For Pete's sake

GREENSBORO, NC -- The News & Record mocks congressional candidate Laura Fjeld today "for thinking she could carry the primary victory into the general election in a district that has been a Republican stronghold for decades."

A Republican stronghold for decades?

Sigh...

No.

If the staff at the News & Record are going to belittle someone, they might want to make sure they aren't making fools of themselves in the process.

The district in which Fjeld ran was newly drawn in 2012.

As of 2012

Prior to that, it included much of the Democratic leaning 13th district, held by Democrat Brad Miller for a decade.

Through 2011

Fjeld was not running in a district that has been a "Republican stronghold for decades." It is a newly drawn district in existence for only two years and which actually has more registered Democrats than Republicans.

Fjeld was not crazy for thinking she had a shot. On the other hand, what does it tell us about those on the political beat at the News & Record that they are so ignorant of their home turf?

News & Record contradicts itself

GREENSBORO, NC -- This is why reporters should not make assertions without attribution.

From Danielle Battaglia in the News & Record today: "Williams walked off the property only to return to the hospital's entrance"

Yesterday, Sarah Newell Williamson wrote in the N&R: "He [Williams] got within 150 yards of the entrance, on hospital property."

Which is it? If two sources are contradicting each other, that's one thing; but without attribution, the News & Record is contradicting itself. These are the reporters' assertions, the reporters are claiming responsibility for their veracity and one of them must be wrong.

2014 Reckless Reporting of the Year Award

GREENSBORO, NC -- The long knives are out at the News & Record for those currently in control of the International Civil Rights Center and Museum (ICRCM), and it's not pretty. It's embarrassing. Reckless, actually.

On the heels of last week's political hit piece based solely on anonymous sources taking aim at the controlling majority of the ICRM board, reporter Margaret Moffett launches another unfounded salvo so preposterous it seems as if it should be beneath even the very low standards of the very terrible News & Record.

Let's break it down (it won't take much). Moffett begins with:

"The sit-in museum's chief financial officer and interim leader may be violating North Carolina law by representing himself as a certified public accountant."

Says who? Nobody. Although Moffett has demonstrated her willingness to print unfounded assertions* in the past, this one isn't just unfounded, it's unattributed—to anybody. So it is Moffett's accusation. Can she make her case?

For all the rolling around Moffett does in the law and regulations, it all is predicated on one criterion. It's what we programmers recognize as a conditional statement: If a is true, then b; Moffett writes it like this:

"[A] CPA licensed in another state who moves to North Carolina to practice accounting 'must obtain a certificate of qualification from the board prior to using the CPA title in any way in this state,' according to the law."

What is the condition? What is the if that must be true for the law to apply? "WHO MOVES TO NORTH CAROLINA." If a person does not move to North Carolina, the laws Moffett says Swaine may be violating do not apply.

So has Swaine moved to North Carolina? Has he satisfied the condition that would make these laws apply? No. According to whom? According to Moffett herself, who writes:

"Swaine, who commutes to Greensboro from his home in Roanoke, Va., has held a CPA license in Virginia since 1999."

Her conditional fails. MOVED TO NORTH CAROLINA does not equal true. So all that stuff about what is required of a CPA who moves to North Carolina—those laws Moffett says Swaine "may be violating"—do not apply.

Additionally, Moffett cites as examples of Swaine "representing himself as a CPA" in North Carolina posts to Twitter and Linkdin. That's absurd. Such posts are no more "in North Carolina" than they are in Texas or Sri Lanka.

Moffett doesn't let logic and the facts get in her way though. With no regard for whether or not the law even applies in Swaine's case she doesn't hesitate to write that he "may" be breaking the law. Maybe—maybe he's double parked—but Moffett offers nothing to back up her suggestion that Swaine may be breaking the laws pertaining to CPAs. This is the kind of untenable character assassination that has had bloggers kicked off of Greensboro 101. It is shocking to find it in the "professional" media.

Whatever one's opinion on the best policy for the ICRCM, and there are advantages and disadvantages to the options on the table, we cannot allow slander to influence our decision making. Advocacy journalism has its place, but to do it, one must get her facts straight and think.

This is not journalism, it is a horrible and unconscionable smear piece. Greensboro deserves better.


* Moffett is Margaret Banks in the post at this link.

The United States of Barbarians

The morality and ethics of whether or not the CIA can torture people in our name are non-negotiable. There is no argument that can be made to justify this atrocity. The corporate media are treating torture as if it's just another "issue" like immigration reform or the federal budget. It isn't. You cannot justify the unjustifiable. People who attempt to apologize for torture done in their name are embarrassing themselves; raising their heads to be counted as barbarians at the gate.

—  Joseph Polermo

I usually try to avoid letting copied writings stand in for my self expression, but since I've been having such a hard time finding words to describe my reaction to the revelations of United States torture, I will let Joseph Polermo stand in for me, for now.
--------------------------------------------------

Last August, President Barack Obama admitted to the press: "we tortured some folks." But he also added that torturing people "is not who we are." His CIA director, John Brennan, calls the CIA torturers "patriots." So which is it? Are they "patriots," deserving of our admiration, or sadists who engaged in acts that are contrary to "who we are?"

The Senate Intelligence Committee's executive summary report on CIA torture concludes that at least 26 of the people the CIA contractors tortured were innocent of any ties to terrorism whatsoever.

One of the CIA contractors, James Mitchell, was on TV lately where he was called the "architect" of the torture program. His Spokane, Washington company, Mitchell, Jessen, and Associates, received $81 million in taxpayer money for services rendered.

CIA Director John Brennan  argues that people like Mitchell and his business partner, Bruce Jessen, were doing legitimate intelligence work. But isn't it also possible that these "patriots" were acting out their post-9/11 revenge fantasies against a bunch of Arabs and Afghans who fell into their clutches about whom they knew very little?

Mitchell and Jessen had no specialized knowledge of Al Qaeda or international terrorism; they didn't speak Arabic or Pashto, and had no experience interrogating prisoners.

What they did know about as psychologists was how to drill down into the human psyche. And they knew how to reverse engineer the Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) techniques designed to help U.S. personnel counter torturers. They applied the same appalling techniques to their own interrogations. Given their lack of qualifications to head such an endeavor it's likely Mitchell and Jessen were just winging it.

Can we get our $81 million back?

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney might have "authorized" the torture program, but it's still a war crime that violates the Convention Against Torture, the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,  and the U.S. Constitution. Letting the people responsible for torture ride off into the sunset free of any criminal charges throws out the window international and domestic law, as well as almost everything we've learned from the Nuremberg Trials, Hannah Arendt, or the trial of Adolf Eichmann.

One of the CIA's "black" (secret) torture sites was located at Guantanamo, which should raise some thorny legal issues because, unlike Romania, Poland, Lithuania, Afghanistan, or Thailand, the Supreme Court has ruled that Guantanamo is considered "U.S. soil."

Absent any criminal prosecutions, the only conclusion we will be left with is that these guys really are "patriots" and torturing people really is "who we are." But we shouldn't need "experts" like Max Boot, Joe Klein, or other apologists for torture to judge the morality of turning to torturers posing as "doctors" to root out suspected terrorists.

The morality and ethics of whether or not the CIA can torture people in our name are non-negotiable. There is no argument that can be made to justify this atrocity. The corporate media are treating torture as if it's just another "issue" like immigration reform or the federal budget. It isn't. You cannot justify the unjustifiable. People who attempt to apologize for torture done in their name are embarrassing themselves; raising their heads to be counted as barbarians at the gate.

We don't fight against terrorists to become more like them, but to maintain our differences.

Continue reading... 

Why the mystery?

GREENSBORO, NC -- On the mysterious genesis of state legislator Trudy Wade's idea to monkey around with the make up of Greensboro's city council, News & Record reporter Amanda Lehmert writes:

"Council members, former elected leaders and political wonks have been left to speculate which one of them poked the bear."

Add to the list of those left to speculate News & Record readers — which is not where a news organization should want to leave its audience.

A few days ago, Lehmert reported:

"Wade said she was prompted to consider the issue by local business owners, who she said asked not to be identified."

That's fine and dandy, but a reporter should not acquiesce to a preference for such secrecy; in fact, a reporter should challenge it vociferously. Who are the people pushing these proposed changes to city government and what are their motives? If only we had some kind of person whose job it was to challenge authority, to investigate and uncover information for the public benefit.

Communications with Wade on this matter would be public record. They would likely end the "speculation" and fill the gaping hole in this story. A professional reporter covering this should not hesitate to ask for them.

Paper tigers

GREENSBORO, NC -- From the News & Record's digital editor on the refusal of the Greensboro Police Department to make public video footage captured by officer worn body cameras:

"We'll continue to make the requests, and to fight for the information any way we can." 

Two points:

First, I have repeatedly asked the City of Greensboro for copies of the News & Record's requests for these videos and the city's denials. There are none. The News & Record makes these requests verbally and the city, therefor replies verbally. This matters because, without a documented record, it is harder for those of us interested in affecting public policy on this matter to participate. Policy makers, the ACLU or other interested groups or individuals do not have at their disposal a record of the requests and denials they could use to document the circumstances and nature of the City's refusals. The News & Record, ironically, is not contributing to the public record of the City's actions.

Second, it is simply untrue that the News & Record is continuing to "fight for the information any way we can." That sounds good and we might wish it were so, but it's empty rhetoric. The most forceful and definitive means by which the N&R could "fight" for this information would be to sue for it. Under North Carolina law, people or entities denied access to what they believe are public records can take it to court. The News & Record has not done that. They should if they think these videos are public record, but they haven't; so they are clearly not fighting for the videos any way they can. They are, quite contrary to their claims, confining their efforts to the mildest and least effective means: begging and pleading.

Something is wrong

I've been wondering, just who is called to serve on grand juries anyway? Clearly, something is wrong when grand juries become secretive replacements for what is supposed to be the cornerstone of American justice: the accountability of public trials.

From the Federalist on the failure of a New York grand jury to issue an indictment in the homicide (as determined by the coroner) of Eric Garner, an unarmed non-violent man, whose death was caught on video:

"Why, it’s almost as if the grand jury system is just a convenient means for prosecutors to get the outcome they want wrapped in a veneer of due process. Want to indict a ham sandwich? Consider it indicted. Texas Gov. Rick Perry was indicted for vetoing a spending bill, but a New York prosecutor can’t indict an officer who killed another man in an incident that was completely captured on video? Come on." 

Looking before we leap: How to think about surveillance cameras

GREENSBORO, NC -- The city of Greensboro has rejected, for now, a plan to put police surveillance cameras downtown and beyond but those in favor haven't lost their fervor, however impulsive their motivations may be.

Here is how we—our elected officials, decision makers and citizens—should evaluate surveillance cameras:

Need and Effectiveness: An evaluation of the need for surveillance cameras, specifically: the impact they are expected to have on crime and how their effectiveness in meeting those expectations would be evaluated.

Data Collection and Use: Evaluation of the types, storage, public accessibility and use of data that such systems might collect on law abiding citizens, including, for example, license plate numbers, facial recognition information and wireless device (phone, tablet) tracking*, and the purpose of collecting such data on law abiding citizens.

Deployment Criteria: An evaluation of the criteria for deciding when and where to deploy these cameras; considerations of how to avoid arbitrary use; how to avoid unfair or unwarranted monitoring or targeting of certain populations; the circumstances under which a camera would be installed in any given location and under what circumstances would groups or individuals within range be subjected to additional inspection (zoom, tracking, recording) and data collection (facial recognition, wireless device ID capture, locations visited.)

Civil Impact: Evaluation of the social, civic and economic impact of the indiscriminate monitoring, tracking, collecting and storing of data broadly collected on law abiding citizens.

Were we to make these evaluations honestly and unemotionally, we would have a clear understanding of why we should or should not deploy these kinds of systems.

* The system proposed—and thus far rejected—would have had cameras operating with wireless connections, a system whereby they could ping passing phones, tablets and other wireless devices for their identification.

Six years smoke free

Six years ago today, I quit smoking. Smoking never really seemed to fit with me. I like the outdoors and fresh air. I like flavorful food. I've regularly exercised my entire adult life. None of those things go well with smoking. Yet, smoke I did. Like many people, I made numerous attempts to quit. Sometimes seemingly successful—a year or two, here or there—but none seemed to stick until this time.

If you smoke and want to quit, you can. I used the quit smoking drug Chantix to get me started and it worked for me. If you find a way that works for you, I can promise you this: Life is better without cigarettes. I know this is the exact opposite of how it feels when you contemplate quiting which has you thinking life without cigarettes is going to be misery. It's not. Quiting might be, for a little while, but after, life is better.

While you are a smoker, the consequences of smoking seem normal; unnoticed. Not until you quit will you understand -- no, that's the wrong word because it's more than mental -- not until you quit will you feel that your body and mind are capable of more energy, more stamina, better concentration, less anxiety and more serenity. It is ironic that, when I smoked, these were often the reasons I lit up: for a boost, to concentrate, to relax. But trust me, those effects are not only fleeting when achieved with tobacco, they are nowhere near as deep or sustained than your body is capable of without cigarettes. In other words, the very reasons you smoke will be better fulfilled by quitting. The reasons you smoke will not be left wanting if you quit. You will not be left to suffer a void. Quite the opposite. Your body will fill in the gap, naturally and more satisfyingly, if you give it a chance. If you give it time.

Incongruous

GREENSBORO, NC -- Downtown Greensboro, Inc. is floating a proposal to add more places for people to sit, read a book or just people watch, according to the News & Record. They are calling them "parkletts." They sound like a great idea to me.

It is unclear how well this idea would work with downtown's city council representative Zack Matheny's ideas for surveillance cameras and his desire "for people that are loitering to know that we’re watching them."

Councilman: Militarize downtown

GREENSBORO, NC -- The News & Record reports district 3 councilman Zack Matheny's ideas for public safety downtown:

“I want there to be an army down here,” he said. “Because I want people who are coming from Winston-Salem, from High Point, from Siler City to know that we mean business. I want cameras downtown. I want people that are loitering to know that we’re watching them.”

Think about a downtown policed by militarized patrols where the city "wants you to know" that lingering a little too long will have you subject to closer secret and remote observation, where all of your movements are subject to being covertly tracked and monitored.

These ideas, were they to come to fruition, would be costly, oppressive, hostile and, worst of all, they would kill downtown.

Thanks Brown Summit Middle School

I had the great pleasure of conducting two sessions on "coding for the modern web" during Brown Summit Middle School's Fall Conference this morning. The students were great and the staff and parent volunteers were very friendly. My hope was that these sixth, seventh and eighth graders would garner some insight into what code is and to comprehend the basic concepts enough to be confident to continue with some independent study if they are interested. I think we succeeded.

Greensboro votes to fund P. R. B. S. while cutting city services

GREENSBORO, NC -- It was sadly ironic that, on a night when Greensboro city council approved a plan to cut city services, they voted to give $35,000 to WFMY for a "marketing initiative." (Story)

Greensboro too often grasps at shortcuts. Rather than doing things, we think we can just manage appearances. To seem, rather than to be is the motto we live by. It's a shame and a fat check to a local TV station for what councilwoman Nancy Hoffman called a great opportunity to "brand" the area is a sign that we remain a city lacking ideas and motivated by desperation. In this case, the desperation is compounded by sloppy thinking.

Even if $35,000 of "branding" has the possibility to net some return on investment, it is not going to happen by marketing on a local TV station to the people who already live here. (Forget too the issue of a news organization accepting money from a government it should cover objectively, that's not something I'd expect to cause a blip on WFMY's ethics radar.)

I could see, maybe, some benefit of marketing the city to people and businesses elsewhere, but how in the world does Greensboro benefit from promoting a brand to itself?

In voting to cut city services, councilman Zack Matheny said it would help the city run more like a business. Where was that business sense on this waste of money to WFMY that passed by a vote of 9 to 0?

P. R. B. S. is what this is and council fell for it in a night of mixed up priorities.

Malpractice: News & Record prints Anthony Bundros' plagiarized falsehoods

GREENSBORO, NC -- Allen Johnson, editorial editor of the News & Record, when recently called on the carpet by Ed Cone for publishing falsehoods on the editorial page (previously and previously), responded with:

"The News & Record’s policy is to screen and edit letters for factual errors."

He's not doing a very good job. Today, he publishes a letter that is both false in its assertions and plagiarized. The News & Record gives it credibility by adding the title: "Our inept president has changed the U.S.."

The letter is signed by Anthony Bundros of Greensboro. It offers what the author suggests is insight into the thinking of Barack Obama, which he advises can come from understanding the "the eight levels of control to create a socialists state," from, Bundros says, Sal Alinsky.

Two problems: Bundros did not write the bulk of his letter and the "eight levels of control" are not from Alinksky.

Plagiarism
Descriptions of the "eight levels of control" Bundros includes in his letter, can be found word-for-word from other sources. The earliest I could find was in an unedited public forum on the Beaufort Observer's website on January 13, 2014 by a Joseph Leary. Bundros did not write what he represented as his own.

Falsehoods
Although Bundros describes what he says are Sal Alinsky's "levels of control," fact-checking Snopes says these are not from Alinsky and Snopes can identify no source beyond chain emails. Snopes rates as "false" an email circulating since January of 2104 that attributes these to Alinsky and which includes, nearly word-for-word, the "eight levels of control" cited by Bundros. Snopes discredits it as:

"[A]nother example of a political linking of the names of Saul Alinsky and Barack Obama. It's not something taken from the actual writings of Saul Alinsky, though, and to those familiar with his background it doesn't even sound like something he would have written.  

When the needle on my (amateur) B.S. meter is jumping off the scale, one would expect the seasoned professionals at the News & Record to have been at least a little curious. Curious enough to take two minutes for a web search. It's what they get paid for, right? Editing. It's what distinguishes them as professionals, right?


Anthony Bundros was hoodwinked to mistakenly believe, we assume, the falsehoods he read. Who knows what motives he had for signing his name to something he did not write? But for the News & Record to publish this claptrap, for it to escape their notice that the piece was not only plagiarized but that it also asserted demonstrable falsehoods, is nothing short of malpractice. For them to slap a headline on it that gives the fabrications credence is egregious. Greensboro deserves better.

Cityfi would inspire inventions like this

GREENSBORO, NC -- In our entry to Greensboro's Strong Cities, Strong Communities Challenge, my partner Andrew Brod and I discuss the numerous benefits of city-wide public Wi-Fi. We are calling it Cityfi.

One of the things we suggest is that a city blanketed with public Wi-Fi would make Greensboro a hotbed for innovation and invention, especially for wearables (fitness bands, smart watches, etc.) and for the Internet of Things.

In describing the Internet of Things, we wrote this:

"The Internet of Things generally describes connecting ordinary things to the Internet so that they can convey information about their location or condition. A smoke detector might alert the fire department, for example, or a refrigerator might text to its owner a reminder that it’s out of milk. A municipal environment in which there is pervasive wireless Internet will be an attractive place for the innovators and inventors of such devices."

Today there is news of a company inventing a battery that uses Wi-Fi to bring smoke detectors online. From MIT Technology Review:

"A startup has come up with a simple way to make smoke and carbon-monoxide detectors more useful: a nine-volt battery with built-in Wi-Fi. The battery can alert you on your smartphone if the alarm goes off or the battery itself is about to die."

Nineteen years ago, I made the rounds in Greensboro talking to anybody who would listen about this great thing that was about to explode called the Internet. It is going to revolutionize just about everything, I'd explain to anybody willing to listen. Some people got it.* Some people were way ahead of me, kindly patient with how little I actually knew.

Others, doubtful and not to be convinced, said things like "Why would I need email when I have a fax machine." Really. An important man, rocking back in his big chair behind his polished oak desk actually said that to me.

Sometimes technologies reach a tipping point — a point where it is not hard to see that a significant leap forward—better yet, a wave—is coming. I see the same thing with the new generation of Wi-Fi and I'm hopeful our entry into the SC2 Challenge will do well so that Greensboro will take notice of this: There is a transformative opportunity here. We should prove ourselves vibrant and progressive and take it.



* I continue to have a special fondness for Ed Mathews, the meteorologist from WFMY, because he was one of the early "visionaries" -- one of the first people of influence to say yes in my search for collaborators. I am certain it sounds like no big deal now, but at the time, around 1996, when Ed and I arranged for him to email me the weather forecast twice a day, which I copied, added some graphics to, and pasted "by hand" onto The Wire's local weather web page, it was a pretty damn big deal. Even Ed's employer wasn't online yet, much less with twice-a-day weather.

There were plenty of other people who saw the future too. But not enough of them among the movers and shakers to put us in the fast lane of the nascent Internet industry. On the eve of what would prove to be the decimation of of our textile and furniture industries, there was simply a lack of enthusiasm among the powerful and entrenched economic forces to kickstart Internet related business. I imagine, sometimes, how different things might be now for Greensboro if we had diversified some of our capital and tried to lead in technological innovation.

I hope we do things differently this time. I hope we can see that there is something coming and that it is our chance to reach for something better than the status quo. Better than our fax machines.

.

On Greensboro's next police chief

GREENSBORO, NC -- The City of Greensboro is searching for a new police chief and is soliciting public comments about the traits and qualities they should look for. You can offer your two cents worth with this online form.

Here are parts of my suggestions:

A chief who is sensitive to the problems of technological encroachment on citizens. One who is not enamored with the capabilities of technology to identify, track, monitor and store information about law abiding citizens as they go about their business. One who is confident he or she can provide a high level of public safety while letting law abiding citizens live their lives in obscurity, if that's what they choose. 

and

Transparent. A better understanding of public records law than the previous chief and a sincere willingness to default towards openness on matters where police have discretion on whether or not to make information public. A willingness to be forthcoming with citizens about how they are being policed. 

This chart about Greensboro will shock you

GREENSBORO, NC -- It is common knowledge that pay for women lags that of men in the United States. Nationally, women earn about 78 cents for every dollar a man earns. There are various guesses about why that may be, from gender bias to other possible factors.

Overall, women in Greensboro earn about 83 percent of what men do, but that hides a shocking disparity. Break it down by education, and things look worse — for those with the greatest and the least educational attainment. The chart below illustrates the pay gap between men and women over 25 in Greensboro with information from the U.S. Census Bureau's American Fact Finder. 

Women with a bachelor's degree earn only 78 cents for every dollar a man earns while the most educated, those with a graduate or professional degree, earn just 60 percent of what men with equivalent educational attainment earn in Greensboro.

The pay disparity for women in Greensboro is the worst though for those who do not finish high school, with those women earning 59 percent of what their male counterparts are paid.

The Data

MEDIAN EARNINGS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS
(IN 2013 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS)

Population 25 years and over with earnings, all 
Male: 34,771
Female: 29,056
Female percentage of male:  84%

Less than high school graduate
Male: 23,317
Female: 13,717
Female percentage of male: 59%

High school graduate (includes equivalency)
Male: 26,143
Female: 21,287
Female percentage of male: 81% 

Some college or associate's degree
Male: 29,596
Female: 25,599
Female percentage of male: 86% 

Bachelor's degree
Male: 45,902
Female: 35,754
Female percentage of male: 78% 

Graduate or professional degree
Male: 72,211
Female: 43,178
Female percentage of male: 60% 

You may want to think twice before working for Jimmy Johns

From the Huffington Post:

As Huffington Post reported on Monday, many workers at Jimmy John's sandwich shops have been asked to sign the sort of strict noncompete agreement usually reserved for high-level executives. According to the clause, the worker agrees not to take a job at a competing sandwich shop for a period of two years following employment at Jimmy John's.

The company's definition of "competitor" is rather broad: any business that derives 10 percent or more of its revenue from the sale of sandwiches, and that resides within 3 miles of a Jimmy John's location.

[snip]

 Using the addresses of Jimmy John's roughly 2,000 locations, [Sean] Maday created a map that reveals the effective blackout areas under the restaurant chain's noncompete clause. The red circles indicate zones in which a worker who signed the agreement would technically be forbidden to pursue sandwich-related work:

"We have seen a really flawed campaign from the Fjeld folks"

I have to agree with this assessment from Matthew DeSantis, an assistant professor of political science at GTCC, when he says of Congressional candidate Laura Fjeld:

"We have seen a really flawed campaign from the Fjeld folks."

The demographics of this, the 6th Congressional district (in which I live), make it ideal for a grassroots campaign, but the advantage there goes to Fjeld's opponent, Mark Walker, by a mile.

Fjeld's website invites people to sign up for an email newsletter or to donate money. That is the limited extent of the doors it opens to potential supporters. There is nothing specifically related to volunteering or getting a yard sign. Inquiries sent through the limited generic contact form go unanswered.

Walker's site, by comparison, has a panel on the main page that offers five ways of engaging the campaign. There is a prominent link to volunteer, click it and it suggests numerous possibilities to become involved with the campaign, from going door-to-door to distributing yard signs.

The differences are more than esoteric. I suspect they reveal a difference in approach: Fjeld's as tightly (if not poorly) managed and unapproachable, Walker's as accessible and responsive.

I'm not sure how Fjeld thinks she's going to win, but it's pretty clear she is not doing much to maximize or even enable the efforts of potential supporters. Walker, on the other hand, is clearly interested in leveraging the enthusiasm of supporters to the fullest extent.

My guess is that will be the difference-maker and Fjeld will lose a race she could have won.

Cold fusion?

GREENSBORO, NC -- Let me just say up front, I know it sounds far out. But let us also acknowledge that the history of human kind is of one far out discovery after another, so we shouldn't be surprised by something mind blowing coming along that challenges our understanding of the world. It happens. Just imagine how impossible these discoveries must have seen to their contemporaries:

• That the earth is not the center of the universe.
• That unseen microbes cause disease.
• That a motor can be powered by electric current.
• That matter is made of unseen particles.
• That unseen signals can be transmitted over vast distances through the air.
• That atoms can be split to release huge amounts of energy.

All of these surely seemed crazy or at least hard to believe at the time. Put yourself in the time of those discoveries and it's not hard to imagine a reaction of "Impossible!"

So it will be for us and the next mind-blowing discovery. Which isn't to say that just because something seems crazy or hard to believe it just might be legitimate. Logic doesn't get turned on its head. Things that seem crazy and hard to believe mostly end up being fantasies and hoaxes at their worst or otherwise explainable with current knowledge upon closer inspection. On the other hand, our conventional wisdom is bound to be challenged, really challenged, uncomfortably challenged, sooner or later: Such will be keeping with our story.

So is this seemingly independent verification of what appears to be successful cold fusion—a promise of an energy source beyond anything we have ever known—crazy because it's crazy or crazy because it's a mind-blowing discovery?

N&R Plagiarism

GREENSBORO, NC -- Although they've seemed to avoid it for a little while, the News & Record has resorted, yet again, to publishing the writings of others, word for word, under the byline of News & Record "staff reports." (Previously)

The News & Record did not "report" this. They, like a bunch of others, received the press release from the City of Greensboro. Then they copied it, pasted it and claimed it as their own—and they didn't fact check it, as is evident by them repeating an error of fact that appeared in the press release but that would have been discovered by the most cursory of fact checking.

Here's the "report" as it appeared on the News & Record. The highlighted portions were copied word-for-word from the press release.   
------------------

Vickeé Armstrong new general manager of Greensboro ABC

Staff Reports

GREENSBORO — Vickeé Armstrong has been appointed the new general manager of the Greensboro's Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) Board, according to a news release from the city.

Armstrong is a seasoned senior executive with over 25 years of diverse experience in all sectors of commercial property operations, retail/mixed-use management and development, the release states.

During her career, Armstrong has spearheaded the grand opening of the Mall at Stonecrest, a 1200-acre mixed-use district near Atlanta; was a regional director for Tanger Outlet Centers; general manager at Oak Hollow Mall; and district general manager/development officer with the Virgin Islands Port Authority at Crown Bay Center, a deep water cruise ship port in St. Thomas, Virgin Islands, the release states.

While with the Virgin Islands Port Authority, she improved occupancy from 60 to 100 percent, and initiated a $200 million joint venture development project, while launching numerous other economic impact models throughout the territory, the release states.

ABC Board Members cited Armstrong’s diverse and extensive retail experience, senior level management skills, and familiarity with North Carolina’s ABC industry as important factors in their decision to offer her the position.

Armstong [LOL! They even copied a spelling error.] is a multi international MAXI winner, International SASI winner, a recipient of letters of commendation from both the President of the United States and the Department of the Army for marketing/public relations and support of military personnel and their families during Operation Desert Storm. She holds three ICSC, (International Council of Shopping Centers) designations -- CRX, (Senior Certified Retail Executive) CSM (Senior Certified Shopping Center Manager) CMD (Senior Certified Marketing Director).

She is a graduate of the University of Maryland, attended the International Theological Center in Atlanta, and the John Wesley School of Management in High Point, NC (now Laurel University).

Armstrong assumed her new role on September 29, 2014.

--------------
Here is the original sent by the City of Greensboro:

Vickee’ Armstrong Tapped as General Manager of Greensboro ABC Board

GREENSBORO, NC (October 9, 2014) -- The City of Greensboro Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) Board has appointed Vickeé Armstrong, CRX, CSM, CMD as its new general manager. Armstrong is a seasoned senior executive with over 25 years of diverse experience in all sectors of commercial property operations, retail/mixed-use management and development.

During her career, Armstrong has spearheaded the grand opening of the Mall at Stonecrest, a 1200 acre mixed use district near Atlanta, GA, was a regional director for Tanger Outlet Centers, general manager at Oak Hollow Mall, and district general manager/development officer with the Virgin Islands Port Authority at Crown Bay Center, a deep water cruise ship port in St. Thomas, Virgin Islands. While with the Virgin Islands Port Authority, she improved occupancy from 60 to 100 percent, and initiated a $200 million joint venture development project, while launching numerous other economic impact models throughout the territory.

ABC Board Members cited Armstrong’s diverse and extensive retail experience, senior level management skills, and familiarity with North Carolina’s ABC industry as important factors in their decision to offer her the position. The Board conducted a lengthy public search and interview process for the general manager position.

Armstong is a multi international MAXI winner, International SASI winner, a recipient of letters of commendation from both the President of the United States and the Department of the Army for marketing/public relations and support of military personnel and their families during Operation Desert Storm. She holds three ICSC, (International Council of Shopping Centers) designations -- CRX, (Senior Certified Retail Executive) CSM (Senior Certified Shopping Center Manager) CMD (Senior Certified Marketing Director). She is a graduate of the University of Maryland, attended the International Theological Center in Atlanta, and the John Wesley School of Management in High Point, NC (now Laurel University). Armstrong assumed her new role on September 29, 2014.

Cityfi: City-wide public Wi-Fi for Greensboro

GREENSBORO, NC -- Andrew Brod and I have entered the City of Greensboro's Strong Cities, Strong Communities (SC2) Challenge, the federally sponsored contest soliciting ideas to improve Greensboro's economy. Our proposal is for Greensboro to build on its existing web of municipal fiber optic cables and Wi-Fi hot spots to provide public Wi-Fi throughout the city.

We believe recent advancements in Wi-Fi technologies and this year's approval by the FCC of new radio spectrum for Wi-Fi make this idea a real possibility.

We suggest that the benefits will include:

• Providing internet access to underserved populations.
• Lowering the cost of starting and running a business.
• Inspiring homegrown innovation in wearables, mobile and the Internet of Things.
• Supporting the efforts of Guilford County Schools to better connect students to the educational resources of the Internet.

You can learn more about our proposal at Cityfi.org

N&R flubs take on public records law

GREENSBORO, NC -- News & Record editorial editor Allen Johnson is on the right side of the argument over public access to video recorded by Greensboro Police body-worn cameras. The police are wrong to keep them from public view is his take. I agree. For his devotion to the matter, you would expect Allen to have a degree of familiarity with applicable state law that would keep him from publishing a mistake like this:

"Police records that are considered part of a criminal or internal investigation, or that are placed in an officer’s personnel file, can be concealed."

Although that excuse has been frequently deployed by the police as a reason for denying public access to records, it is not what state law says, which is this:

"The use of a public record in connection with a criminal investigation or the gathering of criminal intelligence shall not affect its status as a public record." [§ 132-1.4(f)]  

That makes perfect sense, of course. Public employees do not get special treatment that would allow their actions to be shielded from the same public documentation other citizens endure. If you or I get arrested, the arrest report is public—the same for public employees. An arrest report doesn't become confidential just because it gets put in a public employee's personnel file. Public records remain public records.

The same goes for records used in criminal investigations. A recording of a call to 911 doesn't lose its status as a public record just because it is also used in a criminal investigation. Those are not just examples of good public policy regarding transparency, they are examples of how the law applies.

The News & Record has the law on its side in these matters, it should get it right when it describes what the law requires, even though—or especially because—it is at odd with what officials assert when withholding these public records.

City panel on cameras informative, but ignores citizen questions

Frayda S. Bluestein

GREENSBORO, NC -- The City of Greensboro sponsored a panel discussion today regarding public access to video recorded by police body-worn cameras, which the City maintains are not public records. It was an informative discussion, but it fell short of its full potential. Despite having previously announced that it would include "time allotted during the panel discussion for questions from the in-person and online audience," according to the City's publicity, the forum was brought to a close without a single citizen's question asked. The City got to ask its questions, but citizen questions were not addressed.

Jan Pritchett

That was a big disappointment, especially since the last half hour or more of the discussion was given over to panelists largely repeating points they'd already made. Nonetheless, there was some very interesting and thought provoking discussion and the video is worth watching if you weren't in attendance and have an interest in these matters. View it here.

Here are the questions submitted by citizens, as provided by the City. Some are just statements and some are off topic, but there are some good questions that, had they been asked, would have made the panel discussion more beneficial.
-------------------------------------

Online questions/comments submitted via e-mail regarding panel discussion on video footage:

Why not put the cameras up and make them public access except in emergencies. The resolution could be easily degraded for public access and enhanced for official business. This could be a draw for downtown.

I believe this is a case of BIG BROTHER watching over us and can easily be miss-used for political control. This threatens to be a gross invasion of personal privacy.

Worst idea I ever heard of. "The Road to Hell is paved with Good Intentions".
We don't need someone making everyone a suspect in a surveillance state

1) Does an actual written policy exist within the GPD and/or City of Greensboro, re: release of body cam video? If there is, what is it? If there is not one, why not?

2) The lack of a concrete written policy and/or guidelines seems to create the impression that any release of video to the public is arbitrary, depending on whether or not the GPD wishes to raise the issue of personnel laws or not. The presumption should be to always release absent a specifically cited exception, not never release unless no loopholes are found.

What is the purpose for this open forum? Are decisions being made or simply discussed? Lastly, what is the potential impact on me as a civilian? Thank you.

Why in the world would you do this? Thank you Mayor Vaughn. If these cameras go up it will be the LAST time I go down town. You will NEVER create a perfectly safe environment. Downtown Greensboro can forget my business coming there if this goes through.period. More reason for malls and outlets to move their business out of the cities.

Please cite for me EXACTLY WHERE in the enumerated powers of the U.S. Constitution, you are given the authority to spy on citizens. We are CITIZENS, not subjects, and the government rules with the CONSENT of the governed. We do not consent to this. If you don't believe it, give us a chance to vote on it!

You would better serve the citizens by providing this panel at a time when most people could attend. That the panelists could not attend at another time tells me you didn't try hard enough to find panelists who could. As for me, I won't be going downtown if the cameras are installed. I view it as a gross invasion of privacy and agree with Mayor Vaughan, I don't want to live in a police state. Thank you, Nancy

Questions/Comments collected during the discussion to be answered by the panelists:

The City records calls to its help line, creating a record that, like body cameras, records interactions between city personnel and the public. The City advises callers that these recordings are public records and has, in fact, released them in response to records requests. How is it that the personnel records exception is applied to body camera recordings, but not help line recordings? Isn’t it just a policy position? (This one was submitted by this blog's author.)

Question for the City Attorney: Has the officer involved in the March shooting of the knife wielding woman, the video of which is being withheld under the guise of personnel records, been asked if he would consent to release of the video?  (This one was submitted by this blog's author.)

If all video is released, how do you prevent a rush to judgment and lynch mob mentality before a full investigation can be completed?

Why should we have to pay or help pay for something we don’t have access to?

Why has the City Council been hesitant on voting for authority over cameras and subsequent footage?

If GPD is adamant about cameras being personnel property, then we must have a citizen review panel.

The personnel argument is weak – just because a record is created with a secondary possible use (officer evaluation) it does not make it a personnel record. How do those advocating this position reconcile that with attempts to apply the exemption in this way completely undermine the transparency objective of wearing cameras?

What is the truth about who funded the camera imitative and whose idea was it to begin with?

The police officers file may not be public information, why not?

GPD wants city-wide surveillance cameras

UPDATE: At the city council meeting, district 3 representative Zack Matheny said, "This is something we should support whole heartedly." District 2 representative Jamal Fox said his only concern was that the program would not be "city-wide" to begin with. Mayor Nancy Vaughan and at-large representative Mike Barber offered the most resistance with other representatives being variably inbetween.

GREENSBORO, NC -- The Greensboro City Council will be asked at its work session today to consider establishing a "city-wide wireless video surveillance camera network" for the Greensboro Police Department. The cameras, described as "patrolling cameras" would have pan, tilt and zoom capabilities and the first proposed locations would include views of single and multi-family residences. Read the proposal.

A proposed location for a GPD "patrolling camera" with pan, tilt and zoom capabilities.

Another proposed location.

Not for the police to decide; city council needs to act

GREENSBORO, NC -- The News & Record is right about video footage captured by the cameras now worn by all Greensboro police officers and for which police policy dictates that every interaction with a citizen is to be recorded: They are the people's property, not the police's.

First, to state the obvious: Based on what police are willing to tell us so far (which isn’t much), the Aug. 4 arrests of two Greensboro men seems petty and excessive.

Less than a block from his home, Rufus Scales, 27, was pinned to the ground and handcuffed for resisting arrest, walking in the middle of a street and “impeding traffic” where there seemed to be none.

Scales’ brother Devin, 22, captured a portion of the incident on camcorder footage that has been posted on the Internet. He pans the camera to show streets with no sidewalks or traffic, then two more police cars arriving.

The camera shakes as a hand suddenly appears in front of the lens and the filming suddenly stops. The officer, T.B. Cole, appears to confirm while on camera why he is arresting Scales: “You cannot just sit there and run your mouth and start cursing in the middle of the street.”

The incident has been seized by police critics as evidence of the mistreatment of some citizens, especially African Americans. It also adds another arrow to the quiver of the mounting argument against the Greensboro Police Department’s insistence on keeping footage shot by officers’ cameras shielded from public view as “a personnel record.”

In a meeting last week with News & Record editors and reporters, Police Chief Ken Miller, interim Chief Anita Holder and the interim city attorney, Tom Carruthers, stood by that interpretation, arguing that to do otherwise would be to break state law. But the footage’s value as a public record should hold greater weight. After all, these are taxpayer-funded recordings of officers’ interaction with the public in public places. Also, we’re talking about a tool that was advertised as a chance to build community trust in police and improve accountability. The city accomplishes neither by keeping such a stubborn grip on the footage, and may, in fact, erode trust in the process.

During the Scales arrests, Cole, a training officer, was not wearing a body camera that is now standard issue for patrol officers. The officers who later arrived on the scene were, but their footage won’t be released to the public or media, either.

State law does allow the city to release such video if city leaders believe doing so is essential to maintaining public confidence in local government. Certainly, in the wake of national tensions following the fatal shooting of a black 18-year-old, Michael Brown, in Ferguson, Mo., this seems like such an instance.

Miller did say last week that Rufus and Devin Scales may see the available footage, but no one else. Meanwhile, to her credit, Mayor Nancy Vaughan has expressed concern that the city invokes the personnel-records defense too often. As for the rest of the council, it remains conspicuously silent.

It had nothing to say when an officer fatally shot a knife-wielding woman in March and refused to release that video. And it has said not one syllable so far in the case of the Scales brothers.

Miller insists, “We have nothing to hide in the Scales case.”

Then, by all means, let’s go to the tape.

So sad

GREENSBORO, NC -- Ed Cone on the News & Record::

The news hole is up for sale, and the opinion section is on autopilot. It is what it is. Move on.

He's right.

Thanks Greensborosports.com

Thanks to the guys at Greensborosports.com for the free tickets to an upcoming Grasshoppers baseball game. I won them by entering one of their ticket giveaways. Here's the entry form for today. Check their site for later days.

Now THIS is journalism! Kudos News & Record

GREENSBORO, NC -- From the News & Record today:

He came back to life, according to a story Bonnke tells, when his wife took the body to one of the crusades.

Some critics are skeptical of that account.

See? Very balanced. A dead man may have come back to life but, maybe not. You decide, it's not a reporter's place to say.

Top notch!

I'm looking forward to these upcoming reports:

Sasquatch may be headed to the N.B.A., critics skeptical.

Flying carpets to become popular mode of transportation, critics skeptical.

Alien spacecraft causing global warming, critics skeptical.

</sarcasm>

This is the kind of tripe the News & Record thinks people will pay to read.

Bill Robinson's fallacies printed as fact in News & Record

GREENSBORO, NC --  The News & Record continues its wretched practice of publishing errors of fact in its letters to the editor. Today, it's this from Bill Robinson of Greensboro:

For those of you under 30 and concerned about jobs and the economy, in 1998 and 1999 the country was spiraling down into recession. Who do you think was [sic] president and first lady?

There was no recession in 1998 or 1999. In fact—you know, real fact, not ideological hallucination—the 1990s were the longest period of growth in U.S. history. The nearest recession was in 2001, George W. Bush's first year in office—a point of fact that would be quite inconvenient to what one assumes is Robinson's "logic."

It would be a simple thing for the News & Record to check the claims of empirical facts asserted in the letters it receives and, when they are wrong, to reject the letters on that basis. Like this:

Dear Mr. Robinson, there was no recession in 1998 or 1999. You are welcome to correct the error and resubmit your letter.

Otherwise, what is the letters page but a comfy home for every crackpot with a mistaken understanding of the world? Isn't that what the Internet is for?

The News & Record: safe haven for mediocre journalists

GREENSBORO, NC -- It's one thing if a reporter might not have had an opportunity to get up to speed on a community's history or has yet to develop his own professional standards. It is quite another thing when a news organization coddles those inadequacies. That's an environment for professional decay.

Robert Lopez writes a piece at the News & Record today that is so sub par, it should not have been published -- if the News & Record itself had any standards.

The story, about the City of Greensboro settling a police officer's discrimination suit for $25,000, suffers from two grave deficiencies, both, unfortunately, not uncommon at the News & Record.

The first is the despicable, deplorable, lazy and amateurish deployment of he said,she said reporting in place of the facts. Renowned journalism professor Jay Rosen has referred to this technique of pitting the claims of one person against another without aligning their claims to available facts as a wholly inadequate vestige of the pre-internet age of journalism. It's too easy for such reports to be revealed as deficient on the web—"lame," Rosen calls them—as is happening here.

When Lopez reports that police officers who sued the city said a lineup book containing their pictures was used to "frame" them and that the former chief of police said otherwise, leaving it at that, Lopez is positioning his reporting as nothing more than stenography, a regurgitation of competing claims and not a source for fact-finding despite widespread public knowledge that such facts exist. Lame.

In fact, the use of the line-up book was thoroughly investigated by the FBI, the SBI and the Department of Justice. None found any wrongful use of the lineup book. The City of Greensboro swore in an affidavit it had no evidence of misuse of the lineup book and, indeed, none has ever been produced. Lopez fails to report these salient facts. Lame.

Lopez also lacks a knowledge of local history and, here, his editors should have helped him out. When Lopez writes that the officer who sued the city claimed that a tracking device was put on his car and claims that his picture appeared in the line-up book, without reporting how those claims align with the facts, Lopez reveals himself to be ignorant of the facts found in the history of this matter. It was widely acknowledged and reported that a tracking device was placed on the officer's car. That's a fact, not just an individual's assertion, as Lopez would have it. Lame.

Additionally, city council members, some still on council (Zack Matheny and Yvonne Johnson), saw the line-up book in question. There are two credible sources with first-hand knowledge who are in a position to say whether or not the officer's picture was in the book. Lopez ignores those sources, leaving the officer's assertion unchecked. Lame.

Lopez reports as if there is no truth, no facts; only assertions. The worst part is that his efforts pass muster with his editors. That is not only lame, it's common practice at the News & Record. It's bad business too and it's bad for the professional development of the reporters who work there. A reporter who wants to be a mediocre journalist and stay a mediocre journalist will find accommodation at the News & Record.

Four great Greensboro law domain names for sale

For sale or lease, collectively or individually, four great search engine-boosting domain names for attorney or law practice.

greensboro-criminal-lawyer.com   
greensboro-dwi-lawyer.com  
greensboro-speeding-ticket-lawyer.com   
greensboro-traffic-ticket-lawyer.com

Send inquiries to admin@altmedia101.com.

Prognostication: Walker prevails in runoff

GREENSBORO, NC -- Based on an examination of the primary turnout and my sense of the race since then, I predict Mark Walker will prevail in tomorrow's Republican runoff for North Carolina's Sixth Congressional district by a margin of 400 to 500 votes.

Barnes & Nobles' stupendously moronic business model

GREENSBORO, NC -- After reading rave reviews of Jon Duckett's Javascript and Jquery: Interactive Front End Web Development, I thought I'd buy a copy. I checked Barnes and Noble's website to see if it was in stock at the Friendly Center store. It was. The price shown was $22.07.

I located the book in the store, but its cover price was $39.98, so I went to the customer service counter to ask about the discrepancy. Before I could even finish my question, the nice lady was nodding knowingly. As she explained, books at Barnes and Nobles are more expensive if purchased in the store.

I must have had quite an expression on my face because the lady responded with, "I know, I know."

"That's really dumb," I said, "now I'm going to leave the store, without making a purchase and go buy it online, probably from Amazon just to further express my displeasure with such gouging." (Alibris looks like a good option.)

"But you can have it today if you buy it in the store," the lady tried to convince me.

Nice try, but an 82% premium for instant gratification just wasn't a selling point.

"And, the money will stay in your community and you'll be supporting your local store," she said.

Yeah, but my local store is trying to stick it to me, that hardly engenders the kind of goodwill that makes me want to support that store.

I buy local plenty, I shop the farmers markets when I can and I prefer independently-owned restaurants and stores to chains; but they aren't gouging their customers. Barnes and Noble, on the other hand, is trying to make a business out of sticking it to local shoppers.

I feel sorry for the people working at the store, but geez o'man, somebody in the chain of command needs to get a clue.

The News & Record stinks so bad

From Joe Gamm in the News & Record today, reporting on the City of Greensboro settling a lawsuit brought by former police officers:

"[Former Police Chief David] Wray resigned in 2006. Plaintiffs alleged he maintained a “black book” that was used to unfairly investigate black officers. Wray contended the department used the book to investigate a sexual assault."

The News & Record continues their atrocious willingness to let competing assertions substitute for fact, but the truth is the realities of the "black book" are far different from what the News & Record portrays. It wasn't just Wray who said the book was a legitimate investigative tool, it was the City of Greensboro, in a sworn affidavit, signed by the very city manager who locked David Wray out of his office, who said the book was compiled for the purpose of solving a crime.

Furthermore, the city also admitted in that affidavit, that it had no evidence of the line-up book being misused. Finally, the use of the book was investigated by the SBI, the FBI and the Department of Justice, all of whom found no improper use of the book. Only one police officer was tried as a result of investigations into the "black book"—for improper use of a federal computer—and he was acquitted.

The News & Record ignores the context of these details and reports the purpose of the black book as unknown beyond the competing assertions of two parties. There is no truth here as far as the News & Record is concerned, they are content to commit what renowned journalism professor Jay Rosen calls the ethical lapse of he said/she said reporting. It makes them look incompetent, or worse, contemptuous.

Opaque "Union Square Campus" demands answers

GREENSBORO, NC -- I have a wish. I wish that someone in our local paid media would stop, take a breath and realize they've gotten ahead of themselves in reporting on what has come to be described as the "Union Square Campus." This project, to be located on publicly owned land at the south sides of the downtown intersection of Elm Streets and Lee Streets, was once considered too contaminated for development until I identified federal funds to pay for for environmental remediation.

Twelve years later (nobody ever accused Greensboro of being supersonic), the site is ready for development and, in the blink of an eye, it has become "Union Square Campus." While the impression created so far is that this will be some sort of satellite campus for area universities, the ownership and money interests have been hard to follow. Instead we've had misrepresentations of the role of project's first building and tortured descriptions like this that are obviously more about hype than clear explanation:

"[A] catalytic higher education development with a first-building focus on training and education for health care professions..."

A catalytic higher education development?

It doesn't help that there is no online resource that describes the project in any detail—no web page, no Wikipedia entry—nothing other than disparate press release-driven announcements regurgitated by local media.

Between few public records, sparse news stories and the rumor mill, there are more questions than answers. Here are some things the professional media ought to clear up for us:

Who will own it?
Currently, the land for the project is owned by the City of Greensboro. Unpublished sources say that a developer was chosen who was to purchase the land but was disqualified for some unknown reason and a new developer was chosen but they have not taken possession of the property. In other words, they haven't purchased it but remain identified as the developer. Who is the intended eventual owner of the land and is the City of Greensboro going to sell it to them at fair market value or will be it be "donated"? Was the developer chosen through an open and fair process in the best interests of the citizens of Greensboro? Who will own the buildings, and not just the first; what is the ownership plan for additional buildings? Who is deciding?

These are matters of fiduciary responsibility of public property. Answers to these questions are of the utmost public interest.

How much is education related? Really.
Supporters hype the project as devoted to education—"A catalytic higher education development"—but only a single building has been described as being education related. Previous discussions and people who claim to know say that the property is also to include apartments and condos as well as commercial and office space.

Is the project being promoted as education related to procure public funding and public support when some portion, if not most of it, will be for other purposes?

Who gets the money?
It has been announced that the first building is to house classroom space, to be rented, hopes are, to local universities. Presumably, there will be other future rents, no matter the purpose of other eventual buildings. To whom will those rents go? Is that arrangement, whatever it may be, in the best interest of the citizens of Greensboro?

The next time reporters type "Union Square Campus" in a story, I wish they'd stop and ask themselves, "How much do my readers know about what this is? How much do I know?"

Councilwoman Hoffman mum on business relationship with city loan recipients

GREENSBORO, NC -- In a recent post about a company receiving city development funds despite being out of compliance with the terms for receiving those funds, I cited local bloggers who claimed that Greensboro City Councilwoman Nancy Hoffman is partners in a separate business with the principals of the company that received the loan, Greensboro Parking Group, LLC. An anonymous commenter questioned the veracity of the claim that Hoffman and the loan recipients are business partners.

So I attempted to verify it directly with Hoffman. After more than a week of multiple emails, to her city account and personal account, and numerous attempts to reach her by phone, including two messages left on her voicemail, I have not heard back from her. If Hoffman is not in business with people to whom she voted to give city funds, it would be a simple thing to say as much—with a phone call or email reply.

Did Hoffman vote to give city funds to business partners (who also happen to have failed to have lived up to their end of the agreement)? People who claim to know say yes. Hoffman, for her part, isn't talking.

Did sitcom producer try to bamboozle city council with fake magazine cover?

GREENSBORO, NC -- In June of last year, the Greensboro City Council approved a loan to Black Network Television (BNT) to help finance a sitcom titled Whatcha Cookin'. When the borrower could not meet the conditions of the loan, city council took the matter up again a month later to consider modifying the terms. That modification was denied. Now BNT is claiming discrimination and suing the City of Greensboro for $50 million.

At the July meeting, when council considered modifying the terms of the loan, a representative of BNT addressed the council as a speaker from the floor. She included a Power Point presentation and recited all of the good things that were happening for the sitcom, including, she said, an article in Upscale Magazine. That claim was accompanied by a slide that showed what appeared to be a cover of the magazine. On it, was a portion dedicated to Whatcha Cookin'. The presentation zoomed in on it to reveal three pictures supposedly from the article and the headline: "BNT Cooks Up Comedy with Whatcha Cookin'."

Here it is the cover as it appeared in BNT's Power Point presentation to the council (click to enlarge):

Here is the real cover  (click to enlarge):

Here is video of the portion of the BNT presentation to council where the Upscale Magazine cover is shown (twice) and described: