The Reasons for Greensboro 101
Seven years ago, I started Greensboro 101. I was motivated by the fact that Greensboro had a dynamic corp of bloggers who were, in aggregate, a sort of new local media. However, one could not appreciate the full force of their research and commentary because they were dispersed across the internet with no local cohesion. Thus Greensboro 101's core purpose, to aggregate and present in an efficient manner the citizen voices of Greensboro.
Since its inception, there have been a few occasions where I have had to remove a blog's feed from Greensboro 101. Either it was not local, did not allow comments (as required since day one) or suffered some other defect that impeded the proper operation of the site. In all but one of those cases, each blog was restored as the deficiency was rectified or a technically incompatible post aged out of range. In every case, I never censored the blog itself, never removed it from the Internet, never altered its content or made it in any other way inaccessible—just temporarily removed its excerpts from my site.
Keeping it Working
Yesterday, I removed a blogger whose repeated posting of items that were intentionally incoherent made Greensboro 101 look inane. His posts had begun to intrude on the otherwise cogent content of other participants to such a detriment that I judged it to be no longer acceptable.
After some emails and conversations, the blogger and I worked it out. I think he understands the manner in which his posts became troublesome and I think he may even have come to understand that rectifying the problem stands to make him a more effective blogger. His blogs are back on Greensboro 101 and I look forward to the beer he graciously suggested we share.
Mendacious Whiners
The facts of this matter did not stop some other bloggers from slinging mud and impugning Greensboro 101 with false information. Ignoring the legitimacy of the actual reasons for my actions, blogger Joe Guarino made two posts on his blog accusing Greensboro 101 of "censorship." Ignoring the the fact that his and other blogs with points of view with
which I disagree have long remained on Greensboro 101, Guraino claimed I was trying to "silence" the other blogger because of his "political speech." Even Ed Cone chimed in, chastising me for "filtering content."
Again, to be perfectly clear and as is understood by the blogger in question, the issue was not content, but its presentation as an incoherent stream of gibberish. Just as important, my actions in no way debilitated the blogger's blog or interfered with his ability to publish whatever he wanted to to his blog.
I would have made these points at Joe Guarino's blog or Ed Cone's blog, but they both have blocked me from commenting. Censored me, one might say. Yet, Joe wrings his hands and worries about my actions that "this is crazy" and "really a shame." For Ed Cone, it's "a big problem."
Spare me the duplicitous histrionics.
Hypocritical Moochers
Guarino, Ed and all of the other bloggers on Greensboro 101 have enjoyed whatever benefits, meager or immense, they derive from their presence on it through my benevolence and at zero cost to them. It is my mind, my work and my money that made it and keep it operating. Yes, Greensboro 101 would not have a purpose without bloggers; they write their blogs and are perfectly free to do so—no doubt would do so—independent of Greensboro 101, but their inclusion on Greensboro 101 provides some benefit to them at no cost.
I keep Greensboro 101 going for two reasons. The hope that someone with the resources to grow it into something bigger and better will buy it and because, for those people who tune in, I think it serves a useful purpose—makes people smarter and our community a little better. All I ask in return is that those who feed their content through it not muck it up and very, very rarely is that a problem.
No, I ask one other thing: If you rail against moochers on your blog while demanding that I provide my labor and resources to you at no charge as my "civic duty;" if you make misrepresentations to demean Greensboro 101 while benefiting from it; if you impugn its operator by screaming censorship while blocking me from commenting on the blog where you make those allegations, do me a favor and stand up and claim the mantle of hypocrite. Just go ahead and put it on your blog banner: "Joe Guarino, Moocher and Hypocrite."
Thanks.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
WFMY regurgitates another Greensboro Police press release error; 2nd in four days
Twice in four days now, the Greensboro Police Department (GPD) has issued press releases containing errors and both have resulted in local media repeating the errors uncorrected.
Yesterday, the GDP issued a press release on recent crime statistics in which they erroneously said that murders in 2011 were:
Nonetheless, although the table that afforded the opportunity to double-check the GPD's math accompanied the press release, WFMY apparently made no effort to check the official pronouncement and dutifully regurgitated the error, reporting:
To their credit, whether intentional or happenstance, other local media avoided repeating the crime statistic error. Yet these events underscore two troubling circumstances;
Here is the table that accompanied the press release. The average of homicides for the three years prior to 2011 was 17, thus the percentage increase is actually 47 percent, not 32 percent.
Yesterday, the GDP issued a press release on recent crime statistics in which they erroneously said that murders in 2011 were:
"32 percent above the three year average"That's incorrect. The three year average was incorrectly calculated and homicides were actually up 47 percent over the prior three year average according to the GPD's own data (see table below).
Nonetheless, although the table that afforded the opportunity to double-check the GPD's math accompanied the press release, WFMY apparently made no effort to check the official pronouncement and dutifully regurgitated the error, reporting:
"Homicides rose by 32% compared to a three year average."Four days ago, a GPD press release erroneously stated the amount of light that state law requires be transmitted through window tinting. WFMY and WGHP repeated the error from the press release. The GPD press release, the WFMY and WGHP stories all remain uncorrected.
To their credit, whether intentional or happenstance, other local media avoided repeating the crime statistic error. Yet these events underscore two troubling circumstances;
- In both cases, this blogger brought the errors to the attention of the GPD. Neither was acknowledged or corrected. It is troubling that the GPD makes these kinds of math errors to begin with, it is even more concerning when they fail to correct them.
- The media has a duty to fact check the pronouncements people make, doubly so those made by governmental entities. WFMY has a horrendous history of fabrications, errors and plagiarism—the distinction of the worst, far and away, among local media—with which they seem completely unconcerned or unwilling to address.
Here is the table that accompanied the press release. The average of homicides for the three years prior to 2011 was 17, thus the percentage increase is actually 47 percent, not 32 percent.
Monday, February 20, 2012
"Is it ignorance of the Constitution or just plain effete entitlement? "
The News & Record, in their infinite wisdom, does not allow comments on a letter to the editor in which writer Michael Lopez asks about North Carolina college students protesting their right to a college education:
Fortunately, local blogger Dave Ribar is on the case and points out that it is, in fact, Mr. Lopez who is ignorant of his state's constitution—that it does call for free college education.
Still, I'd be careful about how I tell him that.
"Is it ignorance of the Constitution or just plain effete entitlement?"
 |
| Michael Lopez |
Still, I'd be careful about how I tell him that.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
"Greensboro safe for anal intercourse;" self-proclaimed straight men's preoccupations with anal sex
Greensboro blogger Dr. Joe Guarino on Greensboro city council's recent resolution, adopted 8 to 1, opposing the proposed amendment to the North Carolina state constitution that would permanently enshrine prohibitions against same sex domestic unions:
The fixation with the physiology—the ins and outs, if you will—of gay sex, however, gets a lot of attention from self-proclaimed straight men opposed to equal rights for gay people.
North Carolina Pastor Patrick L. Wooten, Sr., a driving force behind the proposed amendment to the North Carolin constitution, discussing his opposition to gay unions:
"[C]ouncil members are apparently determined to make the city of Greensboro safe for anal intercourse.".I once asked Dr. Guarino if he has any committed gay couples as friends. He wouldn't say. I suspect he doesn't, because when one does, it becomes impossible to think that mature loyal adult love is restricted to people of opposite genders; it becomes impossible to reduce one's understanding of gay couples to a dehumanizing abstraction of sex acts.
The fixation with the physiology—the ins and outs, if you will—of gay sex, however, gets a lot of attention from self-proclaimed straight men opposed to equal rights for gay people.
North Carolina Pastor Patrick L. Wooten, Sr., a driving force behind the proposed amendment to the North Carolin constitution, discussing his opposition to gay unions:
"His anus had become a gaping hole."Contributor to the Greensboro Guardian, Tim Duncan writing at Conservatives Underground:
"Homosexuality is destructive to self because it uses the human body in ways that it simple was not intended to be used by nature and nature’s God."Guarino, again:
"[O]ral or anal intercourse has not been sufficient to seal a marriage in our legal tradition. It has had to be vaginal intercourse, or else the marriage has been at risk of annulment."Supporters of domestic unions for gay and lesbian people talk about things like human love, commitment, and legal equality. Only among the straight opponents does anal sex take on significance. Not only is that kind of weird but it leaves one wondering how that is an argument in favor of impinging on the rights of lesbian couples. Maybe it's not an argument at all, just a preoccupation.
Friday, February 17, 2012
WFMY, WGHP erroneous reports follow bad GPD press release
WGHP and WFMY got their facts wrong on stories about illegal window tinting. They repeated an error that was in a Greensboro Police Department press release. (The error was brought to the attention of the GPD by this blogger, but went uncorrected—remains uncorrected.) The press release reads, in part:
Thus WFMY erroneously reported (see the video for additional fun—even though Tanya Rivera speaks the error to a police officer who corrects her, the mistake still makes it into the written story.):
"State traffic law makes window tinting illegal when applied to front and/or side windows when the total light transmittance is blocked by 35% or less."That's incorrect. State law says:
"The total light transmission of the tinted window shall be at least thirty‑five percent (35%)."So the GPD press release should have read that window tinting is illegal when light transmittance is 35% or less, not when "blocked by 35% or less" (which doesn't even make sense if you think about it because that would make windows where light is blocked by 0% illegal because 0 is less than 35).
Thus WFMY erroneously reported (see the video for additional fun—even though Tanya Rivera speaks the error to a police officer who corrects her, the mistake still makes it into the written story.):
"In North Carolina, it's illegal to have your front and side windows block 35% or more light."WGHP got it wrong too. They reported (on their website):
"Window tenting becomes illegal in North Carolina when (sic) front or side-windows when more than 35 percent of outside light is being blocked."The News & Record and News 14 Carolina got it right, both reporting with identical sentences:
"State law makes window tinting illegal when the total light transmitted through the front or side windows is 35 percent or less."
Raleigh, Budapest. Eh, whatever; close enough for WFMY
WFMY News 2 illustrates a story about a cop accused of paying a teenager for sex with this photo:
Wow! Look at that! Is that a scene from the streets of Fayetteville where the alleged crime occurred? The streets of Raleigh where the officer is from? No.
See the sign in the background?
"Hungaroring."
It's a race track outside of Budapest, Hungary—which, for you regular WFMY viewers, isn't even in North Carolina.
Wow! Look at that! Is that a scene from the streets of Fayetteville where the alleged crime occurred? The streets of Raleigh where the officer is from? No.
See the sign in the background?
"Hungaroring."
It's a race track outside of Budapest, Hungary—which, for you regular WFMY viewers, isn't even in North Carolina.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Jordan Green on Pollyanish economic proclamations
Jordan Green is right about Greensboro's economic development tunnel vision:
"The 'green shoots' motif that pervades this latest op-ed piece obscures more truth than it reveals. Its positivist spin might be geared towards obtaining desirable outcomes by highlighting potential, but I would argue instead that it demobilizes the political will to address poverty and unemployment by reassuring elite decision-makers that the city is on the right course."Revealing metaphors aside, there is some encouraging empirical data in Debbage's report:
- Guilford County's high school dropout rate is one of the lowest in the state: 2.81%
- Teen pregnancy rate down from 56 to 41.7 (per thousand) from 2006 to 2010.
- Infant mortality down from 10.6 to 9.5 (per thousand) from 2006 to 2010.
"It is easy to accuse those who’ve spent years selflessly volunteering to make Greensboro better of colluding for personal gain through crony capitalism, but reasonable people understand that enlightened self-interest and altruism often go hand in hand."
The demise of Harris Teeter
I love to cook, so I prepare most of our meals and therefore, do the grocery shopping. For a long time, Harris Teeter used to be my go-to grocery store. Their now steady combination of skyrocketing prices, diminishing quality and shrinking selection have me finally saying "enough and good-bye."
The HT produce selection is often inferior and, when there are quality items, they are just plain expensive. Their practice of putting items on sale only after having jacked up the "regular" price the week before is annoying. A $7 bag of rice on sale for $6.49 when its regular price was $4.99 a week prior is an irritating affront.
Their insistence on packaging meats in larger than necessary quantities is unacceptable. Ground meats routinely come in quantities of one and a quarter pound (when most recipes are by the pound) and chicken breasts come three to a package (too bad if you are a family of two or four). That's not helpful to people trying to shop efficiently; it's hostile to the needs of consumers.
Now they have reduced the available generic and store brands. I predict their demise is imminent.
I've found that we eat less when we are eating homemade meals cooked with fresh quality ingredients and The Fresh Market provides the proper combination of quality at a reasonable price. When a satiating meal is either $6 worth of fish sticks or $7 worth of fresh hook-caught flounder, there's no dilemma.
I shop The Fresh Market for fish not raised on a farm in China, deli meats and cheeses and quality fruits and vegetables, many of them organic at no premium, unlike HT where organic can add 30 percent to 70 percent to the cost. The Fresh Market's fresh meats are top notch, but need to be purchased on sale and frozen to be economical.
For things that come in a box, bag, jug or can (spaghetti, flour, orange juice, tuna, etc) Lowe's and Food Lion now suffice.
The HT produce selection is often inferior and, when there are quality items, they are just plain expensive. Their practice of putting items on sale only after having jacked up the "regular" price the week before is annoying. A $7 bag of rice on sale for $6.49 when its regular price was $4.99 a week prior is an irritating affront.
Their insistence on packaging meats in larger than necessary quantities is unacceptable. Ground meats routinely come in quantities of one and a quarter pound (when most recipes are by the pound) and chicken breasts come three to a package (too bad if you are a family of two or four). That's not helpful to people trying to shop efficiently; it's hostile to the needs of consumers.
Now they have reduced the available generic and store brands. I predict their demise is imminent.
I've found that we eat less when we are eating homemade meals cooked with fresh quality ingredients and The Fresh Market provides the proper combination of quality at a reasonable price. When a satiating meal is either $6 worth of fish sticks or $7 worth of fresh hook-caught flounder, there's no dilemma.
I shop The Fresh Market for fish not raised on a farm in China, deli meats and cheeses and quality fruits and vegetables, many of them organic at no premium, unlike HT where organic can add 30 percent to 70 percent to the cost. The Fresh Market's fresh meats are top notch, but need to be purchased on sale and frozen to be economical.
For things that come in a box, bag, jug or can (spaghetti, flour, orange juice, tuna, etc) Lowe's and Food Lion now suffice.
Monday, February 13, 2012
WFMY, exaggerators extraordinaire
WFMY's Mark Ingraham:
It's a common trick of the lazy "reporter:" Find some scam or controversy happening elsewhere or circulating by email chain letter, get a local expert to comment on it, then act as if, "We are just reporting this expert's warning" when really, all the expert was doing was responding to the reporter's prompting. What would you tell people to avoid this scam that I just told you about and may or may not be actually happening here?
Is the scam happening in Guilford County? No such thing is reported in the story and parts of the report sound a lot like they were borrowed from other sources. From Ingram's report:
U
WFMY News is not a news organization. They are a broadcaster of commercials who think you are so stupid all they have to do is find sensational crap to push your buttons in between the car ads to get you to pay attention. They think you're dumb, and if you rely on them for news, you are.
"Now, comes a warning on how they're using jury duty to trick you out of your personal information"Where does the warning come from? WFMY themselves, it appears. In other words, WFMY is not reporting news, they are fabricating titillation. What unfounded fear can we agitate people with today?
It's a common trick of the lazy "reporter:" Find some scam or controversy happening elsewhere or circulating by email chain letter, get a local expert to comment on it, then act as if, "We are just reporting this expert's warning" when really, all the expert was doing was responding to the reporter's prompting. What would you tell people to avoid this scam that I just told you about and may or may not be actually happening here?
Is the scam happening in Guilford County? No such thing is reported in the story and parts of the report sound a lot like they were borrowed from other sources. From Ingram's report:
"Investigators remind you that as a rule court officers respond to prospective jurors through the mail and never ask for confidential information over the phone."From Maricopa County, Arizona:
"As a rule, court officers never ask for confidential information over the phone; they generally correspond with prospective jurors via mail."It's pathetic and made more reprehensible in the context of WFMY's too familiar history. It is reminiscent of Ingraham's previous faked video of the mythical "black book," a colleague's made up story of violent flash mobs in downtown Greensboro and other fabrications, errors and plagiarism masquerading as news.
U
WFMY News is not a news organization. They are a broadcaster of commercials who think you are so stupid all they have to do is find sensational crap to push your buttons in between the car ads to get you to pay attention. They think you're dumb, and if you rely on them for news, you are.
Friday, February 10, 2012
What's going on at the "local" daily?
I wondered if yesterday's lament about the lack of local stories on the News & Record website was due to a fluke, so I checked again today. Of the twelve headline stories, exactly one is from within Guilford County.
- Update: Planned Pisgah Forest burn postponed (Pisgah Forest)
- N.C. police charge teen with counterfeiting cash (Conover)
- Store worker charged with stealing $237K worth of electronics (Reidsville)
- Big Four players head ACC legends class (Atlanta)
- Why Bank of America is the new Citigroup (New York)
- Davidson teacher from 'Extreme Makeover' succumbs to cancer (Davidson)
- Former police officer charged in theft of his own art (Apex)
- Former Raleigh resident plans to plead guilty to kidnapping girl in '87 (New York)
- Durham firefighter climbs Empire State Building (New York)
- UNC says no to gender-neutral housing (Chapel Hill)
- Funeral set for Reidsville police officer who unexpectedly died (Reidsville)
- Greensboro Partnership outlines to-do list (Greensboro)
The mind of the pragmatic moderate
The occasional portrayal of pragmatic moderates as wish-washy is a gross misunderstanding by people who are usually themselves rigid ideologues.
I read this last night in a book given to me by my sister in-law. I think it goes a long way towards explaining the thinking of the pragmatic moderate, at least this one:
I read this last night in a book given to me by my sister in-law. I think it goes a long way towards explaining the thinking of the pragmatic moderate, at least this one:
"Fear of harm ought to be proportional not merely to the gravity of the harm, but also to the probability of the event."Indeed, I think that's a wise way to think about public policy. As the author adds:
"Any decision relating to risk involves two distinct and yet inseparable elements: the objective facts and the subjective view about the desirability of what is to be gained, or lost, by the decision. [O]nly the pathologically risk-averse make choices based on the consequences without regard to the probability involved. [O]nly the foolhardy make choices based on the probability of an outcome without regard to its consequences.
Bernstein, Peter L. Against the Gods, the Remarkable Story of Risk
Thursday, February 09, 2012
So, as I was saying about the News & Record
What's "news" at the News & Record today?
The communications director from a political action committee came to town and attempted to influence the decision-making of Greensboro's city council Tuesday night with misinformation.
She cited what she said was information from a reputable polling organization in order to sway council to a decision favorable to the position of the PAC. It did not take much skepticism—much of a feel for Greensboro—to think, "That doesn't sound right." Unless you are a stenographer.
This blogger researched the PAC official's claims, found them to be lacking and wrote about it. Another blogger picked it up, did some more research and raised some more questions. Finally, a third blogger made contact with the communication director and ferreted out the truth. All under the nose of and without the help of, or even any mention by, the professionals at Greensboro's daily.
But that owl is cute.
- Top story: An AP report about expectations for rising beef prices.
- An AP story about Lorillard profits
- A picture of an owl from the NC Zoo
- An AP story about a man run over by a truck in Robeson County
- An excerpt from another website about the death of a Reidsville police officer.
- An AP story about coyotes in Charlotte
- A video of a Charlotte school bus on fire
- Photos from last night's Duke/Carolina game
- A regurgitated press release about a local lottery winner.
The communications director from a political action committee came to town and attempted to influence the decision-making of Greensboro's city council Tuesday night with misinformation.
She cited what she said was information from a reputable polling organization in order to sway council to a decision favorable to the position of the PAC. It did not take much skepticism—much of a feel for Greensboro—to think, "That doesn't sound right." Unless you are a stenographer.
This blogger researched the PAC official's claims, found them to be lacking and wrote about it. Another blogger picked it up, did some more research and raised some more questions. Finally, a third blogger made contact with the communication director and ferreted out the truth. All under the nose of and without the help of, or even any mention by, the professionals at Greensboro's daily.
But that owl is cute.
Vote for Marriage NC communications director explains deception
Ed Cone reached Rachel Lee, the communications director for Vote for Marriage NC and asked her about the misinformation she conveyed to the Greensboro City Council Tuesday night. Here is Ed's account of the conversation:
-------------------
-------------------
She said that on Tuesday, as she was rushing out the door for a television interview, a coworker gave her a spreadsheet with a lot of numbers on it.
This led to confusion. The numbers she attributed to PPP in Greensboro were actually, she said, from Civitas and for Charlotte.
She says poll numbers for Greensboro are actually 61% for Greensboro and 66% for the Piedmont. A comment from her coworker in the thread below this post indicates that these numbers also come from Civitas, not PPP.
I asked her if my reading of the amendment is correct, that it would outlaw civil unions in North Carolina.
She said the amendment defines marriage.
I repeated my question about outlawing civil unions. She said she was in a hurry, but civil unions already are not legal in this state.
I said, OK, but since you are in a hurry, could you tell me, yes or no, if this amendment would indeed make civil unions unconstitutional in North Carolina.
She said, I'm calling you back in reference to the poll question.
I said, So you will not answer the question, yes or no, would this amendment make civil unions unconstitutional in North Carolina?
She said, You have a good day, Ed, bye, and she hung up.
For and against Amendment One, speakers from the floor
Excerpts of speakers from the floor at the February 7, 2012 Greensboro, North Carolina city council meeting addressing the council's consideration of a resolution opposing Amendment One, the proposed amendment to the North Carolina Constitution that would prohibit domestic or civil unions.
The resolution passed by a vote of 8 to 1. Voting in favor were Vaughan, T. Dianne Bellamy Small, Nancy Hoffman, Zack Matheny, Marikay Abuzuaiter, Jim Kee, Yvonne Johnson and mayor Robbie Perkins. Voting against was Trudy Wade.
Lex's letter to Vote for Marriage NC communications director
Lex Alexander sent the following to Rachel Lee, the communications director for Vote for Marriage NC yesterday. (Hyperlink added)
Ms. Lee:
As a longtime Greensboro resident and taxpayer, I'm curious as to why you apparently stood up last night and attempted to influence our city's public policy by saying something that you either 1) knew to be false, or 2) recklessly asserted was true without having done your due diligence.I'm referring to your assertion that Public Policy Polling -- a respecting polling operation, and deservedly so in my experience -- had polled Greensboro residents on Amendment 1 and that 70% of respondents supported the amendment. As you no doubt know by now if you did not know last night, no such poll has been conducted by PPP nor, as nearly as I can tell from both web and commercial database searches, anyone else.So I'd like to know: How is it that you came to be standing in front of my City Council and saying something that was utterly untrue in an attempt to get them to reject a resolution that was in opposition to your position?A prompt response would be appreciated.Sincerely,Hooper "Lex" Alexander IV
Wednesday, February 08, 2012
Vote for Marriage NC communications director makes misrepresentations to Greensboro City Council
[UPDATE: Via Matt Comer, Public Policy Polling tweeted about Lee's falsehood: "Not sure what that refers to. We have not done a poll of Greensboro residents." See below.]
At last night's Greensboro city council meeting, Rachel Lee spoke to the council from the floor. Lee identified herself as communications director of Vote for Marriage NC, a political action committee supporting Amendment One, the proposed amendment to the North Carolina constitution that would outlaw civil and domestic unions.
Lee said:
December 9, 2011 January 12, 2012, does not provide specifics for Greensboro. It does break out results for area code 336, which includes Greensboro, Guilford County and fourteen other surrounding counties, an area extending from Asheboro north to the Virgina state line and from Burlington west to the Tennessee state line, hardly a sampling of Greensboro.
Nonetheless, within this expanse, the poll found that56% 53%of respondents favor some sort of domestic union for gay and lesbian people, either marriage or civil unions.
Thankfully, the council ignored the mendacious Lee.
At last night's Greensboro city council meeting, Rachel Lee spoke to the council from the floor. Lee identified herself as communications director of Vote for Marriage NC, a political action committee supporting Amendment One, the proposed amendment to the North Carolina constitution that would outlaw civil and domestic unions.
Lee said:
"70 percent of citizens here in Greensboro support the marriage protection amendment (sic) as cited by Public Policy Polling."In fact, the latest poll from Public Policy Polling, released on
Nonetheless, within this expanse, the poll found that
Thankfully, the council ignored the mendacious Lee.
On Amendment One, Nancy Vaughan's finest moment
I believe this was Greensboro City Council representative Nancy Vaughan's finest moment on council, as she explained last night her opposition to Amendment One, the proposed amendment to the North Carolina Constitution that would ban civil and domestic unions.
"Our state constitution should be amended very carefully, it should be not used as a weapon to marginalize any population." — Nancy Vaughan
Tuesday, February 07, 2012
Mayor's justification for ending small groups policy bogus
On January 17, 2012 the Greensboro City Council voted 8 to 1 to revoke the policy that had required public notice when small groups of city council people were meeting with city staff. Mayor Robbie Perkins tried to assuage concerns that revoking that policy would put the public in the dark by saying that public records will still exist of council/staff conversations. He said during the discussion to the acting city manager (04:52:10):
I made a records request for all emails reporting Mayor Perkins' contacts with staff since he took office. I received two from December. None for January. Either Mayor Perkins has only had two conversations with city staff in two months or he was mistaken that an alternate public record is available.
Council voted to rescind a policy that had made the actions of city council public and transparent based, at least in part, on an illegitimate expectation. Will this just fall to the wayside as so much lip service or will council institute a policy that corrects their move towards secrecy?
"If I call someone at Water & Sewer and ask them a question, they are obligated to call your office or report that Robbie Perkins has talked to them and give the subject."The acting city manager replied, "It's typically email."
I made a records request for all emails reporting Mayor Perkins' contacts with staff since he took office. I received two from December. None for January. Either Mayor Perkins has only had two conversations with city staff in two months or he was mistaken that an alternate public record is available.
Council voted to rescind a policy that had made the actions of city council public and transparent based, at least in part, on an illegitimate expectation. Will this just fall to the wayside as so much lip service or will council institute a policy that corrects their move towards secrecy?
Two priorities for the new News & Record editor
The News & Record has hired a new executive editor, Jeff Guager. If the guy is worth his salt, he probably already has a lengthy to-do list. Hear are two that should be priorities, the first should be his first:
1. Have your reporters stop being stenographers. We can read the press releases ourselves on blogs and social media. We can hear and see the assertions of people promoting their interests on Youtube and websites. We don't need intermediaries for those; we don't need professional regurgitators of the pronouncements of the self-interested, we need you to check them out and align them with the facts if necessary. A reporter who is unwilling or incapable of operating without a big fat dose of skepticism should be reassigned to the society page.
2. Shake up your online department. It is simply ridiculous that for nearly a year now requests for a mobile edition of the website have been met with "We are working on an app, but we don't have the money; we are behind schedule but are working on an app."
A mobile version of a website does not require an app. It is simply a modified web design. If WFMY can do it, so can you. Get some people with design and programming skills and get out of their way. [Note, I said people with design and programming skills, not really good Drupal users.] Yes, make some apps too—this decade would be good.
Putting your best content behind a Google-proof wall is not smart either. People still link to such content, but the search engines don't find it.
1. Have your reporters stop being stenographers. We can read the press releases ourselves on blogs and social media. We can hear and see the assertions of people promoting their interests on Youtube and websites. We don't need intermediaries for those; we don't need professional regurgitators of the pronouncements of the self-interested, we need you to check them out and align them with the facts if necessary. A reporter who is unwilling or incapable of operating without a big fat dose of skepticism should be reassigned to the society page.
2. Shake up your online department. It is simply ridiculous that for nearly a year now requests for a mobile edition of the website have been met with "We are working on an app, but we don't have the money; we are behind schedule but are working on an app."
A mobile version of a website does not require an app. It is simply a modified web design. If WFMY can do it, so can you. Get some people with design and programming skills and get out of their way. [Note, I said people with design and programming skills, not really good Drupal users.] Yes, make some apps too—this decade would be good.
Putting your best content behind a Google-proof wall is not smart either. People still link to such content, but the search engines don't find it.
Propaganda puppet
You know what does not make newspapers and reporters valuable? Regurgitating propaganda. From the News & Record today:
Li & Fung is recognized as the world’s leader in consumer goods design, development, sourcing and distribution.Really? Recognized by whom? The parroting reporter doesn't say, although Li & Fung makes that claim word for word on their website; but so does this company.
Monday, February 06, 2012
"Wade ignores this basic point"
Fecund Stench on Greensboro City Council representative Trudy Wade's press release in support of Amendment One:
The same-sex amendment, while seeking to re-affirm the existing statute which ensures that marriage can only legally exist between a man and a woman of legal age, also seeks to proscribe civil unions/domestic partnerships. By the wording of her letter, Wade ignores this basic point.
Part 2: Davenport & Smith, pro and con on NC's Amendment One
At the invitation of Greensboro Guardian editor Charles Davenport, Jr., I engaged in a writing pro/con with him over Amendment One, a proposed amendment to North Carolina's constitution. This is my piece in opposition, Davenport's piece in favor is here.
______________________________________
Americans are proud of our traditions. Perhaps none stands out as more American than that of liberty and justice for all. It was a promise delivered to us on our founding and one which has served as a guiding light through our history. Not always in a straight line, but with an eventual inevitability America has shown itself willing to abandon the familiar to fulfill its better ideals. We relinquished the norms of black people as chattel, women unworthy of voting and the criminalization of private acts between consenting adults. Generation after generation, Americans have moved forward in order to live up to the legacy of our Constitution.
The history of North Carolina's constitution reflects a similar tradition. It has been modified to abolish poll taxes, permit women to serve as jurors and to secure the rights of married women to manage their own property. While advancements were not without occasional interruptions, such as when the North Carolina Constitution was modified to require racial segregation in public schools, North Carolina ultimately moved towards more equitable liberty.
This is our tradition as Americans and North Carolinians—an eventual, if not consistent, strengthening of freedom and equality. Efforts to marginalize people or diminish rights have never gained a permanent foothold. The proposed “Amendment One,” on which North Carolina voters will vote this May, proposes the kind of step backwards that is contrary to this tradition.
Amendment One begins with “Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman...”. Were this the totality of the proposal, a discussion about marriage might be fitting.
Such discussion, however, is a diversion from the most serious implications of Amendment One which says in its entirety that marriage between one man and one woman “is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.” With that prohibition against any other type of domestic union, this amendment goes beyond defending marriage and establishes a mean-spirited barrier against consenting adult couples of the same sex ever having even approximate equality with heterosexual couples.
In the mind of some, I imagine, the response is, “Good!” They would outlaw homosexuality itself if they could. Absent that, a spiteful wielding of the heavy hand of government to keep gays and lesbians from becoming equal participants in society will suffice.
People not motivated by such hatred, however—even the most stalwart conservatives—will recognize that this amendment is at odds with our common values. Allowing two consenting adults to join in a legally binding union is not simply just and fair, it is good for society.
At Conservative Underground, contributor to the Greensboro Guardian, Tim Duncan writes of marriage:
Few people openly advocate for a cruel relegation of homosexuals to second class status. Many conservatives even say they want gays and lesbians to have equal rights. As Charles Davenport, Jr., publisher of the Greensboro Guardian writes:
This is our generation's moment to demonstrate a commitment to North Carolina's best traditions. Like the misguided generations that used the state's constitution to enshrine school segregation or secede from the union, we too can be an aberration or we can rise to meet the responsibilities of the great legacy of our ancestors, stand with tradition and reject Amendment One.
__________
Roch Smith, Jr. is a website designer living in Greensboro. A fervent supporter of free speech and diversity of opinion, he built and maintains Greensboro101.com . His personal blog is at roch101.blogspot.com. He thanks Charles Davenport, Jr. for his counterpoint in this important discussion.
______________________________________
Americans are proud of our traditions. Perhaps none stands out as more American than that of liberty and justice for all. It was a promise delivered to us on our founding and one which has served as a guiding light through our history. Not always in a straight line, but with an eventual inevitability America has shown itself willing to abandon the familiar to fulfill its better ideals. We relinquished the norms of black people as chattel, women unworthy of voting and the criminalization of private acts between consenting adults. Generation after generation, Americans have moved forward in order to live up to the legacy of our Constitution.
The history of North Carolina's constitution reflects a similar tradition. It has been modified to abolish poll taxes, permit women to serve as jurors and to secure the rights of married women to manage their own property. While advancements were not without occasional interruptions, such as when the North Carolina Constitution was modified to require racial segregation in public schools, North Carolina ultimately moved towards more equitable liberty.
This is our tradition as Americans and North Carolinians—an eventual, if not consistent, strengthening of freedom and equality. Efforts to marginalize people or diminish rights have never gained a permanent foothold. The proposed “Amendment One,” on which North Carolina voters will vote this May, proposes the kind of step backwards that is contrary to this tradition.
Amendment One begins with “Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman...”. Were this the totality of the proposal, a discussion about marriage might be fitting.
Such discussion, however, is a diversion from the most serious implications of Amendment One which says in its entirety that marriage between one man and one woman “is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.” With that prohibition against any other type of domestic union, this amendment goes beyond defending marriage and establishes a mean-spirited barrier against consenting adult couples of the same sex ever having even approximate equality with heterosexual couples.
In the mind of some, I imagine, the response is, “Good!” They would outlaw homosexuality itself if they could. Absent that, a spiteful wielding of the heavy hand of government to keep gays and lesbians from becoming equal participants in society will suffice.
People not motivated by such hatred, however—even the most stalwart conservatives—will recognize that this amendment is at odds with our common values. Allowing two consenting adults to join in a legally binding union is not simply just and fair, it is good for society.
At Conservative Underground, contributor to the Greensboro Guardian, Tim Duncan writes of marriage:
“When the passions of mankind are constrained within an institution that directs these passions into positive, constructive ends – building a home, raising and providing for a family, training up the next generation – and away from negative, destructive ends – wildcatting around, no financial or emotional stability, disorder caused by sexual competition and jealousy – then stable social systems can be maintained, along with all the good things like education, prosperity, technology, and the rest that come about as a result of social stability.”Indeed; and when a segment of the population is denied participation in stable social systems, they and society at large are diminished.
Few people openly advocate for a cruel relegation of homosexuals to second class status. Many conservatives even say they want gays and lesbians to have equal rights. As Charles Davenport, Jr., publisher of the Greensboro Guardian writes:
“[M]ost of us would support extending to gay and lesbian couples many of the rights traditionally associated with marriage: commingling of finances, hospital visitation and the like."There are over a thousand rights and responsibilities conferred by traditional marriage that cannot, even with extraordinary effort, be acquired piecemeal. In truth, genuine equal participation by homosexuals in society's stabilizing systems requires a state recognized legal union. Amendment One, in saying that marriage between a man and a woman “shall be the only domestic union,” establishes an insurmountable barrier to equal participation in stable society for gay and lesbian people.
This is our generation's moment to demonstrate a commitment to North Carolina's best traditions. Like the misguided generations that used the state's constitution to enshrine school segregation or secede from the union, we too can be an aberration or we can rise to meet the responsibilities of the great legacy of our ancestors, stand with tradition and reject Amendment One.
__________
Roch Smith, Jr. is a website designer living in Greensboro. A fervent supporter of free speech and diversity of opinion, he built and maintains Greensboro101.com . His personal blog is at roch101.blogspot.com. He thanks Charles Davenport, Jr. for his counterpoint in this important discussion.
Part 1: Davenport & Smith, pro and con on NC's Amendment One
At the invitation of Greensboro Guardian editor Charles Davenport, Jr., I engaged in a writing pro/con with him over Amendment One, a proposed amendment to North Carolina's constitution. This is his piece in favor, my piece in opposition is here.
________________________________________
The debate concerning North Carolina’s proposed Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA) could be perceived as a clash between the accumulated wisdom of centuries (traditional marriage), and the accumulated “wisdom” of, relatively speaking, the past 15 minutes (gay marriage).
Champions of gay marriage are quick to condemn the “religious zealotry” of those who defend traditional marriage, presumably because traditionalists are imposing their morality on innocent bystanders. (The harm inflicted by such imposition remains unclear.) But of course, gay marriage enthusiasts (who are the minority) are imposing upon the rest of us (the majority) a vision of their own: a secularist, “non-judgmental” worldview, the disciples of which are instantly recognizable because of their flamboyant self-righteousness and sense of moral superiority.
Still, a concession is in order: overtly religious arguments are indeed promptly tuned out and ignored by a significant percentage of citizens, including some conservatives. Fortunately, there are other, equally persuasive arguments in favor of traditional marriage.
Let us consider three: recognition of and obedience to norms; respect for natural law, and reverence of tradition. Supporters of the MPA may not use these precise terms, but they are familiar with the concepts innately, or intuitively.
The late Russell Kirk, a founder of the modern conservative movement, was a prolific and profoundly influential writer. Norms, natural law, and tradition are recurring themes in his work. Kirk defined a norm as “an enduring standard” of public and private conduct, and “a law of nature which we ignore at our peril.” Norms exist in all places and at all times, regardless of whether the individual approves of or abides by them: “A norm endures in its own right, whether or not it gives pleasure to particular individuals.” Homosexual relations—and by extension, gay marriage—are abnormal, in the sense that they are a violation of established norms.
In his acclaimed volume, The Conservative Mind, Kirk identified natural law as a tenet of conservatism: “Belief in a transcendent order, or body of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience.” Natural law, then, is “a loosely knit body of rules of action prescribed by an authority higher than the state. These rules…are derived from divine commandment; from the nature of mankind; from abstract reason; or from long experience of mankind in community.” Aristotle, Cicero, St. Thomas Aquinas, Edmund Burke, and C.S. Lewis would concur.
Kirk delivered a warning pertinent to this debate: “When many persons ignore or flout the natural law for human beings, the consequences presently are ruinous—as with the unnatural vices that result in the disease of AIDS….” Note that there is a distinction between natural law as it pertains to man, and the laws of nature; animal behavior is irrelevant to the behavior of human beings. As Kirk wrote in Enemies of the Permanent Things, “There is law for man, and law for thing; the late Alfred Kinsey notwithstanding, the norm for the wasp and the snake is not the norm for man.”
Tradition is the means by which ancestral wisdom is transmitted to the present generation, and the institution of marriage as a union between one man and one woman is long-established. The hubris--the arrogance and conceit--of those willing to abandon centuries of human knowledge and experience in order to conduct a radical social experiment is astonishing.
Opponents of the MPA argue that it would institutionalize “discrimination” against gays and lesbians. Here is a fine example from Mayor Robbie Perkins, as quoted in today’s News & Record: “Greensboro wants to be looked at, in my view, as a place that is progressive and accepts all people and doesn’t tolerate discrimination.” We anticipate childish platitudes from liberals, who cater to intellectual peasants; such language from an elected official with an “R” after his name is mortifying.
Must we abandon North Carolina’s existing marriage law, which discriminates against youth, polygamy, and bigamy? Must we also repeal laws that discriminate against pedophilia, theft, and worse? “Discrimination,” an emotional term with a negative connotation, is utilized as a club to bludgeon into silence those who might otherwise dare to differ with enlightened progressives. Do not be silenced.
A couple of centuries ago, Edmund Burke, the celebrated British statesman, observed that “the individual is foolish. The multitude is foolish; but the species is wise.” Traditional marriage is among the pillars of civilization, and our disposition must be to preserve institutions centuries in the making. The burden of proof is on the radical social engineer, and the case for gay marriage has not been convincingly made.
______
Charles Davenport Jr. is the editor of The Greensboro Guardian. He applauds Mr. Smith for accepting his invitation to debate the marriage amendment. “Pro-Con” is likely to become a regular feature—a forum for serious contemplation of the issues.
________________________________________
Champions of gay marriage are quick to condemn the “religious zealotry” of those who defend traditional marriage, presumably because traditionalists are imposing their morality on innocent bystanders. (The harm inflicted by such imposition remains unclear.) But of course, gay marriage enthusiasts (who are the minority) are imposing upon the rest of us (the majority) a vision of their own: a secularist, “non-judgmental” worldview, the disciples of which are instantly recognizable because of their flamboyant self-righteousness and sense of moral superiority.
Still, a concession is in order: overtly religious arguments are indeed promptly tuned out and ignored by a significant percentage of citizens, including some conservatives. Fortunately, there are other, equally persuasive arguments in favor of traditional marriage.
Let us consider three: recognition of and obedience to norms; respect for natural law, and reverence of tradition. Supporters of the MPA may not use these precise terms, but they are familiar with the concepts innately, or intuitively.
The late Russell Kirk, a founder of the modern conservative movement, was a prolific and profoundly influential writer. Norms, natural law, and tradition are recurring themes in his work. Kirk defined a norm as “an enduring standard” of public and private conduct, and “a law of nature which we ignore at our peril.” Norms exist in all places and at all times, regardless of whether the individual approves of or abides by them: “A norm endures in its own right, whether or not it gives pleasure to particular individuals.” Homosexual relations—and by extension, gay marriage—are abnormal, in the sense that they are a violation of established norms.
In his acclaimed volume, The Conservative Mind, Kirk identified natural law as a tenet of conservatism: “Belief in a transcendent order, or body of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience.” Natural law, then, is “a loosely knit body of rules of action prescribed by an authority higher than the state. These rules…are derived from divine commandment; from the nature of mankind; from abstract reason; or from long experience of mankind in community.” Aristotle, Cicero, St. Thomas Aquinas, Edmund Burke, and C.S. Lewis would concur.
Kirk delivered a warning pertinent to this debate: “When many persons ignore or flout the natural law for human beings, the consequences presently are ruinous—as with the unnatural vices that result in the disease of AIDS….” Note that there is a distinction between natural law as it pertains to man, and the laws of nature; animal behavior is irrelevant to the behavior of human beings. As Kirk wrote in Enemies of the Permanent Things, “There is law for man, and law for thing; the late Alfred Kinsey notwithstanding, the norm for the wasp and the snake is not the norm for man.”
Tradition is the means by which ancestral wisdom is transmitted to the present generation, and the institution of marriage as a union between one man and one woman is long-established. The hubris--the arrogance and conceit--of those willing to abandon centuries of human knowledge and experience in order to conduct a radical social experiment is astonishing.
Opponents of the MPA argue that it would institutionalize “discrimination” against gays and lesbians. Here is a fine example from Mayor Robbie Perkins, as quoted in today’s News & Record: “Greensboro wants to be looked at, in my view, as a place that is progressive and accepts all people and doesn’t tolerate discrimination.” We anticipate childish platitudes from liberals, who cater to intellectual peasants; such language from an elected official with an “R” after his name is mortifying.
Must we abandon North Carolina’s existing marriage law, which discriminates against youth, polygamy, and bigamy? Must we also repeal laws that discriminate against pedophilia, theft, and worse? “Discrimination,” an emotional term with a negative connotation, is utilized as a club to bludgeon into silence those who might otherwise dare to differ with enlightened progressives. Do not be silenced.
A couple of centuries ago, Edmund Burke, the celebrated British statesman, observed that “the individual is foolish. The multitude is foolish; but the species is wise.” Traditional marriage is among the pillars of civilization, and our disposition must be to preserve institutions centuries in the making. The burden of proof is on the radical social engineer, and the case for gay marriage has not been convincingly made.
______
Charles Davenport Jr. is the editor of The Greensboro Guardian. He applauds Mr. Smith for accepting his invitation to debate the marriage amendment. “Pro-Con” is likely to become a regular feature—a forum for serious contemplation of the issues.
Wednesday, February 01, 2012
Off the deep end II: Greensboro needs a good conservative blogger
Blogger Joe Guarino used to be a legitimate representative of Guilford County's conservatives. However strident or extreme, he used to be taken seriously most of the time (when he wasn't attacking Presbyterians or repeating rumors of rumors of rumors).
That's gone. Now his years of blogging effort have culminated in a perpetual vomiting of rash flights of fantasy. I suppose that's what happens when one insists on supplanting thought with unyielding dedication to preconceptions. Some recent examples.
With Guarino gone off the deep end, Greensboro could use a blogger who can articulate the positions of the right in a reasoned manner. Will anybody step up?
That's gone. Now his years of blogging effort have culminated in a perpetual vomiting of rash flights of fantasy. I suppose that's what happens when one insists on supplanting thought with unyielding dedication to preconceptions. Some recent examples.
- Guarino blows off a suggestion that the ACLU might help a Guilford County conservative who is being unfairly treated by the County Commissioners as his commenters mock the ACLU as "communists" and "socialists."
Verily: The ACLU, shortly thereafter, sides with the conservative and sends a letter on her behalf to the County Commissioners. - Guarino writes that the reason the local press did not report on the marital tribulations of a Greensboro Republican mayoral candidate but the national press did report on marital history of a Republican presidential candidate is because the presidential candidate is more conservative, his conservatism attracting the scrutiny—according to Guarino.
Verily: The local media did not report on the marital histories of any of the local candidates, even those more conservative than the mayoral candidate. - Guarino goes off on Greensboro's mayor for not attending a Republican gubernatorial candidate's campaign announcement, writing:
When the Republican mayor skips the announcement of the presumptive Republican gubernatorial nominee in his own city, it cannot be interpreted as anything but disrespect.
Verily: The mayor had a longstanding commitment to a prior engagement with the Greensboro's largest organization of young professionals.
With Guarino gone off the deep end, Greensboro could use a blogger who can articulate the positions of the right in a reasoned manner. Will anybody step up?
Painfully exquisite
Writing so exquisite it hurts.
Thomas Wolfe in You Can't Go Home Again, describing a face he sees day after day in a window across the street from his apartment:
Thomas Wolfe in You Can't Go Home Again, describing a face he sees day after day in a window across the street from his apartment:
And now, to his store of treasured trivia was added the memory of this man's face--thick, white, expressionless, set in its stolid and sorrowful stare. Immutable, calm, impassive, it became for him the symbol of a kind of permanence in the rush and sweep of chaos in the city, where all things come and go and pass and are so soon forgotten. For, day after day, as he watched the man and tried to penetrate his mystery, at last it seemed to him that he had found the answer.
And after that, in later years, whenever he remembered the man's face, the time was fixed at the end of a day in late summer. Without-violence or heat, the last rays of the sun fell on the warm brick of the building and painted it with a sad, unearthly light. In the window the man sat, always looking out. He never wavered in his gaze, his eyes were calm and sorrowful, and on his face was legible the exile of an imprisoned spirit.
That man's face became for him the face of. Darkness and of Time. It never spoke, and yet it had a voice--a voice that seemed to have the whole earth in it. It was the voice of evening and of night, and in it were the blended tongues of all those men who have passed through the heat and fury of the day, and who now lean quietly upon the sills of evening. In it was the whole vast hush and weariness that comes upon the city at the hour of dusk, when the chaos of another day is ended, and when everything--streets, buildings, and eight million people--breathe slowly, with a tired and sorrowful joy. And in that single tongueless voice was the knowledge of all their tongues.
"Child, child," it said, "have patience and belief, for life is many days, and each present hour will pass away. Son, son, you have been mad and drunken, furious and wild, filled with hatred and despair, and all the dark confusions of the soul--but so have we. You found the earth too great for your one life, you found your brain and sinew smaller than the hunger and desire that fed on them--but it has been this way with all men. You have stumbled on in darkness, you have been pulled in opposite directions, you have faltered, you have missed the way--but, child, this is the chronicle of the earth. And now, because you have known madness and despair, and because you will grow desperate again before you come to evening, we who have stormed the ramparts of the furious earth and been hurled back, we who have been maddened by the unknowable and bitter mystery of love, we who have hungered after fame and savoured all of life, the tumult, pain, and frenzy, and now sit quietly by our windows watching all that henceforth never more shall touch us--we call upon you to take heart, for we can swear to you that these things pass.
"We have outlived the shift and glitter of so many fashions, we have seen so many things that come and go, so many words forgotten, so many flames that flared and were destroyed; yet we know now we are strangers whose footfalls have not left a print upon the endless streets of life. We shall not go into the dark again, nor suffer madness, nor admit despair: we have built a wall about us now. We shall not hear the docks of time strike out on foreign air, nor wake at morning in some alien land to think of home: our wandering is over, and our hunger fed. 0 brother, son, and comrade, because we have lived so long and seen so much, we are content to make our own a few things now, letting millions pass."
What you should know before buying ebooks from Barnes and Noble
While most of the ebooks I have been reading on the Nook tablet are open source classics, I recently purchased one from the Barnes & Noble store. Then I discovered something very disappointing.
Although Barnes & Noble books are in the open ePub format, B&N locks them down with "Digital Rights Management," which means the book you purchased, in an open source format, cannot be read on anything other than a Barnes & Noble device.
Now that's a brilliant business decision: Incentive your customers to get their books from other sources. I could have purchased the same book for the same price from Google ebooks, readable on multiple platforms.
This combined with B&N's decision to lock down the Android operating system to prohibit loading of Android apps not approved by and sold through B&N are astoundingly shortsighted.
If you own Barnes & Noble stock, sell it. What once looked like B&N's salvation will be their doom, I'm sorry to say.
Although Barnes & Noble books are in the open ePub format, B&N locks them down with "Digital Rights Management," which means the book you purchased, in an open source format, cannot be read on anything other than a Barnes & Noble device.
Now that's a brilliant business decision: Incentive your customers to get their books from other sources. I could have purchased the same book for the same price from Google ebooks, readable on multiple platforms.
This combined with B&N's decision to lock down the Android operating system to prohibit loading of Android apps not approved by and sold through B&N are astoundingly shortsighted.
If you own Barnes & Noble stock, sell it. What once looked like B&N's salvation will be their doom, I'm sorry to say.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
"His anus had become a gaping hole"
An interview with North Carolina Pastor Patrick Wooden, a driving force behind Amendment One, the ballot measure that would enshrine in North Carolina's constitution a prohibition against gay marriage and civil unions.(HT: Fecund Stench)
Friday, January 27, 2012
Skip Alston's mind-numbing misunderstanding of the U.S. Constitution
County Commission chairman Skip Alston on Guilford County's policy of restricting media presentations by citizens at public meetings, via Yes Weekly!:
Despite his superfluous misrememberance of fifth grade civics, Alston reveals precisely why he is on the wrong side of the issue and why the North Carolina ACLU has sided with Riddleberger: In the United States of America, government officials cannot exercise prior restraint of speech. Without a dire compelling public interest, the government or its agents, no matter how arrogantly ignorant or self righteous, may not decide in advance that what someone may be about to say is to be prohibited.
For Alston to think that what Riddlerberger wanted to say was equivelant to FALSELY yelling fire in a crowded theater, is an admission that he is engaging in the very prior evaluation of her message the Constitution prohibits. Heck, he even says as much:
“You can’t yell fire in crowded movie theater"Yes, you can—if there is a fire. Which is what Jodi Riddleberger was trying to do when the Chairman—the mousy commissioners having already voted to prohibited media presentations during speakers from the floor—refused to put her on the agenda.
Despite his superfluous misrememberance of fifth grade civics, Alston reveals precisely why he is on the wrong side of the issue and why the North Carolina ACLU has sided with Riddleberger: In the United States of America, government officials cannot exercise prior restraint of speech. Without a dire compelling public interest, the government or its agents, no matter how arrogantly ignorant or self righteous, may not decide in advance that what someone may be about to say is to be prohibited.
For Alston to think that what Riddlerberger wanted to say was equivelant to FALSELY yelling fire in a crowded theater, is an admission that he is engaging in the very prior evaluation of her message the Constitution prohibits. Heck, he even says as much:
“As far as content, I think there should be some kind of restrictions on freedom of speech.”Whether Riddleberger's message is true or false, annoying or flattering, the Chairman has no right to intervene and those who can stop the Chairman's misbehavior should do so. If it's not going to be the other commissioners, it's going to be a judge—to Guilford County's unnecessary expense and embarrassment.
Coble to run for 15th term
Congressman Howard Coble announced today that he will run for a 15th term in the 6th district of North Carolina.
ACLU sides with C4GC against Guilford County Commissioners
Yes Weekly! is reporting:
ACLU of North Carolina Legal Director Katherine Lewis Parker expresses concerns about the constitutionality of the Guilford County Commission's proposed citizen multi-media presentation policy in a letter to the board today:
The American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina Legal Foundation ("ACLU-NCLF")was contacted last week by Guilford County resident Jodi Riddleberger ("C4gc"). Ms. Riddleberger has requested our assistance in connection with a recent decision by the Guilford County Board of Commissioners ("the Board") to ban any and all multimedia presentations during prescribed public comment periods of Board meetings. After conducting an initial investigation, we have concerns that your Board is violating Ms. Riddleberger's rights under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
It appears that the county's actions with regard to Ms. Riddleberger, as well as the passage of the ban on multimedia presentations during public comment period constitute violations of the First Amendment. First, we believe that the general requirement that individuals can show videos only if approved and placed on the agenda is an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech. [Roch: That's what I thought too] Further, Chairman Alston's specific comments and actions against Ms. Riddleberger suggest that these new rules, while they appear to be content neutral, are a thinly-veiled disguise for impermissible content discrimination, or even viewpoint discrimination....
[more]
Brad Miller for Governor?
North Carolina congressman Brad Miller announced he will not seek reelection to the newly gerrymandered seat that would have pitted him against a fellow Democratic incumbent. Miller has always struck me as a dedicated and smart representative and one who, without knowing his personal perspective, would not be dropping out of politics for good—not by his own volition anyway.
Assuming Miller is scanning the landscape for another political opportunity, is there anything on the horizon more promising than North Carolina's governorship now that Democratic incumbent Bev Perdue has announced she will not run? Miller would make a good challenger to sitting Democratic senator Kay Hagan in two years, but he'd be the underdog. On the other hand, he would start a campaign for Governor as a top-tier contender. I won't be surprised if he throws his hat in the ring.
Assuming Miller is scanning the landscape for another political opportunity, is there anything on the horizon more promising than North Carolina's governorship now that Democratic incumbent Bev Perdue has announced she will not run? Miller would make a good challenger to sitting Democratic senator Kay Hagan in two years, but he'd be the underdog. On the other hand, he would start a campaign for Governor as a top-tier contender. I won't be surprised if he throws his hat in the ring.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Project Gutenberg
If you have an eReader, such as a Kindle or a Nook, you might want to take a look at Project Gutenberg. You've probably heard of it—the website that makes available books in the public domain—but if you haven't visited it yet, or lately, you might wanna. They now have over 38,000 free ebooks—classics, science fiction, detective stories, children's literature, philosophy, technology and more.
You don't have to have a reading device either, many of the book are available in PDF, but for a better reading experience, I recommend ebook in the open ePub format. You can read ePub books (and many other formats too) on your PC with the excellent and free Calibre.
If you visit Project Gutenberg on a mobile device, you will automatically be treated to their superior mobile interface. You can hit it from a PC here.
You don't have to have a reading device either, many of the book are available in PDF, but for a better reading experience, I recommend ebook in the open ePub format. You can read ePub books (and many other formats too) on your PC with the excellent and free Calibre.
If you visit Project Gutenberg on a mobile device, you will automatically be treated to their superior mobile interface. You can hit it from a PC here.
Calibre eBook Manager & Reader for PC
Calibre ebook management and reader for the PC (Windows, OSx, Linux) is great software for better management of eReader books, with native support for just about any kind of device (list here). For Nook users, just the ability to rename files and metadata of ebooks downloaded to a device (cover art, tags, etc.) is worth it alone—these features regrettably absent from the Nook.
There is a bit of a learning curve—not too bad, I went from download to finish in about an hour—but it's worth it in order to:
There is a bit of a learning curve—not too bad, I went from download to finish in about an hour—but it's worth it in order to:
- Safely backup books from an eReader to your PC.
- Edit metadata for better organization and nicer cover art.
- Search for books from multiple sellers with a single click
- Convert books between formats.
Off the deep end
Fecund Stench on Joe Guarino:
Only someone so diabolical could think to use our least unfortunate for criticism of public projects paid for out of his taxes. He commits a logical fallacy by supposing that the Aquatic Center was constructed for such purposes, but camouflages with the implied arguments that the homeless are unclean and can’t afford to swim there, with the corollary allusion to the poor in general.
[snip]
Conflating the swimmers with the homeless is a gross misrepresentation of the responsible governance which has addressed the needs of both groups of citizens. The social retards no doubt think the notion humorous, but such a highly contrived expression of intolerance is the very definition of evil.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Local currency? Harumph!
The News & Record's Doug Clark is down on the idea of a local currency. To the idea that merchants may offer a discount for using the local bucks, he writes:
Similarly, I'm going to stop shopping at merchants who offer coupons in the News & Record, because I'm penalized for not using them.
If they do, they'll lose my business. In effect, that would be penalizing me to pay with dollars.Harumph! That'll show 'em!
Similarly, I'm going to stop shopping at merchants who offer coupons in the News & Record, because I'm penalized for not using them.
Intimidating college student voters
Fretting that Greensboro college students are going to swing an upcoming vote on a proposed performing arts center, one commenter demands:
"Anyone who cannot produce a NC ID with a an actual NC local residential permanent address is not eligible to vote."That's wrong. Aside from the fact that, year after year, the university precincts in Greensboro consistently have the fewest number of voters voting anyway, and have never been a significant factor in any local vote, North Carolina election law is quite clear about the eligibility of out-of-town college students being allowed to register to vote in North Carolina. As Democracy North Carolina explains:
Let us hope that people do not start promulgating misinformation in an effort to intimidate college student voters.
- You can declare your old address (probably your parents’ address) as your home, because that’s where you return periodically; in that case, you may register and vote in your old hometown.
- Or you can declare your new address as your home, because that’s where you return, day after day; in that case, you may register and vote in your new town.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
SOLVED: Windows XP will not read USB mass storage device.
PROBLEM: Attempting to read a USB mass storage device (SDHC card, flash drive, memory stick, camera card, Nook tablet, etc) on a Dell Vostro 1500 laptop computer running Windows XP with service pack 3, results in the contents of the drive not being readable. Although the drive is assigned a drive letter and shows up in Windows Explorer, attempting to open the drive results in the following message: "The disk is not formatted. Do you want to format it now?"
Device manager will report the device as healthy but with an unknown file system.
I will not speculate about why this fix works, all I know is that hours of searching the internet yielded no clear explanation for how to fix this problem:
CAUTION: The fix described below is what finally, after many, many dead ends, worked for me. I make no guarantees that it will solve the problem you are experiencing nor am I responsible for any additional problems it may cause. Try at your own risk.
Having said that...
THE FIX:
1. In Windows explorer, navigate to C:\WINDOWS\system32\drivers
2. Find the file fastfat.sys
3. Rename it to fastfat.sys.bak
4. Restart you computer
Try out a device in a USB port. Can you read it? If so great. If not, then this fix wasn't for you. Sorry, I know it's frustrating. If the fix did not work, you may change the name of the renamed file back to its original.
[With apologies to my regular readers, this post describes a technical fix missing from the Internet and is void of my usual commentary or news. It was written in an attempt to be easily found in search engines.]
Device manager will report the device as healthy but with an unknown file system.
I will not speculate about why this fix works, all I know is that hours of searching the internet yielded no clear explanation for how to fix this problem:
CAUTION: The fix described below is what finally, after many, many dead ends, worked for me. I make no guarantees that it will solve the problem you are experiencing nor am I responsible for any additional problems it may cause. Try at your own risk.
Having said that...
THE FIX:
1. In Windows explorer, navigate to C:\WINDOWS\system32\drivers
2. Find the file fastfat.sys
3. Rename it to fastfat.sys.bak
4. Restart you computer
Try out a device in a USB port. Can you read it? If so great. If not, then this fix wasn't for you. Sorry, I know it's frustrating. If the fix did not work, you may change the name of the renamed file back to its original.
[With apologies to my regular readers, this post describes a technical fix missing from the Internet and is void of my usual commentary or news. It was written in an attempt to be easily found in search engines.]
Friday, January 20, 2012
My email to the ACLU of North Carolina
I sent this to the ACLU of North Carolina today. You can send them your opinion too.
I am a resident of Greensboro, NC. I am not a member of the groupConcerned Citizens for Guildford CountyConservatives for Guilford County (C4GC), in fact I do not often find myself in agreement with their opinions and objectives. Nonetheless, I share their concerns regarding the recent actions of the Guilford County Board of Commissioners to limit what may be presented at public meetings, actions which I think, in my layman's opinion, constitute unconstitutional prior restraint of speech based on its content (and in the specifics of C4GC's complaint, speech that would be constitutionally allowable in any case).
Although the County attorney is quoted in the News & Record as saying the prohibitions are legal because they only control time and manner, the policy actually demands that content be reviewed by a small committee for approval. Therefore, I am encouraging you to give serious consideration to representing C4GC on this matter. Indeed, from my perspective, were the ACLU of NC to challenge this policy, it would be to the benefit of all the residents of Guilford County.
If I can be of assistance to you in further evaluating the possibility of your involvement with this matter, do not hesitate to let me know.
"I think the word you're looking for is 'experts'"
John Stewart rightly mocks lawmakers who would censor the internet while admitting they do not understanding the technicalities. He includes a well-deserved poke at North Carolina congressman Mel Watt (at the 3:27 mark. Hat tip, Ed Cone)
Responding to Charles Davenport Jr.'s charge of cowardice.
A few days ago, local columnist and conservative apologist Charles Davenport, Jr. invited me to engage him in a pro/con for publication on his new website the Greensboro Guardian. Less than ninety minutes later, I accepted Davenport's invitation as a reply in the same thread were he issued it (he didn't leave any other contact information as I did in my acceptance).
Although I did not hear from Davenport, a few days later he writes that I "declined" his invitation, as he "suspected [I] would," he adds. He calls it "cowardice."
Davenport may not have seen my response, although that seems unlikely, but to say that I declined is just flat wrong.
I repeat my acceptance of Davenport's challenge, maintaining my initial preferences that it happen in a forum that allows public comment (his site or elsewhere) and that it be in type larger than the microscopic font currently deployed on Charles' website.
I'm even more eager now, because if I'm going against someone who cannot get his facts straight, it's going to be a cake walk.
Although I did not hear from Davenport, a few days later he writes that I "declined" his invitation, as he "suspected [I] would," he adds. He calls it "cowardice."
Davenport may not have seen my response, although that seems unlikely, but to say that I declined is just flat wrong.
I repeat my acceptance of Davenport's challenge, maintaining my initial preferences that it happen in a forum that allows public comment (his site or elsewhere) and that it be in type larger than the microscopic font currently deployed on Charles' website.
I'm even more eager now, because if I'm going against someone who cannot get his facts straight, it's going to be a cake walk.
Gingrich under fire because he is a conservative?
Joe Guarino suffocates thinking with preconceived suspicion and concludes that the reason the national press is covering the marital history of of a contending presidential candidate while the local press did not cover the marital troubles of a mayoral candidate is because Newt Gingrich is a more conservative Republican than the moderate Republican mayoral candidate. It's the conservatism that brings the scrutiny, he says. In Joe's mind, "it is painfully obvious."
Incorporate the facts though, and Guarino's conspiracy theory crumbles. The local media did not choose to report on the marital histories of ANY council candidate, including those of conservative Republicans. They did not apply a double standard, one for moderates and one for conservatives, they applied the same standard to all candidates, from the most conservative to the most liberal. I don't know why the local press didn't report on the marital histories of council candidates, it could have been because marriage laws are not an issue for city council, but different standards for conservatives and moderates was demonstrably not their reason.
The reason Gingrich gets legitimate scrutiny on this issue is this: Conservatives, all the Republican presidential candidates* and Newt Gingrich specifically, have pledged to refuse to allow marriage for gay people—that discrimination being necessary, they say, in order to "defend marriage."
If the implication is not obvious to you, here it is: If a candidate cannot keep their personal obligation under a marriage, cannot manage a marriage within their personal domain (or if they themselves are privately gay), they really have no businesses dictating, especially not through the power of law, that this institution is too sacred for the participation of consenting gay adults. Their rhetoric is contrary to their actions—hypocrisy. How qualified is a man who destroyed his own marriages to tell other people how to live theirs? Voters deserve to know if a candidate's public statements contradict their actions.
As Think Progress notices, Gingrich has a special place at the apex of hypocrisy on this matter. He doesn't just want gay marriage denied to a segment of loving, committed, consenting adults, he promises, through legislative action, to "defend" marriage as specifically and exclusively between one woman and one man—this while having asked his wife to share him with another other woman. Gingrich cannot keep his own marriage to one man and one woman, but he wants to legally impose that demand on others. It wasn't as if Gingrich's marriage went kaput because of unhappy circumstances either—not as if he was innocently a victim in some unavoidable disintegration of his marriage—it was his actions that brought down the one marriage he had the complete ability to "defend." Destroying his own marriage, he now he wants to control others'.
One of the reason I have thought since last fall that Gingrich would be a contender in this race is because he has vast political experience and the intellectual confidence to think on his feet. Demonstrating those qualities, he is turning this matter back on the media and it seems to be working—at least with the Republican crowd at last night's debate (it won't in a general election)—but for Guraino to proclaim that sinister motives explain the distinction between national media reporting of Gingrich's philandering and local media ignoring the marital travails of local city council candidates is to turn a blind eye to Gingrich's hypocrisy. Local candidates were not saying one thing and doing another and especially not while defending odoriferous discrimination. Gingrich is.
[* Ron Paul cuts a slightly different path, but clearly does not favor marriage equality for gay people.]
Incorporate the facts though, and Guarino's conspiracy theory crumbles. The local media did not choose to report on the marital histories of ANY council candidate, including those of conservative Republicans. They did not apply a double standard, one for moderates and one for conservatives, they applied the same standard to all candidates, from the most conservative to the most liberal. I don't know why the local press didn't report on the marital histories of council candidates, it could have been because marriage laws are not an issue for city council, but different standards for conservatives and moderates was demonstrably not their reason.
The reason Gingrich gets legitimate scrutiny on this issue is this: Conservatives, all the Republican presidential candidates* and Newt Gingrich specifically, have pledged to refuse to allow marriage for gay people—that discrimination being necessary, they say, in order to "defend marriage."
If the implication is not obvious to you, here it is: If a candidate cannot keep their personal obligation under a marriage, cannot manage a marriage within their personal domain (or if they themselves are privately gay), they really have no businesses dictating, especially not through the power of law, that this institution is too sacred for the participation of consenting gay adults. Their rhetoric is contrary to their actions—hypocrisy. How qualified is a man who destroyed his own marriages to tell other people how to live theirs? Voters deserve to know if a candidate's public statements contradict their actions.
As Think Progress notices, Gingrich has a special place at the apex of hypocrisy on this matter. He doesn't just want gay marriage denied to a segment of loving, committed, consenting adults, he promises, through legislative action, to "defend" marriage as specifically and exclusively between one woman and one man—this while having asked his wife to share him with another other woman. Gingrich cannot keep his own marriage to one man and one woman, but he wants to legally impose that demand on others. It wasn't as if Gingrich's marriage went kaput because of unhappy circumstances either—not as if he was innocently a victim in some unavoidable disintegration of his marriage—it was his actions that brought down the one marriage he had the complete ability to "defend." Destroying his own marriage, he now he wants to control others'.
One of the reason I have thought since last fall that Gingrich would be a contender in this race is because he has vast political experience and the intellectual confidence to think on his feet. Demonstrating those qualities, he is turning this matter back on the media and it seems to be working—at least with the Republican crowd at last night's debate (it won't in a general election)—but for Guraino to proclaim that sinister motives explain the distinction between national media reporting of Gingrich's philandering and local media ignoring the marital travails of local city council candidates is to turn a blind eye to Gingrich's hypocrisy. Local candidates were not saying one thing and doing another and especially not while defending odoriferous discrimination. Gingrich is.
[* Ron Paul cuts a slightly different path, but clearly does not favor marriage equality for gay people.]
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Fox8 covers yesterday's anti-censorship web protests
Although the anchor introduction announcing "nearly a dozen" protesting websites was off by about 75,000, Fox8's Brandon Jones' report does a great job explaining the opposition to the internet censorship bills pending in congress and yesterday's online protests.
I didn't know the story would be so much about Greensboro 101 going dark yesterday, but that was pretty great and has nothing to do with my impression that Brandon is a talent to watch. Seriously. He'll likely learn a lot quickly too if he keeps teaming up with, as he did yesterday, the seasoned veteran Lenslinger—who could just as legitimately claim Wordslinger for his jaunty prose.
I didn't know the story would be so much about Greensboro 101 going dark yesterday, but that was pretty great and has nothing to do with my impression that Brandon is a talent to watch. Seriously. He'll likely learn a lot quickly too if he keeps teaming up with, as he did yesterday, the seasoned veteran Lenslinger—who could just as legitimately claim Wordslinger for his jaunty prose.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Senator Hagan's justification for internet censorship debunked
North Carolina Senator Kay Hagan on why she is co-sponsor of the deficient Protecting IP Act, via Mark Binker:
Not really
From the CATO Institute, via Ed Cone:
"We have about $58 billion a year of intellectual property stolen."So say the motion picture lobbyists, but is that accurate?
Not really
From the CATO Institute, via Ed Cone:
Only $58 billion! We’re making progress! So where does that figure come from? The source here is a paper released by the Institute for Policy Innovation, and authored by one Stephen Siwek, an MBA and principal of a consulting firm called Economists Incorporated that produces economic analysis for hire on behalf of (among others) businesses seeking to influence policy makers. That does not, in itself, invalidate the research, but we should at least begin with the recognition that we are not dealing here with impartial academic studies produced by a university or government research agency.
What does invalidate the “research” is the inappropriate use of “multiplier” effects to double—and triple—count loss estimates that were dubious to begin with. As the GAO report notes in its typically understated fashion:
"Most of the experts we interviewed were reluctant to use economic multipliers to calculate losses from counterfeiting because this methodology was developed to look at a one-time change in output and employment."
Greensboro 101 on strike
For the first time since its inception in 2005, Greensboro 101 is not serving its function as a gateway to the news and ideas of the people and organizations of Greensboro. It's on strike in protest of some very bad legislation currently under consideration in the U.S. congress that would allow Hollywood media companies to censor the Internet with a heavy, ham-fisted hand.
The video above explains. It's only a little complicated, but worth your time and attention. More detail here.
North Carolina's senator Kay Hagan is a co-sponsor of the legislation. Our other senator, Richard Burr, is undecided. Contact them both and ask them NOT to support the Protect IP Act. [Email your congressional representatives here.]
Richard Burr: 1-800-685-8916; email
Kay Hagan: 1-877-852-9462; email
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
"Heavy handed abuse of power"
This is not a partisan issue and Jodie Riddleberger is very much right on:
Strike
Tomorrow I'm going to do something I've never done before—it's important I think; and tomorrow starts at midnight.
Small group meeting compromise
Greensboro City Council person Nancy Vaughan described her concerns about the current small group meeting policy, that the council will revisit this evening. She made a good point about the inefficiencies created by the policy. Specifically, the inability for two council persons to quickly meet with city staff is a hindrance to efficient action.
The policy demands a 48 hour advance public notice if any two or more council persons are to meet with staff. As Nancy pointed out, that is even more ludicrous if two council members are already at City Hall working together on an urgent matter. If questions arise, they cannot just pop into a staffer's office and get some answers.
So, yeah. Maybe we can clear the decks a little bit for council members who want to hustle. But that doesn't have to happen at the expense of the gains in transparency the policy achieved
Here are some ways that the policy could be adjusted so that council members are not frustrated and transparency is not stymied.
The policy demands a 48 hour advance public notice if any two or more council persons are to meet with staff. As Nancy pointed out, that is even more ludicrous if two council members are already at City Hall working together on an urgent matter. If questions arise, they cannot just pop into a staffer's office and get some answers.
So, yeah. Maybe we can clear the decks a little bit for council members who want to hustle. But that doesn't have to happen at the expense of the gains in transparency the policy achieved
Here are some ways that the policy could be adjusted so that council members are not frustrated and transparency is not stymied.
- Keep the audio recording requirement.
Establishing a public record keeps the meetings accessible to the public, even if after the fact, and does not interfere with speedy scheduling. - Increase the number of "small group."
Raise the advanced public notification requirement for a meeting with two council persons to three or more. - Make a public notice within 24 hours of the end of the meeting. The point of public access to small group meetings is to know who met and what city business they discussed. With audio recordings available, a public notice shortly after the meeting would serve that purpose.
Greensboro city council may revert to greater secrecy
The Greensboro City Council currently has a small group meeting policy that requires any meeting of two or more city council persons with any city staff be announced to the public 48 hours in advance, audio recorded and open to the media. Newly elected Mayor Robbie Perkins wants to change that—and not for the better.
There is an item on the agenda for tonight's city council meeting, with Perkins as the primary contact, for the purpose of discussing changes to the small group policy. Documents attached to the agenda (item 32, pp 159 - 162) describe Greensboro's small group policy as being more than North Carolina public meetings law requires and as unique to Greensboro. It's clear the purpose of revisiting the policy is to attempt to weaken or eliminate it.
Greensboro government has a long history, with all too recent manifestations, of cultivating public suspicion by secrecy. The state law may not demand that Greensboro have this small group policy and other cities may not, but so what? When it comes to open government, can Greensboro not stand above the rest of the state? Must we revert to the norm by lowering our standards?
The current policy is a robust plank in support of public trust and an antiseptic against corrosive public suspicion. If it sets Greensboro apart, all the better. It should not be changed.
There is an item on the agenda for tonight's city council meeting, with Perkins as the primary contact, for the purpose of discussing changes to the small group policy. Documents attached to the agenda (item 32, pp 159 - 162) describe Greensboro's small group policy as being more than North Carolina public meetings law requires and as unique to Greensboro. It's clear the purpose of revisiting the policy is to attempt to weaken or eliminate it.
Greensboro government has a long history, with all too recent manifestations, of cultivating public suspicion by secrecy. The state law may not demand that Greensboro have this small group policy and other cities may not, but so what? When it comes to open government, can Greensboro not stand above the rest of the state? Must we revert to the norm by lowering our standards?
The current policy is a robust plank in support of public trust and an antiseptic against corrosive public suspicion. If it sets Greensboro apart, all the better. It should not be changed.
Monday, January 16, 2012
Newt Gingrich
I will be surprised if Newt Gingrich does not become more of a contender for the Republican presidential nomination than he has thus far. Unlike Romeny, his conservatism is in his bones, not an adornment; and unlike Santorum, he has the intellectual chops to make the case for conservative principles.
Yes, already Gingrich has said some things that assure he will be unacceptable to large segments of the population in the general elections, but he stands out—to me at least—as the guy most capable of making the race about a different direction for the country. If America is truly facing an existential threat from within, as the right frequently insists, Gingrich is most prepared to explain to and convince voters of the need for an alternative.
Yes, already Gingrich has said some things that assure he will be unacceptable to large segments of the population in the general elections, but he stands out—to me at least—as the guy most capable of making the race about a different direction for the country. If America is truly facing an existential threat from within, as the right frequently insists, Gingrich is most prepared to explain to and convince voters of the need for an alternative.
McDonald's ruins the milkshake
McDonald's has taken their iconic shake and added the word "cafe" to it, which apparently is McDonald's-speak for "shrinking a large to the size of the previous medium." The old large was 32 ounces, the new "large" is 22 ounces (a single ounce larger than the old medium) and the top fifth is filled with whipped cream you don't want.
On the other hand, the generous single quarter-sized slice of tomato on their premium burger made up for it. Not.
On the other hand, the generous single quarter-sized slice of tomato on their premium burger made up for it. Not.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Guilford County: hick backwater
Thanks to our County Commissioners, specifically, Chairman Skip Alston, I am embarrassed to call myself a resident of Guilford County.
What kind of hick backwater outlaws multimedia presentations by speakers from the floor at public meetings in this day and age? Guilford County, sad to say.
In fact, no multimedia will be allowed during any portion of County Commissioners' meetings unless it is first reviewed by an "agenda committee" for "appropriateness."
This sounds an awful lot like it oversteps the Constitutional prohibitions against prior restraint of speech. Maybe someone will take it to court and we'll spin our wheels on another unnecessary issue while the world moves on.
What kind of hick backwater outlaws multimedia presentations by speakers from the floor at public meetings in this day and age? Guilford County, sad to say.
In fact, no multimedia will be allowed during any portion of County Commissioners' meetings unless it is first reviewed by an "agenda committee" for "appropriateness."
Only with our approval, comrade.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
WFMY: Government stenographers
WFMY dutifully regurgitates, again, another press release. Surely, one of the most basic duties of journalists is to challenge and check the pronouncements of the powerful, especially the government. The health of our democracy depends on news people doing journalism, not stenography.
Here is a story from WMFY's web site. Although it is identified as "written by Patrick Phillippi," it is almost entirely a reprint of a press release from the State Attorney General. The copied portions are highlighted.
Here is a story from WMFY's web site. Although it is identified as "written by Patrick Phillippi," it is almost entirely a reprint of a press release from the State Attorney General. The copied portions are highlighted.
Raleigh, NC -- North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper detailed his opposition to Duke Energy's proposed rate increase in a filing with the North Carolina Utilities Commission on Monday.
Cooper said, "Utilities commissioners should heed the economic damage to North Carolina consumers before signing off Duke Energy's rate increase."
Cooper went on to say, "The commission should come down on the side of consumers when considering a fair rate of return for Duke, especially the economy."
Cooper's Consumer Protection Division intervened in the rate case and questioned Duke Energy's experts in November. During that hearing, attorney's with Cooper's office questioned whether experts who calculated the rate of return to Duke Energy shareholders also took "changing economic conditions" into account.
Earlier this year, Duke Energy applied to the Utilities Commission to request that the company be allowed to increase its revenues by approximately $646 million. That earnings increase would be passed along to consumers in the form of higher electricity bills. If approved by the Utilities Commission, the proposed rate hike would have raised the average Duke customer's monthly bill by approximately 17 percent.
Hundreds of North Carolinians have written to Cooper asking for help and expressing their concern about higher electricity costs, according to the Attorney General.
The Attorney General's Office has filed copies of the letters with the Clerk for the Utilities Commission so that commissioners will be aware of consumers' views on the proposed increase.
Sunday, January 08, 2012
Forty Creek Barrel Select
A couple of years ago, I discovered the joys of Scotch Whiskey. My still limited samplings have me favoring well aged single malts. The good stuff is expensive though and since North Carolina ABC stopped carrying the very good $22 10-year Tamdhu, I've been at a loss for an affordable replacement. (12 year Highland Park is beautiful but its $45 price, while still a great value, puts it into the "special occasion" category for me.)
My fallback "everyday" whiskeys had become Canadian whiskeys—Canadian Club, Seagrams*, Black Velvet.
Last night was the first time I noticed Forty Creek Barrel Select Whiskey among the Canadian whiskeys and its $19.95 price encouraged me to pick it up and read the label which described:
[* Update: Seagrams is a fine domestic whiskey, not Canadian—as everybody knows]
My fallback "everyday" whiskeys had become Canadian whiskeys—Canadian Club, Seagrams*, Black Velvet.
Last night was the first time I noticed Forty Creek Barrel Select Whiskey among the Canadian whiskeys and its $19.95 price encouraged me to pick it up and read the label which described:
A whiskey where aromas of honey, vanilla and apricot fuse with toasty oak, black walnut and spice. The flavour is rich and bold on the palate and is completed in a smooth, long finish.I was pleased to find that this whiskey offers the flavors and complexities I enjoy from Scotch. To my very uncultivated pallette, I might have even guessed it to be a Scotch, had I not known. For depth of flavor and price, I recommend Forty Creek Barrel Select.
[* Update: Seagrams is a fine domestic whiskey, not Canadian—as everybody knows]
Soggy Doggy
What a great concept, a self service dog wash. Such is the new Soggy Doggy (2511 Battleground Ave.). Prices range from $15 to $35 depending on the weight of your dog.The place provides state of the art walk-in bath tubs, aprons, nice shower heads, shampoos, cream rinse, wash cloths, towels, ear wash and cotton balls, and drying tables with adjustable blowers—in short, everything you need to give your dog a thorough cleaning. Owner Susan will even give you some tips on proper bathing techniques.
Saturday, January 07, 2012
Journalist or stenographer?
Michale Hastings:
Look, I went into journalism to do journalism, not advertising. My views are critical but that shouldn’t be mistaken for hostile – I’m just not a stenographer. There is a body of work that shows how I view these issues but that was hard-earned through experience, not something I learned going to a cocktail party on f***ing K Street. That’s what reporters are supposed to do, report the story.Word.
Thursday, January 05, 2012
Cushy teaching jobs and slack ass parents.
I know a particular teacher quite well and I hear a lot about the ins and outs of her job. One thing that just plain infuriates me to hear is of parents who ask teachers to come in early for a parent conference, or to stay late or to schedule two conferences so that separated parents don't have to be in the same room together for a few minutes -- and then don't show up; don't call or email, just blow the whole thing off.
It happens a lot.
Conservatives are wrong that teachers have cushy jobs, they are right that too many parents won't bother to take responsibility for their children's success.
It happens a lot.
Conservatives are wrong that teachers have cushy jobs, they are right that too many parents won't bother to take responsibility for their children's success.
Wednesday, January 04, 2012
Another Earth
If a parallel Earth came into reach that held the possibility of a
life as you but without the mistakes you've made on this Earth, would
you go there? That's the question faced by Rhoda in the independent film
Another Earth (currently available in Red Box).
The screenplay was written by Mike Cahill and Britt Marling, with Cahill directing and Marling turning in a wonderfully layered performance in the leading role. The film requires some willful suspension of disbelief (the second Earth floats into view in the sky, close enough for a rocket trip), but play along and you are rewarded with a poignant exploration of loss and love. The coming together of passionate directing, writing and acting—of Marling and costar William Mapother—make this film a rare gem, a movie that inspires mature joy and wonder without typical Hollywood sentimentality.
The screenplay was written by Mike Cahill and Britt Marling, with Cahill directing and Marling turning in a wonderfully layered performance in the leading role. The film requires some willful suspension of disbelief (the second Earth floats into view in the sky, close enough for a rocket trip), but play along and you are rewarded with a poignant exploration of loss and love. The coming together of passionate directing, writing and acting—of Marling and costar William Mapother—make this film a rare gem, a movie that inspires mature joy and wonder without typical Hollywood sentimentality.
Stylometry
I learned of something new today. Stylometry.
Stylometry is the application of the study of linguistic style. Stylometry is often used to attribute authorship to anonymous or disputed documents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
