Serious question on News & Record's suspect descriptions

GREENSBORO, NC -- When it comes to describing criminal suspects, the News & Record will scrub race from descriptions in police press releases if it deems the descriptions to be otherwise not "complete." Fair enough, that's their prerogative. One might think that as much information as possible, no matter how scant, would aide the public in helping to identify possible criminals—presumably, that's why the police provide the information to begin with—but the News & Record regularly proves itself allergic to inclusion of all the facts, so no real surprise that it would be okay with intentionally withholding public information.

But here's the thing: Why is that delineation made for race but not gender? While the News & Record will take police descriptions that include gender and race and scrub race from what they print, they will still report gender. Even as they cite the lack of "complete descriptions" as the reason for not reporting suspects' race, they will still identify the same suspects as "male."

I question the journalistic purpose of scrubbing anything from police issued descriptions to begin with, but it is truly unfathomable to me why a newspaper would describe "white males" as simply "males." The way I see it, either as much information as is available should be reported or, if characteristics are to be scrubbed because the description is otherwise too broad, then gender should not be reported either. If not "white males," it should be "people." What am I missing? What is the justification for reporting only the gender of suspects when only gender and race are known?

Security vulnerabilities: City's fixed, News & Record's still broken

GREENSBORO -- A quick update on the security vulnerabilities of some local websites reported by this blogger previously. The City of Greensboro has corrected theirs (kudos!). The News & Record has not  (it figures). Their Ad Express still has the security flaw.

News & Record: The myth machine

GREENSBORO, NC -- I really don't know if the News & Record intentionally works to deceive the community or if they are just oblivious. Regardless, they often leave out important details, thus feeding the misunderstandings of a deluded community.

Case in point, this from a N&R article by Dick Barron about the downtown ballpark:

"The Joseph M. Bryan Foundation built the stadium with $12 million of foundation money, a $10 million loan and Jim Melvin."

A version not afraid of all the facts would have included this, which the News & Record avoided:

Melvin not only heads the non-profit Bryan Foundation which funded the stadium, but he had an ownership stake in the team for which the stadium was constructed. The non-profit-owned stadium, built for a cost of $21.5 million in 2005, was sold to the owners of the team for about $12.8 million in 2012. 

Why would the News & Record not include this salient fact in its coverage? Is it interested in factual reporting for the sake of comprehensive understanding or does it cherry-pick information for the sake of crafting myths? Which best serves the people of Greensboro?

Team Matheny fools the News & Record again

GREENSBORO, NC -- Last month, the News & Record published a letter to the editor in support of Zack Matheny, the Greensboro District 3 City Council representative who is running for congress. Although the News & Record failed to identify him as such, the writer of that letter was a paid consultant to Mathney's campaign.

Today, the News & Record publishes another letter in support of Matheny from Tiffany Clark of Greensboro. Clark's husband is Director of Client Engagement for G-force Marketing, a company to which Matheny's campaign has paid over $80,000 this year to market his candidacy.

Clark's relationship to the Matheny campaign was not noted by the News & Record.

Get out of that state you're in

GREENSBORO, NC -- It seems Rhino Times editor John Hammer has some complaints about the News & Record's website.

The Rhino Times, with a website design from 1997, designed and maintained by a junior high school student that doesn't adapt to mobile devices, with archaic photo galleries and commenting system and no RSS feed or social media integration goes unaddressed by its editor, but he has the wherewithal to complain about another media site? Is he just monumentally oblivious or what?

News & Record impugns millions with suspect descriptions

GREENSBORO, NC -- At some point, it is going to dawn on the fogies at the News & Record that they are no longer gatekeepers of information, haven't been for a while now, and that much of what they purport to "report" we have already seen from original sources. Until then, their confusion allows us to catch them red handed subverting the facts in the service of ends other than thorough reporting.

In a press release from the Greensboro Police Department describing the robbery of an individual yesterday, the suspects were described as four "black males." In the News & Record's regurgitation of the press release, they scrubbed some of the detail and described simply "four male suspects."

I've written before of the News & Record's outright deceptions when altering suspect descriptions whereby they falsely explained to readers that descriptions were not available, incomplete or where they simply censored descriptions with no explanation.

Anonymous commenters have defended this practice by saying that it is "irresponsible" to describe suspects with only two or three characteristics because such descriptions potentially describe "millions" of people. How exactly that is irresponsible has not been explained and it implies that the police too must be irresponsible in providing the available details, even if those are "incomplete" descriptions of suspects. Of course, a "complete description" is practically impossible.

It is hilarious though how tightly backed into a corner the News & Record finds itself by pretending they have some professionally justifiable reason for dumbing down their reporting. Today's story is a perfect example.

By describing yesterday's robbery suspects as only "males," the News & Record has committed the very offense it pretends it has been avoiding when scrubbing race from suspect descriptions: They have provided a description that could not possibly be any more incomplete unless they just described the suspects as "people." They have "irresponsibly" provided descriptions that could describe half the population. If there is some theoretical line not to cross where descriptions are too broad to be "responsible," than a description that only provides gender crosses it for sure.

Why did the News & Record describe the suspects as four males instead of four people or instead of four black males?  Maybe there is no legitimate line delineating just enough and too little detail and the News & Record has other good reasons for scrubbing race from suspect descriptions; or maybe there is no good reason.

Records contradict police P. R.

GREENSBORO, NC -- At the conclusion of a months-long intensive traffic enforcement campaign on Battleground Avenue earlier this year, the Greensboro Police Department announced that a "benefit" of the campaign was a decrease in "part 1 index crimes"—the worst offenses, like murder, rape, robbery and auto theft—during the period of the patrols compared to the same period the previous year. Records contradict the claim that crime decreased.

From Greensboro Police Department press release.

It is ludicrous to claim that because two things correspond to each other, one caused the other. Without including other factors that influence crime, such as population and demographic changes, weather, economic conditions and other crime-fighting efforts, it is impossible to credibly say that increased traffic enforcement caused a decrease in crime. It's even worse when the numbers used to come to that conclusion are wrong.

Faulty logic did not stop the media from dutifully regurgitating the claim, however. No surprise there considering local media's lazy preference for stenography over journalism. Nonetheless, it turns out that the claim of a reduction in crime during that period, no matter its cause, is actually contradicted by police records.

Information provided by the police in support of their press release said that there were 24 part 1 crimes within a 1/4 mile of the traffic enforcement area in 2013 and 22 during the same period in 2014.

GPD's list of crimes

Among the crimes in 2014, the GPD said there was one motor vehicle theft. Police records contradict that representation. A search of crimes just on Battleground Avenue alone (not even including the 1/4 mile radius the police said they included) in the confines of the enforcement area (Cornwallis Drive to Horse Pen Creek Road) and only during the hours of operation of the campaign showed there were actually four reports of motor vehicle theft during the period of the enforcement campaign, not one.

They were:

01/16/2014 17:09 Incident Case #: 20140116343
Primary Offense: MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT - AUTOMOBILE 2906 BATTLEGROUND AV

01/30/2014 12:00 Incident Case #: 20140227146
Primary Offense: MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT - AUTOMOBILE 2605 BATTLEGROUND AV

02/12/2014 12:00 Incident Case #: 20140227152
Primary Offense: MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT - AUTOMOBILE 2605 BATTLEGROUND AV

03/03/2014 07:00 Incident Case #: 20140317073
Primary Offense: MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT - AUTOMOBILE 2630 BATTLEGROUND AV

When asked about the discrepancies, Captain John Wolfe, the officer in charge of the enforcement campaign said in an email:

"I can't speak to the numbers specifically as they are generated and reported through our crime analysis unit. I can speak to the methodology but not in this format. I will look into the discrepancies you've noted to determine how they occurred."

With four auto thefts instead of one, the total number of Part 1 crimes actually increased year over year, from 24 to 25. If the correlation-as-causation thinking still applies, one would say that as a result of the traffic enforcement campaign, serious crime rose 4 percent. Of course, the enforcement campaign no more deserves such sloppy blame as it deserved the sloppy credit assigned to it when the numbers were thought to imply something positive.

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.

Pro-Berger Jr. PAC behind attack ads

GREENSBORO, NC -- The News & Record reports that a political action committee has launched attack ads against Republicans running for the retiring Howard Coble's seat in congress. The N&R reports of a mailer attacking Mark Walker and an online video ad attacking Bruce Voncannon.

Although such political action committees (are supposed to) operate independently of candidates, this particular pac, the ironically named Keep Conservatives United, recently conducted a poll in support of candidate Phil Berger, Jr. That the ads target Walker and Voncannon may be an indication of whom the poll found to be the front runners.

News & Record's superficial endorsement of superficial candidate

GREENSBORO, NC -- Is the News & Record even serious any more? In endorsing Greensboro district three city council person Zack Matheny in the Republican primary for United States House of Representatives, N.C. district 6, they ask readers to ignore important issues, ignore the realities of the political climate, local and national, and suggest we join them in a willful suspension of critical thinking.

The News & Record touts what they see as Matheny's:

"[W]illingness to work across party lines for the benefit of the people [he] represent[s]. That approach is sorely needed in Congress."

The fact is, Matheny is a member of a non-partisan city council where party matters so little that the mayor has served on council as a Republican, then unaffiliated and now as a Democrat. Such an environment gives us no indication of how Matheny will operate in the partisan pressure cooker of the U.S. House of Representatives. A better indication is in Matheny's campaign platform and here, the News & Record gives Matheny cover from scrutiny. They write:

"Matheny’s top issue in this campaign isn’t repealing Obamacare, opposing same-sex marriage, banning abortion, denying climate change or impeaching the president — topics that occupy some of the other candidates. It’s finding ways to create more jobs."

In congress, Matheny will have to—we, his potential constituents, will want him to—act on health care, marriage equality, reproductive issues, climate change, economic inequality and more, including budgetary, foreign affairs, defense, and entitlement issues such as Social Security. Yet, the News & Record is asking us to dumb down our examination of Matheny by suggesting that we ignore how he might act on these important issues and, instead, be swayed by rhetoric on "jobs." Voters will be wise not to oblige.

Despite what the News & Record may wish us to ignore, Matheny has staked out some positions that give a better picture than the News & Record's wishful thinking of how he'll operate if elected. No matter one's political inclinations, it will interest voters to know what Matheny has to say on the issues (and on what he has remained silent).

Health Care:
In January, Matheny's website called for an unequivocal repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: "Congress must repeal Obamacare," he wrote. Now, along with some good news about Obamacare, Matheny's website no longer calls for repeal. While he still remains critical of what he calls "government intrusion" in health care and maintains that Obamacare "hurts far more people than it helps," he seems confused about the role of government in health care as he cites as a good example of the delivery of health services the medical testing company LabCorp, which happens to be North Carolina's single largest recipient of Medicare payments (i.e. "government")  — some $157 million in 2012. (As it turns out, LabCorp made a $5,000 campaign contribution to Matheny days before he came to use them as an example on his website.)

I wrote to Matheny, in whose congressional and city council districts I live, to ask if he still opposes Obamacare and why. I also, separately, asked if he supported Republican changes to expand Obamacare signed into law by President Obama. Matheny replied that he was out of town and would get back to me when "time permits." That was two weeks ago. Matheny's views on health care have been inconsistent, confused and self-contradictory. Had the News & Record been serious, it would have explored the implications of Matheny's muddled thoughts on this issue. Voters will.

The Budget:
Matheny promotes a Constitutional amendment "requiring the federal government to balance its budget every year." As with the Affordable Care Act, it's not clear to what extent Matheny has thought this through or his level of commitment as he qualifies his support by saying we should "consider" it.

Taxes:
We'll let Matheny speak for himself here and leave it to the reader to decide if this is something the News & Record would have ignored in a serious endorsement.

"As your Congressman, I will fight for legislation to sunset our current tax code and create a simple, fair, and honest tax system. Our current code is too complex, 70,000 pages and growing every year. No one knows what’s in it, or understands the current system. If we sunset our tax code after 3 years, that gives Congress 1000 days to take out a clean sheet of paper headed 'Fair, Simple, Honest.' "

Education:
Again, Matheny's words themselves are the most illustrative and, again, the reader will evaluate the seriousness of a News & Record endorsement that, in a city with six colleges and universities, ignores Matheny's idea for education:

"We must TEACH FOR THE JOB." [Emphasis in original]  

Guns:
Yet again, another topic on which the News & Record would have had something to say, were they serious. Here's Matheny:

"As your Congressman, I will continue to support gun owners and protect their right to bear arms. Protecting Second Amendment rights is not only a Constitutional issue. Our region has an economic interest to protect these rights as well. Remington Arms has been headquartered in North Carolina’s 6th District for nearly 20 years and Ruger Firearms opened a manufacturing facility in Rockingham County just last year. Guns equal jobs in North Carolina’s 6th District."

Foreign Policy, National Defense, Social Security, Agriculture, Domestic Surveillance, Climate Change, Poverty, Marriage Equality, Reproductive Rights/Abortion, Income Inequality, Civil Liberties, Energy, Trade, etc:
On these issues, Matheny offers no comments on either of his two websites. Yet, silence on these issues is a plus in the minds of the News & Record editors. That should tell you all you need to know about the quality of their endorsement: A superficial endorsement for a superficial candidate.

Another one gets by the News & Record

GREENSBORO, NC - On March 9, 2014, the News & Record published a letter to the editor in support of Congressional candidate Zack Matheny. Although the author was identified merely as Nick Wilkinson from Greensboro, the fact is Wilkinson is a paid consultant to the Matheny campaign. Wilkinson received over $2,300 from Matheny in the weeks prior to the publication of his letter in the News & Record.

From time to time, the News & Record will append information to a letter if it further explains the author's relationship to the issues or parties being discussed. This was certainly a circumstance where such an explanation was warranted. Wilkinson's position as a Matheny campaign consultant should have been revealed.

Campaign reports shed light on Matheny's nonsensical Obamacare objection

GREENSBORO, NC -- Last week I wondered why my Greensboro City Council district representative and congressional candidate Zack Matheny, in explaining his opposition to Obamacare, touted medical testing company LabCorp as a good example of keeping government out of health care delivery, even though, as it turns out, LabCorp is the single largest recipient of Medicare funds in the state, getting some $157 million in government payments in 2012.

Why would Zack have explained his position on government involvement in health care by offering an example that so contradicts his position?

I think I know the answer now. From Matheny's campaign finance report's list of contributors:

$5,000 from LabCorp's political action committee, the maximum legally allowed.

News & Record's irresponsible dissemination of outright falsehoods

GREENSBORO, NC -- What responsibility does the News & Record have to its readers to see to it that outright falsehoods are not disseminated on its pages? Apparently, none.

While people are entitled to their own opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts, but not so on the opinion pages of the News & Record where the editors don't concern themselves with factual accuracy; case in point, a letter to the editor today from one Ned van Buren, in which he writes:

"Buried in the Affordable Care Act are what the Economist magazine (Oct. 5, 2013) describes as death panels designed to “unplug Grandma.” Section 1553 of Public Law 111-148, page 259, tells how the risk of death increases by withholding treatment, but not for the purpose of causing death." 

The claims of fact presented by Mr. Van Buren here are false. The News & Record printed them anyway.

Did the Economist magazine describe death panels "buried in the Affordable Care Act?" No, it did not and it would have been an easy thing, as it was for me, for the News & Record to check, find Van Buren's statement false, and invite him to resubmit his letter without the falsehood. 

What the Economist described, in an article about "Ted Cruz, bomb throwing reactionary," were the fears of some people that the Affordable Care Act would result in "death panels," the scare quotes are theirs. The Economist did not describe such a thing as being in the Affordable Care Act, as Van Buren wrote, it described a fear of such a thing existing in the minds of people: Not in the law, but in some people's minds. Furthermore the term itself—"death panels"—was put in quotes by the magazine to identify it as a catachresis—a strained metaphor—not the Economist's description. Here, read it for yourself:

"Obamacare seeks to insure millions more Americans and rein in sky-high medical costs. Lots of insiders suspect that change will hurt them, whether via higher premiums, skimpier coverage or government 'death panels' with the power to unplug Grandma." 

What about the second part of Van Buren's claim, the confused but seemingly ominous observation that a provision in the Affordable Care Act provides for withholding treatment? Again, the News & Record could have, should have—as I did in two minutes—checked Van Buren's citation to see if it says what he says it does. It does not.

The provision Van Buren "describes," right down to the page number, deals with assisted suicide, specifically PROHIBITING the denial of health care funds to health care providers that DO NOT offer suicide assistance. In other words, it demands the exact opposite of what Mr. Van Buren seems to think it says. It mandates that insurance MAY NOT require services "for the purpose of assisting in causing, the death of any individual, such as by assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing."

From his woefully wrong "facts," it is a short hop for Van Buren to come to his Nazi comparison—fully accommodated by the News & Record.

This should not happen. If the News & Record is going to allow just any claim, no mater how wrong, to appear on its pages, it could save hundreds of thousands of dollars a year by dismissing its editorial staff and just allowing people to post to its Op-Ed pages directly from the internet. Presumably, the News & Record employs editors to add value superior to the cacophony of bull crap that abounds on social media. That value should begin with filtering for blatant falsehoods.

More fact avoidance at the News & Record

GREENSBORO, NC -- The News & Record features, from time to time, "Ask a reporter," in which people submit questions and a reporter answers them... or not. As I was just writing yesterday, the News & Record and, by extension, Greensboro, suffers from a preference to rely on the pronouncements of authorities instead of its own research. Today's "Ask a reporter" is another such example.

A reader asks for the number of traffic accidents within a half a mile of the intersection of Pleasant Garden Road and Liberty Road. Reporter Joe Gamm begins his reply with " We don’t have specific data on accidents at that intersection" and proceeds, in typical fashion, to turn to a spokesperson for a less than precise characterization.

Whatever Gamm meant by "we don't have specific data," the fact is the specific data is readily available online at the City of Greensboro police department's website, with the ability to provide exactly the kind of information the reader asked for, right down to the half mile radius. One would think the News & Record's crime reporter would be aware of this.

It turns out, with five minutes of effort, I was able to determine a precise data-specific answer to the reader's question.

Accidents within a half mile of the intersection of Pleasant Garden Road and Liberty Road
------------------------

Past 12 months: 21

April, 2013: 0
May, 2013: 2
June, 2013: 1
July, 2013: 4
August, 2013: 1
September, 2013: 1
October, 2013: 4
November, 2013: 3
December, 2013: 2
January, 2014: 0
February, 2104: 0
March, 2014: 3

Greensboro hypnotized

GREENSBORO, NC -- This city would be a lot different if we had a decent newspaper, a place where reason and intellectual rigor prevailed. Instead we have a marionette dancing at the ends of strings pulled by entrenched interests, sometimes for good, sometimes not, but rarely independently challenging what it is told with skepticisms and a will to find the empirical truth.

A case in point comes today in an article by police reporter Joe Gamm "reporting" on the results of a period of increased traffic patrols on Battleground Avenue by Greensboro police. Gamm reports:

"The data from Battleground Avenue also showed a drop in crime, with the seven types of crimes tracked — murder, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny and auto theft — decreasing by 8 percent during the campaign, (Greensboro Police Captain John) Wolfe said."

This paragraph is problematic in a number of ways. First of all, it purports to characterize empirical data and yet it is attributed only to a police spokesperson. That's nothing new, unfortunately; the News & Record is loath to check the facts against the pronouncements of authorities. Parroting assertions is one of the least valuable services journalists can perform. Making sure those pronouncements align with the facts is the value the News & Record fails to provide.

Second, it is woefully unclear whether the police are making the claim that each of the types of offenses declined by 8 percent individually or whether that is overall, with some crimes increasing and some declining. A curious reporter would have wondered himself and clarified.

Finally, and most importantly, is that attributing an alleged change in crimes to increased traffic patrols is such sloppy reasoning, the News & Record should decline to report it to begin with. That two things — increased patrols on a particular street and a vague description of a decline of certain types of crime in a unspecified surrounding "area" — imply a cause and effect is not reasonably justified. It is a failure in critical thinking.

Any serious examination of the factors influencing crime cannot examine one possible factor in a vacuum. Weather, economic conditions, population changes, even other public safety efforts such as neighborhood watch efforts, all may have an effect on crime. Correlation is not causation. To attribute a decline in crime to a single particular factor without considering others is a crock.

Here's why it matters. When the police officer in charge of these intensified traffic patrols offers the opinion, as he does, that, "people go back to their old habits after police are gone," he is not only implying that people, by nature, are prone to criminal activity (an insulting and disturbing view of the citizenry), he is also, not so subtly, arguing that we are better off with the intensified patrol efforts he oversees and, thanks to the sloppy and unskeptical reporting of the News & Record, that appears to be so.

Should we, as citizens, support the allotment of police resources for these kinds of traffic enforcement crack downs? Absolutely, I read in the News & Record that they make crime go down!

Without end, we, as a community, are offered these unthinking and doubtful reflections of our community by the News & Record. Although they look like reporting, they are crafted messages intended to manipulate public opinion by self-interested parties using the obliging News & Record as an authoritative conduit to give them a stamp of approval they don't deserve. The result is Greensboro is a community deluded by fictions. The repository of what should be truth and accuracy instead offers us figments and confusion that we mistake for an accurate representation of our reality.

How can a community possibly thrive under the spell of such an illusionist? How can it even survive?

Matheny's rationale for Obamacre objection subverted

GREENSBORO, NC -- I recently noted that my district city council representative Zack Matheny, who is also running for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, is no longer saying on his campaign website that Obamacare should be repealed, as he had in January.

He continues to call it "bad policy" and claims that it "hurts far more people than it helps," but gone is the call for its repeal. Here is how he explains his view now, emphasis added:

"'Obamacare' is a bad policy that hurts far more people than it helps and represents the much bigger problem of overregulation and government intrusion into the lives of US citizens. Companies right here in the 6th district like LabCorp have shown that we can deliver health care services in a cost-efficient manner without getting in-between (sic) you and your doctor."

Aside from the fact that Obamacare is primarily just a means to enroll more people in private health insurance—hardly the "gov'ment" getting between you and your doctor— the News & Record revealed today that LabCorp is the largest single recipient of Medicare payments in the state of North Carolina.

That's right, Zack's example of an alternative to Obamacre thrives because it receives more Medicare payments from the government than any other doctor, practice, hospital or health care provider in the state.

I guess Zack didn't look into that.

News & Record censors police suspect description

GREENSBORO, NC -- The News & Record reported this today about suspects in a robbery. The article was attributed to "staff reports" which is a euphemism for "regurgitated from a press release":

"One of the women was white, had long blonde hair, a piercing over her left eye, was in her 20s and was wearing a light-colored shirt and blue jeans. There were incomplete descriptions for the three men and the second female who asked for the water." 

That is misleading, relying on a very deceptive meaning of "incomplete description." In fact, there were no "complete" descriptions of any suspects — all descriptions were incomplete — but there were other descriptions provided by the police that the News & Record declined to report because they were "incomplete."

Here is the description of the suspects from the GPD press release:

"The black female was described as having a ponytail, wearing a black shirt, black coat and black pants with gold specks. She appeared to be in her 20’s. The white-female was described as having long blonde hair, a piercing over her left eye, and wearing a light colored shirt and blue jeans. She also appeared to be in her 20’s. The white-males were described as wearing tan masks, light colored shirts and blue jeans."

For the News & Record to describe one suspect then decline to describe the others with the explanation that the other descriptions were "incomplete" is disingenuous, at best. None of the descriptions were "complete." The descriptions of the two females had the same level of detail but for the additional description of a piece of jewelry on one of the suspects.  How does it serve the News & Recrod's readers for it to withhold information from them? What purpose does it serve?

News & Record's online security gets an F

GREENSBORO, NC -- Online testing sites report that the News & Records online ad placement, AdExpress, has vulnerabilities in its encryption configuration that earn it an F. Specifically, the testing sites warn of the site using obsolete and insecure protocols.

See: https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=adexpress.news-record.com

and: https://www.wormly.com/test_ssl/h/adexpress.news-record.com/i/70.60.250.66/p/443

City's online payment security gets an F

Update, April 30, 2014: The City has corrected the vulnerability described in this post.

[Update: GlobalSign uses Qualys SSL Labs for its testing, so while both are referenced, they are actually conducting the same test. A subsequent third test, independent of the other two, finds the same vulnerability.]

[Update II: The City Manager responds: He has asked the IT director to review.]

GREENSBORO, NC -- Computer security engineers announced the discover of the "Heartbleed Bug" this week, a computer code vulnerability that can expose information encrypted with the SSL/TLS protocol. This protocol is used to protect passwords and account numbers in web browsers, apps, email and instant messaging.

While wildly deployed, the vulnerability is not universal. It occurs with certain server configurations. There are online tools that will allow you to check an internet domain to see if it is susceptible to the Heartbleed Bug. Here are two:

Qualys SSL Labs
GlobalSign

I tested a few local sites that use encryption for online payments. None were vulnerable to the Heartbleed bug. However, the City of Greensboro's encryption certificate installation for secure.greensboro-nc.gov, where the city accepts online payments for fees ranging from parking tickets to street performer licenses, got an F from both testers.

I am not knowledgeable enough to fully explain the reasons for these scores, but it appears as if there are a few areas of weakness, the most egregious being because the city allows its encryption certificates to use the older SSL2 protocol (in addition to newer ones) that the testing sites label as "insecure." Indeed, there to appear to be a number of vulnerabilities for that protocol, including vulnerability to "man in the middle" attacks where it would seem to the user as if everything is operating normally, but where information is being secretly intercepted by an uninvolved third party.

I've alerted the city of this problem and will post any replies I receive.

Triad City Beat editor chokes on his own vomit

GREENSBORO, NC -- Triad City Beat editor Brian Clarey writes the most disingenuous piece of editorial deception I've read in a long time. Taking on Greensboro city council representative Tony Wilkins' recent attempt to get the city to make public the top salaries of non-profits to which the city contributes, Clarey takes a central fact and turns it on its head so that he can proceed to cast undeserved aspersions on Wilkins and his constituents.

You may recall that the City of Greensboro, as part of lending $1.5 million to the International Civil Rights Center and Museum (ICRCM), asked the museum to provide some information about its finances, including salaries. The city then proceeded, in the interest of public transparency, to make the information it gathered available on the web.

Wilkins used that interest of the city in gathering and making public the salaries of the employees of the ICRCM to try to convince his colleagues to do the same for OTHER non-profits the city funds. Far from targeting the ICRCM for special scrutiny, Wilkins was saying he wanted the same kind of scrutiny for all other city-funded non-profits. In fact, by using the ICRCM as a starting point, he drew into focus the differing treatment the ICRCM received from other non-profits, hardly the kind of hostility towards the ICRCM Clarey would try to pin on Wilkins.

The facts didn't get in Clarey's way though. Ignoring that Wilkins was using the city's treatment of the ICRCM as a starting place to argue for similar treatment of all city-funded nonprofits, Clarey pretended that Wilkins was motivated, not by fairness and equal treatment, but by—fantastically—animosity for the ICRCM and, having puked up that falsehood, Clarey proceeds to use it to discredit Wilkins, his constituents and conservatives in general. Clarey writes:

"The conservatives who make up Wilkins’ cohort have an almost pathological dislike for the ICRCM, which hits the trifecta of extreme right-wing hot buttons: It concerns civil rights, it gets taxpayer support and there are a whole lot of black people involved. If they were handing out birth control in there, one of these wingnuts might just burn it to the ground." 

Of course, Wilkins' attempts to get all non-profits to be treated by the city the same as the ICRCM was treated has nothing to do with dislike for the ICRCM, in fact, it would make no sense for dislike for the ICRCM to motivate Wilkins' to call for them to be treated equitably.

No, what Clarey did is vomit up his own prejudices then choked on them in righteous indignation. It was about as repugnant as watching a drunk throw up too, and just as enlightening.

Bonus: Clarey, at his former post as editor of Yes!Weekly, endorsed Wilkins in his run for council last fall:

"Wilkins represents all the things we like about conservative policy: fiscal responsibility, fair play, free markets. He’s big on transparency, and has shown an open mind and a zeal for finding out how things work since taking his seat. We endorse him with no reservations, save for the suggestion that he continue in this vein..."

Where does Zack Matheny stand on Obamacare?

GREENSBORO, NC -- Greensboro city council representative and sixth district congressional candidate Zack Matheny appears to have shifted his position on Obamacare. In January of this year, he wanted to repeal it. He said on his website then, in no uncertain terms:

"Congress must repeal Obamacare."

Matheny's campaign website, January 9, 2014

Yesterday, the Rand Corporation announced these results of their study of the effects of Obamacare:

"At least 9.3 million more Americans have health insurance now than in September 2013, virtually all of them as a result of the law."

That prompted me, an unaffiliated voter in Matheny's council district and the sixth congressional district, to email Matheny a link to the Rand study and ask why he opposes the law and if his opposition isn't just pandering. (His campaign rhetoric is a departure from from the moderate he appeared to be while serving on city council, so it's hard to know if we are seeing the real Matheny now or if he's just trying to push the right buttons to improve his chances in the Republican primary.)

I also revisited his website and found he has changed his language on Obamacre. He now says this:

"'Obamacare' is a bad policy that hurts far more people than it helps and represents the much bigger problem of overregulation and government intrusion into the lives of US citizens. Companies right here in the 6th district like LabCorp have shown that we can deliver health care services in a cost-efficient manner without getting in-between (sic) you and your doctor. Let’s go back to the adage that government works best when it governs least." 

Aside from the question of just how LabCorp, a medical testing lab, is an example of whatever it is Matheny has in mind for health care, gone is the previous specific language about repealing Obamacare. There is no longer any mention of repeal on his website.

I haven't heard back from Matheny yet, and will post his reply if I do.

Wyndham Championship's 75th year; what a crock

GREENSBORO, NC -- Imagine a wealthy man marries a divorced woman. Her first marriage lasted for 67 years. She and the wealthy man have been married for 7.

Now imagine that the man announces to the world that, on their 8th anniversary, he and his wife will be celebrating 75 years of marriage.

That's just the kind of crock the Wyndham golf tournament is trying to dish up. Coming up on their eighth year of sponsorship of the Wyndham Championship, Wyndham apparently thinks they have purchased the history of what was, for 67 years, Greensboro's golf tournament: originally the Greater Greensboro Open, then the K-mart Greater Greensboro Open, then the Greater Greensboro Chrysler Classic. Greensboro was the rightful and common thread uniting the tournament's storied history. Wyndham deserves no more credit for it than a second husband gets for his wife's first marriage.

Sam Snead did not earn a record setting 8 wins at the Wyndham Championship nor did he become the oldest golfer to win on the PGA Tour at the Wyndham Championship.

Wahoo McDaniel, Evel Knievel,
Bob Bruggers & Lee Travino.

Evel Knievel and Wahoo McDaniel did not play in the ProAm at the  Wyndham Championship.

Fuzzy Zeller did not withdraw from the Wyndham Championship after 21 straight appearances because of controversy over remarks made about newcomer Tiger Woods.

The Greensboro Jaycees did not, for decades, put on the largest Jaycee civic project in the nation at the Wyndham Championship.

No. All of those things happened at the Greensboro Open in one or another of its variational-named iterations. Unlike Wyndham, previous sponsors kept Greensboro in the tournament name. They earned the right to carry the torch of the tournament's history.

The Wyndham Tournament is coming up on its eighth year. Eight. Wyndham began its golf presence here by erasing Greensboro from the name of an historic golf tournament and now they want to pretend they are entitled to retroactively claim its history? To supplant what they've erased with what they seem to think they've purchased? To brand the achievements of others as just another property fully bought and paid for even though they had nothing to do with 67 of its years?

What a crock.


(Hat tip: Knievle, McDaniel ProAm appearance recalled by Ben Holder.)

News & Record changed copyrighted piece without permission

Clarification, from Michael Crowell, the author of the original piece: "I knew they were going to publish it, am glad for papers to do that, did not know they were going to alter it."

GREENSBORO, NC -- There is a letter to the editor in today's News & Record from Michael Crowell, a professor at the UNC School of Government, complaining about the News & Record having published a copyrighted work of his on its editorial pages and editing it without his knowledge or permission. The News & Record attaches a weasley anonymous note to the letter to the editor explaining that the piece was "shortened" to make room for an advertisement. There is no explanation or apology for using the article without permission.

In truth, the News & Record did more than shorten it, substantially, without permission, they also added portions the author did not write and deleted portions that affected the meaning. Here are some selected comparisons of significantly edited portions.

Original:

For the last 30 years North Carolina, like most states, has been making it easier to register and vote. In the early 1980s the only way you could register was to go before an official of the local board of elections in person.

In the News & Record's copy:

For the last 30 years, North Carolina has been making it easier to register and vote. In the early 1980s, you had to register in person at your county board of elections office.

---------------
Original:

Did any of the expanded opportunities to register and vote added since 1980 appreciably affect voter turnout or not?

The answer is not clear cut. In tracking voter turnout with election law changes since 1980 it is hard to discern that any particular election law change has made an appreciable difference in how many people vote. Yes, voting in North Carolina in the last two presidential elections was notably higher than before, but other presidential elections have not brought as many people to the polls, and turnout in non-presidential elections is still as low as ever. It may be that the 2008 and 2012 presidential year jumps are simply anomalies, with unusually high interest, and not indicative of any trend.

In the News & Record's copy:

Did any of the expanded opportunities to register and vote appreciably affect voter turnout?

The answer is not clear. Yes, voting in North Carolina in the last two presidential elections was notably higher than before, but turnout in nonpresidential elections is still as low as ever. It may be that the 2008 and 2012 jumps were anomalies, with unusually high interest.

---------------
Original:

While this review of North Carolina data is not very sophisticated, it is consistent with recent political science research, discussed below, which suggests that early voting may actually decrease voter turnout. The same research shows, on the other hand, that same-day registration and voting can increase turnout somewhat. When done together, early voting and same-day registration neutralize each other. And, as one might expect, factors other than election laws have more to do with how many people vote. 

In the News & Record's copy:

[Removed entirely.]

---------------

Original:

Data about voter turnout and election law changes in North Carolina from 1980 through 2012 is found on this chart... [snip] A list of all elections may be found here.

In the News & Record's copy:

[Removed entirely.]

---------------

Original:

What do the data show about turnout over the 32 years? The chart is a busy document and offers an opportunity for lots of interpretation. Here are a few observations about the data:

In the News & Record's copy:

What do the data show about turnout over these 31 years?

---------------

Original:

Turnout in presidential election years varied little between 1980 and 2000, regardless of the closeness of the contests or any election law change. The turnout percentages for those six elections, and the results of the presidential voting in North Carolina:

• 1980 — 43.9 percent (Reagan edges Carter 49.3 to 47.2 percent)

• 1984 — 48.8 percent (Reagan routs Mondale 61.9 to 37.9 percent)

• 1988 — 43.7 percent (Bush routs Dukakis 58 to 41.7 percent)

• 1992 — 50.1 percent (Bush edges Clinton 43.4 to 42.7 percent)

• 1996 — 44.4 percent (Dole beats Clinton 48.7 to 44 percent)

• 2000 — 49.6 percent (Bush beats Gore 56 to 43.2 percent).

In the News & Record's copy:

Turnout in presidential election years varied little between 1980 and 2000, regardless of the closeness of the contests or any election law change. The low, as noted, occurred in 1988; the high was 50.1 percent in 1992.

---------------

Original:

Possible conclusions?

In the News & Record's copy:

No obvious effects

---------------

Original:

The changes in election law since 1980 do not appear to have appreciably affected voter turnout as a whole.

In the News & Record's copy:

The changes in election law since 1980 have not appreciably affected voter turnout as a whole.

---------------

Original:

In sum, based on this limited analysis, the changes in North Carolina’s registration and voting laws over the last 32 years appear not to have made a significant difference in how many people vote. While it has become  noticeably easier to register to vote, and to stay on the rolls, about the same proportion of citizens go to the polls now as before. It seems more likely that voting depends on factors such as the nature of the election, how much seems to be at stake, the level of media coverage, and how much effort candidates and parties put into identifying and mobilizing their voters. The one state election law change that might be argued to have boosted turnout is the 2007 legislation, repealed in 2013, to extend the  deadline for registering by allowing same-day registration and voting  during the early voting period. With even the most generous assumptions,  however, that change in the law could not be said to account for more than  1.5 percent of turnout.

In the News & Record's copy:

In sum, based on this limited analysis, the changes in North Carolina’s registration and voting laws over the last 31 years appear not to have made a significant difference in how many people vote. While it has become noticeably easier to register to vote, and to stay on the rolls, about the same proportion of citizens go to the polls now as before. It seems more likely that voting depends on factors such as the nature of the election, how much seems to be at stake, media coverage, and how much effort candidates and parties put into identifying and mobilizing voters.

Update (4/4/2014): Title changed for accuracy's sake.