It's about time

Via Billy's blog comes news that John Hardister (R, Guilford) has submitted a bill to the state legislature that would make operations of the state lottery more transparent.

I haven't read the bill, but from Hardister's press release, it sounds like something long overdue. The free market does not mean that marketers are free to dupe people and lottery advertising with its emphasis on the largest of prizes with little if any mention of the preposterous odds is a form of deceit that should not be allowed -- especially by the state.

It is another form of fraudulent marketing to sell scratch-off tickets with no information about whether or not the prize being promoted— the big top prize—has already been won. There is no notification at the point of sale when the top prize has already been won and your chances of winning that prize have become exactly zero. It's a rip-off plain and simple to sell scratch-off tickets advertising a top prize of x amount when winning that prize has become impossible. I don't know if Hardister's bill addresses that too, but it should.

Riiiiiiiight

GREENSBORO, NC -- Roy Carroll, recipient of $2 million in City tax credits, a block of a city street onto which he will build apartments and a noise ordinance specially crafted to (successfully) close the rooftop bar below his penthouse condo, supports a proposed redistricting of Greensboro city council because he doesn't think city council has been business friendly enough.

Is Carroll a business whiz or less than sincere?

The following from the Triad Business Journal makes one wonder:

"[Carroll] sent an unsolicited $16 million bid for the News & Record to Warren Buffett, the Omaha billionaire who bought the daily two years ago."

and

"Carroll wrote in the letter to Buffett. 'If a local daily publication is out of touch with the needs of its constituents, I can only wonder about its financial performance.'"

Carroll added to his letter "This is not a publicity stunt."

If it's not a publicity stunt, we have to take it at face value: It's a $16 million offer for a newspaper, the value of which the prospective buyer admits he can "only wonder."

Is this revelation a reflection of Carroll's sincerity or of his business acumen?

Cumcumbers?

GREENSBORO, NC -- I've watched with anticipation the renovations to the restaurant space near the Fresh Market on Lawndale Dr., hoping it might be something local and unique. It's a Charbar 7, from Charlotte.

Not having heard of them, I took a look at their menu where I found them offering "vegatables," "oinions" and the very unappetizing sounding "cumcumbers. "

They also offer a "Two Elows out Burger" topped with "thinly chaved ribeye" on a "pretzle roll."

Other ingredients include "tomatoe," "american cheese" and "Tator Tots."

Still, that Seared Ahi Tuna Salad does sound pretty good. I might try it -- without the cumcumbers.

Speaking of idiots

A Mark Underwood writes a letter to the News & Record in which he takes to calling the victims of the November 3rd, 1979 murders by Klan and Nazis in Greensboro "idiots."

Mark then goes on to write:

"Passions still run high among the few interested, but the true facts are impossible to determine."

Let's get this straight: Mark is convinced that the "true facts" are impossible to determine yet, despite this, he is confident enough to know that the people killed and wounded were/are idiots.

That's the convenience afforded by ignorance: One can put forth any opinion at all if one willfully leaves them unexposed to the facts.

Mark should read the Truth & Reconciliation Report. It's chock full of "true facts," gathered from a vast array of reputable sources. Were he to read it, Mark might come to understand who the real idiot is.

Ladd on fire

GREENSBORO, NC -- The News & Record's Susan Ladd is making the most of her new position as an advocacy journalist. In just a few short weeks, she is raising the bar for both her editorial and news reporting colleagues. I have not agreed with everything she has written, and some topics are more serious than others, but she is singlehandedly slaying stupidity and deception in a way I thought I'd never see at the News & Record again. It's refreshing, inspiring and, if she keeps it up, Greensboro will be better by her efforts.

Today, on developer Roy Carroll's furtive plan to reduce the number of Greensboro City Council representatives, Ladd writes:

What he wants on the council, Carroll wrote, is a “diversified majority of business executives and owners.”

Really? Why not a majority of environmentalists? A majority of preservationists? A majority of educators?

A majority of any one constituency would unbalance the council. The council needs members from diverse backgrounds and different segments of the community to represent the people it serves. A council dominated by business owners might well make decisions that disenfranchise all the other groups, including homeowners and neighborhoods.

“The simple answer is that a business professional would rather be part of a smaller decision-making group in which that person could effect change,” Carroll wrote.

Is effecting change anything like getting your way? It sure sounds like that.

Maybe, for example, it would be easier to get the city to close a street to benefit your development. Or to convince the city to enact a noise ordinance that placates your condo owners but hurts nightclub businesses.

Oh, wait. Carroll won both of those battles despite the objections of residents and other business owners.

How much more power does he need?

And just how is a plan to change the council’s size going to guarantee a body dominated by business people?

Oh, right. Donations.

It’s worth noting that Carroll contributed $5,300 to Wade’s campaign last year and $9,000 to the campaign of state Sen. Phil Berger (R-Rockingham), who has said Wade “may very well be on the right track” in proposing a smaller council in Greensboro.

But what’s good for Greensboro is apparently not good for Eden. Berger has made no attempt to reduce the size of the council in his hometown, a city of 15,000 residents represented by a mayor (elected at large) and seven council members.

The fact is that the Greensboro City Council, aside from an occasional spat, is a high-functioning body that broadly represents the residents of Greensboro.

This district-and-at-large system was created to ensure minority representation, and it has resulted in a more balanced and representative council, which currently has four women, four men, three people of color and a woman as mayor.

If anyone decides how and if that body is going to change, it should be the voters, not a lone senator who can trade favors in the legislature to ram through a partisan plan that helps only a select group of businessmen.

Especially when most of those businessmen hide behind cloaks of anonymity.

[Read more]

"I don’t have to look in the rearview mirror to see racism, and neither do you."

"I don’t have to look in the rearview mirror to see racism, and neither do you."

— Susan Ladd

Great writers can say a lot in a few words. Such is the case with this outstanding piece by Susan Ladd in which she demonstrates the moral and intellectual superiority attainable when talking about racism in Greensboro when one rises above generalities, pettiness and tired old rhetoric. It's one of the best things I've read at the News & Record in a long time. Read it.

Horrible, horrible; just pathetically and absolutelty the worst

GREENSBORO, NC -- Yesterday, the News & Record reported of a robbery in which a gaming console was stolen at gun point:

"Armed men tried and failed to rob two people... The suspects ran from the scene without taking any property." (Emphasis added.)

That story is still online.

It's bad enough the News & Record turned a press release from the police advising of a "robbery from person" into a fiction completely contrary to the facts, but today, when the police issued another press release about that crime, consistent with their first but adding new suspect information, the News & Record "reported" it again, this time writing that one of the suspects pulled a gun and took the gaming console:

"[O]ne of the two men pulled a handgun, took the system and the two alleged suspects ran off."  (Emphasis added.)

So now, at the illustrious News & Record, one can simultaneously find two accounts of the same crime, one where suspects fled without taking any property and one where property was taken. Both contradict each other, only one is accurate, the other remains uncorrected and yet both are online together.

It Matters

For all the thought and effort that various people and institutions put into advancing Greensboro, I am firmly convinced we will be forever held back from making the kind of progress we could as long as we are burdened by the dung heap that is the News & Record.

How can we as a community ever properly address our shortcomings and understand our strengths if our primary "news" outlet is a sloppy and indifferent pustule of perpetual misinformation and ignorance undemanding of itself and deceiving us about who we are and what's going on?

Day after day, the News & Record offers up mistake after mistake and each reveals a troubling fact: Our daily newspaper is not careful, not a checker of facts, rarely a source of insight or enterprising inquisitiveness* and not even any good at the simple task of regurgitating press releases.

Greensboro deserves better.



* This makes the situation even worse—that there are one or two reporters there who manage, against what must be monumental institutional momentum to the contrary, to occasionally deliver some quality reporting. I feel as bad for them about the burden of the News & Record's institutional incompetence as I do for my city.

Making it up: Another day, another News & Record fail

GREENSBORO, NC -- It's pretty bad when your local newspaper cannot even accurately regurgitate information from a press release.

The News & Record "reports":

"Armed men tried and failed to rob two people who arranged on Craigslist to sell a gaming system, according to a police news release." 

and:

 "The suspects ran from the scene without taking any property, police said."

The police did not say that. The robbers did not fail. Exactly the opposite. The suspects did not flee the scene without taking any property. They took property. That's what made it a robbery and thus the headline on the police press release: "Robbery from person."

All of this was clear in the police press release. It only became confused when the News & Record put their hands on it. From the police press release (emphasis added):

"Officers discovered two victims in the parking lot who stated that they had been robbed at gunpoint during the sale of a PlayStation 4 that had been arranged on Craigslist. No one was injured and no other items were taken."

I wonder what the News & Record sees as their mission and if they think they are doing a good job at whatever that is.

News & Record's huge error on drunk driving stats

GREENSBORO, NC -- There is a certain type of reporting error that astounds me, I call it an affront to common knowledge, where an assertion goes unchecked even though, on its face, it seems to violate common sense. It is the kind of thing a reporter or editor with general curiosity and some basic knowledge of the world would be compelled to stop and double check.

Today at the News & Record:

"In the United States, a drunken driver causes someone to die every 52 seconds." 

Reporter Danielle Battaglia doesn't cite a source for that tidbit but, on its face, it sounds hard to believe.

Just some quick math challenges the possibility this is true: If there is a drunk driving fatality every 52 seconds, then that's 69 drunk driving deaths every hour; 1,661 a day; 11,630 per week; and 606,000 per year. 

And here is where a lack of general knowledge comes in: That is a huge number of deaths per year for any single cause. It should jump out to a professional reporter and her professional editors as extremely unlikely. 

A quick search of "leading causes of death" would show that such a number would make drunk driving fatalities the leading cause of death in the United States, ahead of the roughly 598,000 per year from heart disease, the 577,000 from cancer and the third place 143,000 from lung disease. (source: Centers for Disease Control)

The fact is, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, "In 2011, 9,878 people were killed in alcohol-impaired-driving crashes." That's far from insignificant, but it is nowhere near the hysterical one every 52 seconds the News & Record reported. It is about one every hour to give you a sense of just how far off the N&R is.  

And a big thumbs down to WGHP MyFox8 who copied and pasted this error to their website from the News & Record without correction.

Bye Dell

I'm looking around for a new desktop computer. I have some specific needs. Dell used to have a great website that allowed one to custom configure a computer, to add and remove features and options. It was great because one could see what an ideal machine would cost, then make adjustments that would change the price if one needed to bring it in line with a budget

It allowed people to dsicover, "Hey! I can afford a slightly larger hard drive" as much as "Hmm, I think I can get by with a little less RAM."

That's gone.

Now nearly all Dell machines are take-it-or-leave-it configurations. That means one cannot get a 2 terabyte hard drive in anything but the most expensive of their computers. HP and Lenovo, on the other hand, offer large hard drives in their mid-range computers - as an option — for the customer to decide along with a full range of options for RAM, processors, video cards, etc. As it should be.

Sorry Dell. Maybe next time.

For Pete's sake

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

A Republican stronghold for decades?

Sigh...

No.

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

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

As of 2012

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

Through 2011

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

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

News & Record contradicts itself

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

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

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

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

2014 Reckless Reporting of the Year Award

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

The United States of Barbarians

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

—  Joseph Polermo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can we get our $81 million back?

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading... 

Why the mystery?

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

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

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

A few days ago, Lehmert reported:

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

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

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

Paper tigers

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

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

Two points:

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

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

Something is wrong

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

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

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

Looking before we leap: How to think about surveillance cameras

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Six years smoke free

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

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

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

Incongruous

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

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