed claims that Center City Park was donated and Sue calls it a "gift that keeps giving." Ed adds the ballpark too.
Center City Park has not been donated. It remains privately owned. Same thing for the ballpark, it was built on formerly public property, procured through a land swap, not a donation.
Why do we in Greensboro, even among our intellectual heavyweights, have such a hard time facing the facts? It is our bane that it's acceptable, even par for the course, in Greensboro to twist, distort, ignore -- whatever it takes to worm our way around facts that are inconvenient to our positions.
Greensboro deserves better.
.
In the comments, Ed Cone rightly notes how Hammer floats away from the facts with that accusation. But then Ed, followed by Sue Polinsky, does the same damn thing. Ed claims that Center City Park was donated and Sue calls it a "gift that keeps giving." Ed adds the ballpark too.
Center City Park has not been donated. It remains privately owned. Same thing for the ballpark, it was built on formerly public property, procured through a land swap, not a donation.
Why do we in Greensboro, even among our intellectual heavyweights, have such a hard time facing the facts? It is our bane that it's acceptable, even par for the course, in Greensboro to twist, distort, ignore -- whatever it takes to worm our way around facts that are inconvenient to our positions.
Greensboro deserves better.
.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Blacks underrepresented in GPD? Yes. Discrimination? Doubtful.
In an unsigned editorial in this week's Yes!Weekly about alleged discrimination against black officers in the Greensboro Police Department, the anonymous author offers this:
"...African Americans and Latinos are still underrepresented in the department."
The implication is that is evidence of discrimination.
I emailed Yes!Weekly editor Brian Clarey and asked him what percentage of Greensboro police officers are minorities. He wrote back that, according to the City's Public Affairs Office, "of 615 sworn officers, 24 percent are minority — black, Asian, Latino combined."
With the white population of Greensboro at about 53% and the African-American population at about 40%, those percentages seem problematic. But not so fast.
I've lived in Greensboro long enough to know racism still exists here, and I am not going to attempt to prove a negative, but purely from a perspective of critical thinking, it is apparent these percentages do not, on their face, implicate the GPD of discrimination. Here is why:
One of the requirements of being a Greensboro police officer is graduation from high school or equivalent. According to the most recent Census Bureau's statistics I can find, 90% of white adults in Greensboro meet that requirement while only 45% of African-American adults in Greensboro do and 47% of Hispanics do.
So the percentages of minorities officers in the GPD actually accurately mirror the qualified minority populations in Greensboro. For Yes!Weekly to write that minorities are "underrepresented in the department," is accurate because minorities are underrepresented among high school graduates. Minorities are not, however, underrepresented in the GPD among those with the required high school diploma.
"...African Americans and Latinos are still underrepresented in the department."
The implication is that is evidence of discrimination.
I emailed Yes!Weekly editor Brian Clarey and asked him what percentage of Greensboro police officers are minorities. He wrote back that, according to the City's Public Affairs Office, "of 615 sworn officers, 24 percent are minority — black, Asian, Latino combined."
With the white population of Greensboro at about 53% and the African-American population at about 40%, those percentages seem problematic. But not so fast.
I've lived in Greensboro long enough to know racism still exists here, and I am not going to attempt to prove a negative, but purely from a perspective of critical thinking, it is apparent these percentages do not, on their face, implicate the GPD of discrimination. Here is why:
One of the requirements of being a Greensboro police officer is graduation from high school or equivalent. According to the most recent Census Bureau's statistics I can find, 90% of white adults in Greensboro meet that requirement while only 45% of African-American adults in Greensboro do and 47% of Hispanics do.
So the percentages of minorities officers in the GPD actually accurately mirror the qualified minority populations in Greensboro. For Yes!Weekly to write that minorities are "underrepresented in the department," is accurate because minorities are underrepresented among high school graduates. Minorities are not, however, underrepresented in the GPD among those with the required high school diploma.
Forget Star Trek, Yes!Weekly creates local alternate reality
Yes!Weekly had an editorial this week opining on the claims of discrimination against the Greensboro Police Department. (It was unsigned, but I assume it was written by editor Brian Clarey -- why do newspaper editors hide this way any longer? It's so 90's).
The editorial is a convoluted, reality-denying piece of mumbo jumbo that managed to turn the facts on their head and condemn the Greensboro City Council's most ardent supporter of government transparency for a lack of transparency.
Although I agree that councilor Mike Barber was off track with his recent suggestion that the city pay the plaintiffs' legal fees if they drop their complaints of discrimination, forBrian, er Yes! to conclude that is an example "lack of transparency that has marked his tenure on council," is utterly ignorant or intentionally misleading. Contrary to Brian's, er Yes!'s imaginings, the record shows that Mike has been City Council's strongest advocate, through individual effort and by official votes, for transparency in local government. Brian, er Yes! needs to acquaint itself with the reality of the historical record.
Greensboro could use more public admonishment of elected officials who obfuscate and work against public disclosure by the local press. It would be helpful ifBrian, er Yes! would direct its finger-wagging at those who deserve it.
[DISCLOSURE: Mike Barber is a customer of my website design and hosting services.]
The editorial is a convoluted, reality-denying piece of mumbo jumbo that managed to turn the facts on their head and condemn the Greensboro City Council's most ardent supporter of government transparency for a lack of transparency.
Although I agree that councilor Mike Barber was off track with his recent suggestion that the city pay the plaintiffs' legal fees if they drop their complaints of discrimination, for
Greensboro could use more public admonishment of elected officials who obfuscate and work against public disclosure by the local press. It would be helpful if
[DISCLOSURE: Mike Barber is a customer of my website design and hosting services.]
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Ryan Shell: Naive?
Ryan Shell announced his intention to run for Greensboro city council two weeks ago. Today, he announced that he will run in District 2. Minority majority district 2 has only had a black representative as long as I can remember. Is Shell, who is white, naive? When the first local blog comment from respected, long-time black community activist Nettie Coad appears on his campaign blog, one has to think maybe not.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Gruenrekorder
From raw field recordings of whistling tree frogs to soundscapes composed of a variety of environmental acoustics, it is Gruenrekorder. Be sure to click on the "listen" link and check out the artists' pages, especially founder Lasse-Marc Riek.
Friday, May 08, 2009
What information is Greensboro withholding from the Department of Justice?
According to communications obtained from the City of Greensboro, attornies with the U.S. Department of Justice are dissatisfied with the level of cooperation received from the City of Greensboro relating to the DOJ's investigation of discrimination claims.
Particularly, the DOJ wants to see the RMA Report and the city is only willing to show them the portions a judge ordered released, which is not much.
This damn hack-authored report has been thoroughly discredited by Jerry Bledsoe. It is a bane to Greensboro's race relations. It is not worth obstructing a DOJ investigation to protect its "secrecy." The City Council should vote to publicly release it -- or someone should email their copy to the DOJ.
Here are the correspondences between the City and the DOJ regarding the City's cooperation:
[NOTE OF GRATITUDE: Thank you to the City of Greensboro for a very speedy response to my request for these documents.]
Scan 0034
Scan 0027
Scan 0028
Scan 0029
Scan 0030
Scan 0032
Scan 0033
Particularly, the DOJ wants to see the RMA Report and the city is only willing to show them the portions a judge ordered released, which is not much.
This damn hack-authored report has been thoroughly discredited by Jerry Bledsoe. It is a bane to Greensboro's race relations. It is not worth obstructing a DOJ investigation to protect its "secrecy." The City Council should vote to publicly release it -- or someone should email their copy to the DOJ.
Here are the correspondences between the City and the DOJ regarding the City's cooperation:
[NOTE OF GRATITUDE: Thank you to the City of Greensboro for a very speedy response to my request for these documents.]
Scan 0034
Scan 0027
Scan 0028
Scan 0029
Scan 0030
Scan 0032
Scan 0033
Green on hold. City suspends bio-diesel purchases
In February of 2008, green entrepreneurs Brian Talbert and Gabe Neeriemer started Patriot Bio-diesel on Chimney Rock Road in Greensboro. After months of testing and certification, they began selling bio-diesel fuel in January of this year. Their customers include Marathon gas stations and the city of Winston-Salem. They would like to sell their product to their hometown government, which boasts of having 809 bio-diesel powered vehicles. Brian and Gabe may have to wait a while.
Although the City of Greensboro began using bio-diesel in 2002 and even though the City Council passed a resolution in support of greenhouse gas reduction that specifically called for converting vehicles from diesel to bio-diesel, Greensboro has stopped purchasing bio-diesel.
According to Steve Simpson with Equipment Services for the City, Greensboro stopped purchasing B-20 bio-diesel (20% bio-diesel) in December of 2007 and stopped purchasing B-5 bio-diesel in September of 2008. Simpson says the decision was made because the fuel was causing equipment failure during cooler temperatures. "We have experienced engine shutdown and damage to the fuel systems resulting in extensive repairs," he wrote in an email.
Patriot Bio-diesel's Talbert says this could be caused by gelling, a problem that occurs in some kinds of bio-diesel fuels as they begin to solidify in colder temperatures. Talbert wasn't sure, but he thought the City might have been buying bio-diesel made from chicken fat, a product better suited for warmer climates.
Simpson wrote that the City might consider using B-5 in the summer, but adds, "We are very concerned about the lack of regulation to manufacture bio-diesel, additional maintenance cost and dependability of the public safety vehicles."
Talbert says his fuels are manufactured from vegetable oil and use a process called cold soak filtration that make his bio-diesel less prone to gelling. He also says his fuels conform to ASTM D 6751 standards -- required by the IRS for alternative fuel tax deductions. These new standards, updated last fall, certify a fuel as usable in unmodified diesel engines.
Another issue is that bio-diesel becomes more cost-competitive the more expensive regular diesel is. Bio-diesel starts to undercut the cost of diesel when diesel reaches $3/gallon and above. Currently, however, diesel is about $2.05/gallon and bio-diesel is around $2.75.
It would be great if Greensboro could find its way back to using bio-diesel. It would be even greater if it could do so by supporting a local green company. Obviously, that cannot happen at the expense of fiduciary responsibility to taxpayers. Perhaps Patriot Bio-diesel offers a fuel superior to that which was causing the City problems. It sounds to me like it's worth a look.
[Tip of the hat to Billy, who first let us know the City had stopped buying bio-diesel]
Although the City of Greensboro began using bio-diesel in 2002 and even though the City Council passed a resolution in support of greenhouse gas reduction that specifically called for converting vehicles from diesel to bio-diesel, Greensboro has stopped purchasing bio-diesel.
According to Steve Simpson with Equipment Services for the City, Greensboro stopped purchasing B-20 bio-diesel (20% bio-diesel) in December of 2007 and stopped purchasing B-5 bio-diesel in September of 2008. Simpson says the decision was made because the fuel was causing equipment failure during cooler temperatures. "We have experienced engine shutdown and damage to the fuel systems resulting in extensive repairs," he wrote in an email.
Patriot Bio-diesel's Talbert says this could be caused by gelling, a problem that occurs in some kinds of bio-diesel fuels as they begin to solidify in colder temperatures. Talbert wasn't sure, but he thought the City might have been buying bio-diesel made from chicken fat, a product better suited for warmer climates.
Simpson wrote that the City might consider using B-5 in the summer, but adds, "We are very concerned about the lack of regulation to manufacture bio-diesel, additional maintenance cost and dependability of the public safety vehicles."
Talbert says his fuels are manufactured from vegetable oil and use a process called cold soak filtration that make his bio-diesel less prone to gelling. He also says his fuels conform to ASTM D 6751 standards -- required by the IRS for alternative fuel tax deductions. These new standards, updated last fall, certify a fuel as usable in unmodified diesel engines.
Another issue is that bio-diesel becomes more cost-competitive the more expensive regular diesel is. Bio-diesel starts to undercut the cost of diesel when diesel reaches $3/gallon and above. Currently, however, diesel is about $2.05/gallon and bio-diesel is around $2.75.
It would be great if Greensboro could find its way back to using bio-diesel. It would be even greater if it could do so by supporting a local green company. Obviously, that cannot happen at the expense of fiduciary responsibility to taxpayers. Perhaps Patriot Bio-diesel offers a fuel superior to that which was causing the City problems. It sounds to me like it's worth a look.
[Tip of the hat to Billy, who first let us know the City had stopped buying bio-diesel]
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Pricey Harrison, Red Clay Citizen and "signing the jacket"
Last month, Joe Guarino referenced a blog post by Red Clay Citizen, bringing to our attention Greensboro's Pricey Harrison co-sponsoring a bill that would allow convicted criminals to attend community college tuition-free upon their release from prison.
Amid the debate on the merits of the bill confusion arose over whether or not Harrison was, in fact, a cosponsor. While Red Clay author Jeff Mixon reported that she was, the online version of the bill did not -- at least, not by the time it came to our attention.
Ed Cone talked to Harrison and reported in the comments at Joe's that she had "signed the jacket," what he described as something legislators can do on "bills they might sponsor."
I talked to the State Legislature's web master and the House Principal Clerk's office for clarification. Here's the scoop.
There is no "might" involved. House members may sign on as co-sponsors of a bill electronically or by signing the jacket containing the bill (there is no electronic option in the senate). Once signed, electronically or psychically, the legislator is a co-sponsor.
The bill, with its sponsors and cosponsors, is then published to the General Assembly web site. If a lawmaker subsequently changes her mind, she may request that her name be removed as a co-sponsor. Sometimes this results in a new version of the bill being posted online, with the older version still reflecting the previous co-sponsorship. Sometimes, the lawmaker's name is simply removed from the version posted online with no online record remaining that the lawmaker ever was a co-sponsor.
In the case of this bill. Harrison's signature is not legible on on the bill's jacket, but there is an illegible signature scratched out. It appears as if Harrison originally singed on to co-sponsor this bill, changed her mind and the bill on the website was updated only by removing her name, leaving no record of her original co-sponsorship online and only her conversation with Ed and the scratched out signature as indications of her original co-sponsorship.
This caused a lot of confusion and some unjustified insinuation by me towards Jeff Mixon, for which I apologize.
[NOTE OF GRATITUDE: Thank you to the very kind, open and helpful state staff who helped me to understand this process and the details surrounding this bill in particular.]
Amid the debate on the merits of the bill confusion arose over whether or not Harrison was, in fact, a cosponsor. While Red Clay author Jeff Mixon reported that she was, the online version of the bill did not -- at least, not by the time it came to our attention.
Ed Cone talked to Harrison and reported in the comments at Joe's that she had "signed the jacket," what he described as something legislators can do on "bills they might sponsor."
I talked to the State Legislature's web master and the House Principal Clerk's office for clarification. Here's the scoop.
There is no "might" involved. House members may sign on as co-sponsors of a bill electronically or by signing the jacket containing the bill (there is no electronic option in the senate). Once signed, electronically or psychically, the legislator is a co-sponsor.
The bill, with its sponsors and cosponsors, is then published to the General Assembly web site. If a lawmaker subsequently changes her mind, she may request that her name be removed as a co-sponsor. Sometimes this results in a new version of the bill being posted online, with the older version still reflecting the previous co-sponsorship. Sometimes, the lawmaker's name is simply removed from the version posted online with no online record remaining that the lawmaker ever was a co-sponsor.
In the case of this bill. Harrison's signature is not legible on on the bill's jacket, but there is an illegible signature scratched out. It appears as if Harrison originally singed on to co-sponsor this bill, changed her mind and the bill on the website was updated only by removing her name, leaving no record of her original co-sponsorship online and only her conversation with Ed and the scratched out signature as indications of her original co-sponsorship.
This caused a lot of confusion and some unjustified insinuation by me towards Jeff Mixon, for which I apologize.
[NOTE OF GRATITUDE: Thank you to the very kind, open and helpful state staff who helped me to understand this process and the details surrounding this bill in particular.]
More Windbaggery
The News & Record's Doug Clark doesn't like the Department of Justice poking around the Greensboro Police Department.
He is on firm ground with his objections. For, when the News & Record was getting the facts wrong on issues of supposed racism in the GPD, then refusing to correct the record as new facts came to light, it was Doug who spoke up against the shoddy practices of his paper. It was he who insisted that the community know the truth and he who demanded that the News & Record's mission was to follow the facts, not an agenda. He had the foresight to anticipate the negative consequences of misinformation uncorrected and the fortitude to speak up against it.
Huh? What's that?
Doug did no such thing?
Oh. Never mind.
.
He is on firm ground with his objections. For, when the News & Record was getting the facts wrong on issues of supposed racism in the GPD, then refusing to correct the record as new facts came to light, it was Doug who spoke up against the shoddy practices of his paper. It was he who insisted that the community know the truth and he who demanded that the News & Record's mission was to follow the facts, not an agenda. He had the foresight to anticipate the negative consequences of misinformation uncorrected and the fortitude to speak up against it.
Huh? What's that?
Doug did no such thing?
Oh. Never mind.
.
Greensboro Windbags
The Greensboro Partnership's Pat Danahy, former Mayor Keith Holliday, City Councilor Goldie Wells.
What do these people have in common?
They are all full of hot air.
In 2006, when Greensboro Police Chief Tim Bellamy issued a press release that said people in the community were secretly recorded by a non-sworn police officer and that the reasons for them being recorded were unknown but under investigation, Holliday, Wells and Danahy, with his minions, all puffed up with righteous indignation and promised that we would get to the bottom of this.
More than three years later, only Ben Holder, with some sympathetic assistance from City Councilor Mike Barber, is following through. City Councilor T. Dianne Bellamy-Small is trying to sweep this under the rug, abetted by City Councilor Goldie Wells' selective memory while Holliday and Danahy are silent.
Shameful. Greensboro deserves better.
What do these people have in common?
They are all full of hot air.
In 2006, when Greensboro Police Chief Tim Bellamy issued a press release that said people in the community were secretly recorded by a non-sworn police officer and that the reasons for them being recorded were unknown but under investigation, Holliday, Wells and Danahy, with his minions, all puffed up with righteous indignation and promised that we would get to the bottom of this.
More than three years later, only Ben Holder, with some sympathetic assistance from City Councilor Mike Barber, is following through. City Councilor T. Dianne Bellamy-Small is trying to sweep this under the rug, abetted by City Councilor Goldie Wells' selective memory while Holliday and Danahy are silent.
Shameful. Greensboro deserves better.
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Barber looking mayoral?
[Disclaimer: Mike Barber is a customer of mine]
Mike Barber looking mayoral? Barber's willingness to openly and regularly step before the microphones, share his ideas and answer questions make him so according to Sam Hieb.
I agree.
Too bad indications are Mike is not going to run.
.
Mike Barber looking mayoral? Barber's willingness to openly and regularly step before the microphones, share his ideas and answer questions make him so according to Sam Hieb.
I agree.
Too bad indications are Mike is not going to run.
.
Monday, May 04, 2009
On behalf of Greensboro, North Carolina, I apologize for bigot Charles Davenport
As a citizen of Greensboro, NC, I apologize for fellow resident and bigot Charles Davenport. In his column in the News & Record, Davenport explains why it is not practical for blacks and other minorities to be represented in police departments in numbers proportional to their population. It is, says the relic Davenport, because "Intellect and ability vary wildly across the population."
Davenport does not offer any explanation or evidence that the skills or intellect required to be a police officer are less prevalent among black people. He just asserts it, like the intellectual coward he has proven himself to be over and over again.
I will not suggest that the News & Record silence Davenport. It is better to know that racist, xenophobic, homophobic bigots live in Greensboro than to bury our heads in the sand. Just as important, let us recognize that Davenport, in his unwillingness to make an intellectually honest argument for his beliefs, in his unwillingness to engage in online discussions responding to his rantings or in his unwillingness to even answer a simple email inquiry is a coward, and if there is anything more despicable than a bigot, it is a cowardly bigot. On behalf of Greensboro, I apologize for him.
Davenport does not offer any explanation or evidence that the skills or intellect required to be a police officer are less prevalent among black people. He just asserts it, like the intellectual coward he has proven himself to be over and over again.
I will not suggest that the News & Record silence Davenport. It is better to know that racist, xenophobic, homophobic bigots live in Greensboro than to bury our heads in the sand. Just as important, let us recognize that Davenport, in his unwillingness to make an intellectually honest argument for his beliefs, in his unwillingness to engage in online discussions responding to his rantings or in his unwillingness to even answer a simple email inquiry is a coward, and if there is anything more despicable than a bigot, it is a cowardly bigot. On behalf of Greensboro, I apologize for him.
Greensboro: When we get around to it, y'all.
Ben Holder reminds us that City Council, the Mayor and City Attorney promised to review and release documents related to the Greensboro Police Department "surveillance" scandal -- saying they'd try to do so in two to three weeks. That was on February 4th, three months ago.
Saturday, May 02, 2009
Politicization of criminal investigations
"The problem here isn’t the criminalization of policy differences, it’s the politicization of what ought to be a painstaking but straightforward criminal investigation."Lex Alexander rebuts the excuses offered for ignoring the law.
.
Friday, May 01, 2009
A fly on the wall
One of the drawbacks of audio on the web is that there is no good way to skim through it to see if anything catches your interest. About the best you can do is take someone's recommendation.
I recommend this clip for one of the things audio on the web can do well: It can give you a "fly on the wall" sense of where someone is coming from and what they are about, much more so than a written report of an interview.
I am no fan of the "achievements" of the state legislature's Democratic leadership, and the accusations against Rep. Cary Allred, an Alamance County Republican, sound, at first blush, political and petty, still it is illuminating to hear Mark Binker ask some tough questions, Allred's responses (especially the "Uhhhhhhh..." to "Had you been drinking?") and his insistence that he will eventually be "venerated."
(Click here if player doesn't load below.)
I recommend this clip for one of the things audio on the web can do well: It can give you a "fly on the wall" sense of where someone is coming from and what they are about, much more so than a written report of an interview.
I am no fan of the "achievements" of the state legislature's Democratic leadership, and the accusations against Rep. Cary Allred, an Alamance County Republican, sound, at first blush, political and petty, still it is illuminating to hear Mark Binker ask some tough questions, Allred's responses (especially the "Uhhhhhhh..." to "Had you been drinking?") and his insistence that he will eventually be "venerated."
(Click here if player doesn't load below.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
