Guarino

Melderec con Simkins Machine Mishandles Greensboro Waste Disposal

We learn in the Rhino of a fairly interesting discussion that took place at the city council meeting this week regarding waste disposal.

Here is the situation in a nutshell.  Republic Services, which currently trucks our trash to a landfill in Montgomery County, is demanding a 15 year contract.  The city is in a weaker negotiating position because it has telegraphed its refusal to use the White Street Landfill; and because its 6 month contract with Republic will be coming to a close in the near future.

What will the city have to pay to get someone to take our waste now?

All of a sudden, we have a special meeting being called for Tuesday night with a discussion of solid waste alternatives on the agenda.  But the city council had only recently formed its solid waste task force; and it has hardly even had time to begin its work.

Do you remember the "regional solution" in Randolph County that many of the victorious candidates were trumpeting back during the fall election season as an alternative to White Street?  The Rhino reports that it is not materializing.

The Melderec con Simkins crowd has badly mishandled this situation.  They decided collectively that they were going to engage in Greensboro's prototypical identity politics to oppose the White Street Landfill and regain power.  But they had no viable plan for the city's waste disposal; and they are costing Greensboro taxpayers many millions of dollars unnecessarily because of the political games that they play.

Do or Die?

It has been a tough week for Rick Santorum.  His poll numbers are not consistently holding up in Michigan or Arizona.  He needs to win at least one of the contests on Tuesday to prevent Romney from dominating on Super Tuesday.  Regardless of some of the themes sounded this week, Santorum over his career has been a more consistent conservative than Romney:

Federal District Court Ruling on Redistricting

The ruling in U.S. District Court by Judge William Osteen is good news. It appears the county commissioners' elections will be able to proceed-- at least for now.

Let's make no mistake about it. Republicans were quite fortunate that the random assignment method in the federal courts placed the case in Osteen's courtroom. If the case had been assigned to the judicial chambers of a Hagan/Obama activist nominee, the outcome might have been quite different.

The plaintiff's attorneys were not able to "shop" for an activist judge, as they might have been able to do in the local/state system.

Osteen's ruling seems modest, and tailored to resolve the problem that existed. There will be other issues heard during the month of April, apparently over matters related to due process. Let's hope the outcome does not undermine the prospect that elections will take place this year under the new redistricting.

It should be noted that the plaintiffs' attorney-- at the Southern Coalition for Socialism-- sought remedies that were much wider in scope than Osteen granted; and really would have tried to prevent the elections from taking place this year.

The Southern Coalition has revealed itself to be an organization that blatantly seeks to advance the partisan interests of the Democratic Party. It has taken this path even though it is a tax-exempt non-profit organization that receives a de facto subsidy from taxpayers.

In any case, let's hope that Judge Osteen continues to handle this case with modesty and restraint and humility.

The County GOP Platform: Update

I received a copy of the proposed Guilford County GOP platform last night. It contains some good language interspersed throughout. However, it is very poorly written and contains some troubling passages.

Here are some examples:

We, the members of the Guilford County Republican Party, recognize that our government was created by the people to work for their individual and collective benefit...

We believe that the Federal Government is a collective creation by the individual states to provide certain limited services for the benefit of the citizens of those states...

We believe that social and educational issues and decisions are the responsibility of local and state governments and, therefore, are outside the jurisdiction of the Federal government...

We believe that North Carolina is a sovereign state, in which legislative and judicial processes supersede the Federal government...

We believe that the United States Government has no authority to impose mandates on the citizens of North Carolina which restrain those freedoms enjoyed under the auspices of the State Government...

We believe a fundamental responsibility of County governance is to foster a cohesive community, to uphold in its functioning the character and ideals of its populace, and to acknowledge that its foundation is the traditional family unit...

We believe that our societal structure, dependent on the traditional family unit, should be determined by the people within it, in accordance with their values and principles, rather than be imposed by an outside entity.

This is just a sample of some of the more problematic writing within the proposed platform. It appears that the intentions were good in many respects; and I think I know what they were probably trying to say in each of these cases. But some things desperately need to be cleaned up. The last clause I published above is highly problematic. Even if it is taking a stand for the traditional family, it can be interpreted in a number of ways. I think I initially misinterpreted it.

The proposed platform does not contain a plank in favor of the state marriage amendment. It does not contain an explicit pro-life statement. The state platform contains both of these. The question is why the county GOP felt the need to write its own platform, and why they cannot simply adopt the state platform. If there was a desire to add some teeth with respect to local matters, this proposed platform does not really achieve this.

What is the point?

In addition, I am hearing about some restrictive rules with respect to the upcoming county convention: limiting speech by participants to one minute, once per delegate; requiring that resolutions be submitted two weeks in advance; and no resolutions permitted from the floor. There will be little opportunity for those in attendance to have reviewed the proposed platform in advance except for perhaps a select number. Overall the pattern suggests a perceived need to maintain a high level of control over how events will play out.

I think if the county GOP is going to have a platform, it needs to make an unambiguous statement that is unequivocally supportive of the state marriage amendment.

UPDATE: Jodi Riddleberger tells me that she is not "Alvin". (One or more individuals have alleged otherwise.)

Rick Santorum's Impermissible Beliefs

Lowry:

Santorum is a standing affront to the sensibilities and assumptions of the media and political elite. That elite is constantly writing the obituary for social conservatism, which is supposed to wither away and leave a polite, undisturbed consensus in favor of social liberalism. Santorum not only defends beliefs that are looked down upon as dated and unrealistic; he does it with a passionate sincerity that opens him to mockery and attack.

If Santorum had the social views of a Barbara Boxer, he would be hailed in all the glossy magazines as a political virtuoso...

Although his critics will never credit him for it, Santorum’s social conservatism brings with it an unstinting devotion to human dignity, a touchstone for the former senator...

Santorum conceives of his social views as a badly needed support for economic aspiration. It’s no accident that the Republican candidate most committed to the traditional family and associated virtues is also the one who talks most about the struggles of the working class. He frequently cites research from the Brookings Institution showing that simply getting a high-school diploma, getting a job, and getting married before having children — the so-called success sequence — are powerful tools against poverty.

McGurn:

(W)hen Mr. Santorum discusses these issues, he needs to fold them into his larger narrative about the free society. That narrative has to do with pointing out the dependency that comes with an expanding federal government, the importance of family, and the threat to freedom when, say, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals or a Health and Human Services secretary can substitute their own opinions on these issues for the judgment of the American people...

Mr. Santorum cannot change the (MSM) double standard. With a little discipline, however, he need not let himself be defined by it.

The debate tonight should feature some fireworks, and some new approaches perhaps to be offered by Gingrich and Romney.  Look to see whether the CNN moderators try to sting Santorum on his social conservative views and statements.  See whether they try to bring him down.

Recent polls show Romney rising in Michigan; and Santorum rising in Arizona.  I think Santorum needs to win at least one of the two primaries next week to be positioned well for Super Tuesday.

Guilford County GOP Advancing a "Watered-Down" Platform?

I learned last night that there may be an effort afoot to have the Guilford County GOP adopt a platform that is at variance with the NC state GOP platform.  Recall that we had discussed several days ago that the state GOP has a fairly good, conservative platform.

The draft I saw last night, which was represented to me as the new proposed county platform, appears to be poorly written.  It contains at least one or two errors regarding the fundamentals of statecraft.  And there was some vague, nonspecific language that suggested to me the local party might be moving toward aquiescing with the gay sociopolitical agenda.

I do not have a copy of the draft in my possession, and do not have the precise language.

If this platform is truly being advanced within the party, I think the county GOP leadership owes it to all local registered Republicans in the county to explain why they feel it is necessary to break with the state GOP platform.  And they should explain the intent of some of the language contained within the draft.

This should happen well in advance of any vote to adopt this platform-- if such a vote is being planned. 

Has Greensboro 101 Now Censored Triad Watch?

So reports Keith Brown.

Triad Watch is one of the most prolific blogs in Greensboro with original investigative material.  It is absolutely crazy to censor its content from the local blog aggregator.  When you have quasi-monopoly status in a given locality for an aggregator, there are certain responsibilities to provide open access to those with a diversity of style and content.  Yes, the decision and control rests with the owner of the aggregator; but there is also a certain civic duty that should temper any decisions made. 

Greensboro 101 is an important forum for local blogs; and for all practical purposes, there is nowhere else to go locally of which I am aware that provides a comparable platform.

I hope this situation somehow gets worked out.

What is Zack Matheny's Motive Regarding the Proposed Bond?

The news that Matheny is proposing a $20 million economic development bond package was somewhat of a shocker.  But we need to be prepared for frequent shocks with our 8-1 liberal Greensboro City Council.

Back during the early days of this blog, I remember supporting at least one economic development bond.  But I was naive.  It turns out that these bonds are primarily used to assist real estate developers.  They are used to make their deals more profitable.  They are not used primarily to marshall public resources to create the maximum number of jobs.

Why did Matheny do this?  I have several hypotheses:

1. He is trying to derail the downtown performing arts center because he perhaps prefers a Greensboro Coliseum location for the center.  He has been an intransigent coliseum booster in the past;

2. He is an adherent of the progressive, Obama-like stimulus approach; or

3. He genuinely believes it will create lots of jobs.

I have a problem with the city of Greensboro becoming a commercial lender.  It does not have the infrastructure that commercial banks have to evaluate the credit-worthiness of borrowers and to assess the likelihood they will repay their loans.  And it simply should not be competing with private lenders.

Yes, the Obama administration and the congressional Democratic leadership placed an enormous chill on private lending in this country.  But this is not the way to remedy that situation.  And this is not the way to restore Greensboro's local economy.

Censorship at Greensboro101?

I was saddened to learn that George Hartzman's blog has been censored from the Greensboro101 aggregator.

I don't find George's posts incomprehensible. They are thought-provoking, challenging and vital in many ways. For instance, most recently he has been doing the most important work I have seen on the Performing Arts Center in the local blogosphere. George is not hesitant to challenge the local power structure when it needs to be challenged; and that is extremely important.

While I disagree with George vehemently on the social issues, this does not represent the bulk or the central aspect of his work. I appreciate greatly his posts regarding fiscal stewardship, economics, and limited government. His highlighting of local political corruption is also invaluable. The manner of presentation he employs is ultimately his choice; and does not justify censorship.

The general public is the beneficiary of George's important work on local government. It would be a huge mistake to try to silence that voice.

Dragnet Meets Obamacare

HT: Bubba

The Bottom Line: Sexual Freedom

It has been interesting to watch the debate unfold regarding the authoritarian Obama Administration requiring under Obamacare that the health insurance plans offered by religious employers provide coverage for contraceptives and abortifacients. Now, the controversy has spilled over to the presidential campaign of Rick Santorum. The Obama campaign and the mainstream media obviously would like to turn this issue into a liability for Republicans. (And some Republicans doubtless would prefer to go running for the hinterlands on this issue.)

We have seen over at Ed's blog how Greensboro's own Senator Kay Hagan has sought to strike a blow in favor of our new socialized health care covering contraceptives. And we have already seen how some local social liberals are commenting on this topic on the various blogs.

What is going on here?

The premise is not only that there is a right to contraceptives, but also that there is a fundamental entitlement for women to have their contraceptives paid for by insurance. This is an incredibly bold demand, but let's remember-- we are dealing with the left. And once you have socialized medicine, it is inevitable that it will be used and politicized by the left in this manner.

How did we arrive at the premise that women have a fundamental right to contraceptives; and that they are entitled to have them covered by insurance?

Part of it is rooted, of course, in the notorious Griswold vs. Connecticut Supreme Court decision. But it was a later decision, Eisenstadt vs. Baird, that extended to unmarried women the right to contraceptives. Once Griswold extended the right to married women, it was inevitable that the activist judiciary would also create a right for singles.

But what is happening here? The American republic had survived over 175 years before it was miraculously discovered that its constitution meant that people must have access to contraceptives.

Of course, the answer is that the cause of sexual liberationism was being pursued fervently by various forces. That is what this debate is all about. For many on the political left and their accomplices in the media, sexual license is the highest and most fervently held political ideal to which they aspire.

That is why we have seen such passionate arguments about gay marriage and abortion and library filters waged locally and on the national stage. Sexual liberationism is more important than almost anything else according to the worldview of the political left and the mainstream media. But there is absolutely no basis for believing that this particular form of freedom or entitlement was part of our nation's original constitutional understanding.

And in the case of contraceptives, what precisely are they fighting to protect? An institution that has brought enormous misery on the American people. Consider the record directly attributable to the widespread use of contraceptives. The fact is that sexual practices changed on a widescale basis. The nation's sexual ethic was fundamentally transformed.

The availability of chemical contraceptives makes it less likely that condoms will be used; and much more likely that multiple partner sexuality will occur. We have seen all the complications:

1. Ready transmission of STD's, including new diseases such as HIV

2. More cervical cancer and precancers and infertility among women

3. Potentially fatal blood clots in women

4. More out-of-wedlock births and single parent families. This is counterintuitive. One would think that the widespread availability of contraceptives would decrease unwanted pregnancies, but the actual experience has been precisely the opposite. The paper reported yesterday that more than 50 percent of births for women under age 30 are now out-of-wedlock. This is a disastrous number.

5. Decreased marriage rates because men have access to intercourse without needing to get married. That means there will be more poverty for women and children. Psychiatric complications ensue because of abandonment issues. In addition, all the social complications associated with single parent families ensue including criminality and diminished educational attainment and career formation.

I am sure there are other medical and social complications I have not mentioned.

When Kay Hagan and other social liberals (and their accomplices in the media) beat the drum about chemical contraception, in fact they are accepting full responsibility for all the complications that have been unleashed. And they have no real solution for the problems they have helped create.

A couple of interesting insights gleaned from an article by James Taranto:

1. The pursuit of sexual pleasure is not necessarily consistent with the attainment of real human happiness. The above list I offered lends support for that premise.

2. The personal and societal harm associated with contraception outweighs any temporal benefits.

3. Sexual freedom is not an unadulterated social good. Yes, I know that will drive our local liberals berserk.

4. Are the feelings of independent voters in swing states unabashedly in favor of our new socialized medicine requiring payment for contraceptives? It is hard to know at this point, regardless of what the usual voices will represent.

An article by Anthony Esolen, an English professor at Providence College, elegantly deconstructs the premise that the sexual liberationism unleashed by making contraceptives available to women was a major social advance. He points out that the "paradise" this would create turned out to be much different than some initially anticipated:

Visit a prison, and ask the men in the cell blocks to recount their sexual histories, and those of their mothers and fathers. Visit a hospital, and see the faces of women who have determined to violate their inmost natures as the givers of life. Visit a neighborhood—if you can find one; for your paradise has placed transience and infidelity at the heart of the most intimate of human relations. You with your quaint erudite use of obscenity! The streets of your nation and the sullen youth who roam them make you look like a monocled Edwardian with a taste for French novels.

And this is the world we must protect, even at the cost of our Constitution and our civil liberties?

Check out Greensboro Guardian

Some new articles are posted at the Greensboro Guardian.  Check it out.

North Carolina Constitution Party Observed

I received an e-mail yesterday indicating that the North Carolina Constitution Party was holding a meeting today here in the Piedmont Triad; so I decided to attend. It was an executive committee meeting; and I had the chance to spend a few hours with the core group of leaders for this nascent statewide party. It was the first time I had ever attended any of their meetings or functions.

It is an extremely affable, welcoming group. But it is quite clear that they are wholeheartedly committed to the causes of constitutional conservatism, limited government, human life, traditional marriage and second amendment rights. There was no equivocation or hesitation on these points.

I asked them what interactions they had with Tea Party groups thus far. They replied that they had not yet made much headway with the Tea Party because these groups have tended to want to work within the structure of the local Republican Party. In some cases, they said, Tea Party groups comprise a significant part of the leadership of county Republican parties in our state.

The Constitution Party leadership perceives that they are in this battle for the long haul; and that they need to be patient. Without ballot access in North Carolina, they can have only limited impact. The state of North Carolina has one of the most restrictive ballot access laws in the country.

They know that voters become disenchanted with the Republican Party when its elected officials deviate from conservative principles in order to get re-elected. Their opinion was that the major flaw with the Republican Party is that there is no real mechanism for party discipline against elected officials who wander afield. In fact, sometimes it seems that party discipline is nearly non-existent.

By comparison, the leaders I met today indicated the Constitution Party has, within its bylaws, the ability to cut off any elected official who deviates from its platform.

We, of course, have had an an enormous problem with errant Republican elected officials in Guilford County. On the Board of County Commissioners, we have had Mike Winstead and Linda Shaw often functioning like Democrats. And of course, on the Greensboro City Council, we have Robbie Perkins and Zack Matheny (and one notable ex-Republican, Nancy Vaughan, who still enjoys support within segments of the local party).

I told the group about how Perkins and Matheny had introduced the resolution against the state marriage amendment last week; and how it passed with all their support. These three council members are apparently determined to make the city of Greensboro safe for anal intercourse.

When you have such contemptible votes advanced by Republican elected officials, what is the local party to do?

At that point, the group pointed out to me the logo of the state Constitution Party. Here it is:

(Click to enlarge)

Note the slogan in the lower left part of the seal. Here is what it says: PRINCIPLE OVER POLITICS.

Principle over politics. That really resonated with me, because so many of our local Republican elected officials have been utterly unprincipled. (This has also unfortunately been true of some of those representing us on the federal level on some issues.)

The platform of the North Carolina Republican Party has much to commend it. However, it is a fairly meaningless document when Republican elected officials are determined to ignore it. The tent is too large when they refuse to govern in accordance with conservative principles.

Today was a pretty day. It was not only that the sun was shining, and that the temperatures were warm. There was also a decided breath of fresh air in the Piedmont Triad today.

Pay Raise for City Employees?

There has been a long-awaited compensation study for Greensboro city employees.  A report in the News and Record yesterday indicates that the study predictably recommends pay increases.

The previous city council recommended pay increases only according to merit.  This is a better approach than offering them across the board.  It is important that we pay police officers at a competitive level; but many other city employees are extremely replaceable.  In this kind of economy, it should not be necessary to increase wages and salaries across the board, especially when city employees receive exceedingly generous fringe benefits.  Instead, the city council should be looking at making these benefits more consistent with those offered in the private sector.

There is one problem, of course.  City employees themselves represent a discrete interest group.  Council members want their votes.  With an 8-1 liberal council, it is quite likely that they will try to buy the support of city employees with pay increases.  Recall that some received organized support from groups representing city employees during election season.

Look for Greensboro city council members to be paying off city employees for their support.

Descriptions

Faison vs. Perkins

There was an interesting article in the Raleigh News and Observer this week.  Rep. Bill Faison is interested in pursuing the Democratic nomination to run for governor.  But the News and Observer is reporting the circumstances of Faison's divorce, and openly speculates as to whether it will affect his political prospects. 

Let's recall the 2011 Greensboro mayoral campaign.  There was a media black-out on the discussion of Robbie Perkins' marital break-ups, even though the latest of these occurred during the midst of the campaign season.  An environment was created in which it seemed almost impermissible to even discuss the matter in the media.

It's funny how that works.

Performing Arts Center: The Die is Cast

Readers will recall that the city of Greensboro convened a task force under the pretense of evaluating and planning for the possibility of a performing arts center. Part of the process would include analysis of feasibility and economic impact. There was an attempt made to create an impression that this would be an objective, rigorous process.

We are already beginning to see warning signs, however.

There was an article in the News and Record this morning and also an article in Yes!Weekly. George has provided a reaction to both.

Walker Sanders is the executive director of the Community Foundation of Greater Greensboro. He is leading the task force. The Community Foundation is a key part of Action Greensboro, which is one of the three components of the Greensboro Partnership. Action Greensboro is the progressive political wing of the partnership; and is composed of several area foundations.

In Greensboro, we have a number of very wealthy, white liberals doing some valuable philanthropic and charitable work through their foundations. But they also have been granted a key place at the table from the standpoint of development of our local government's policies. They are a key, oligarchical component of our corrupt machine politics.

In Greensboro, palpable, in-your-face liberalism is weaved into our key institutions. It is an intrinsic presence that has become almost pathological.

Here is Sanders' formulation:

“This is about the soul of our community, about how we are going to feed it to grow and thrive as a 21st century community,” Community Foundation President Walker Sanders told 55 task force members gathered at the Greensboro Downtown Marriott.

“Many people have questioned why we are doing this in this economy,” Sanders added. “This is the right time. We have let this issue fester for way too long and let our differences in the past polarize us to do nothing.”

I cannot help but see a smarmy, almost unctuous pattern. Recall when there were perceptions that the aquatic center would primarily benefit a white, upper middle class and upper class clientele. It was built for folks who have money, not for black people. For instance, Nancy Vaughan has said that her daughter is on a swim team that uses the center. It was wonderful that she could get a facility like this built for her daughter's team.

In any event, Sanders stood before the city council and told them that a mystery donor would enable the aquatic center to offer swim lessons to local school children. He presented it as a momentous breakthrough, with affected emotion.

Now, he gets to advance the performing arts center.

And make no mistake about it. The die has been cast. Robbie likely regards this as the major achievement of his first term as mayor. It is quite clear that his team is trying to create a perception of deliberateness and thoroughness while simultaneously trying to slam this through quickly. They are trying to make it appear they are being objective and open to all possibilities (which might include not building the center)-- while simultaneously leading to a predetermined conclusion.

And what is the agenda?

1. To get the poor, the working class and the lower middle class to pay for the recreational preferences of the upper middle class and the rich

2. To create a large initial debt subsidized by taxpayers

3. To require ongoing operational subsidies from taxpayers

4. Ultimately, to raise our taxes. This is the ultimate conclusion of the debt-spend-tax cycle to which they are inextricably tied.

Skip's Barbecue

Amidst all the discussion regarding Skip Alston's legacy, George reminds us of an "oldy but goody". 

Does anyone remember how Simkins PAC principal/ Commissioner Alston borrowed $200,000 from the city of Greensboro to start up his barbecue restaurant on East Market Street near the campus of NC A&T?

Breathtaking.  Brazen.

Nailing It Regarding "Elite Snobs"

Is Eurosocialism our Future?

Perhaps the better question is whether the term "Eurosocialism" describes our current circumstances.

One huge indicator, of course, is whatever the fate of Obamacare will ultimately be.  The US Supreme Court hears oral arguments on the question next month.  Substantive legal briefs have already been filed with the court.  I have no idea how the court will ultimately rule.

If Obamacare survives, Eurosocialism will be our fate.  Our country will be changed forever for the worse.  Among the advocates of socialized medicine we have had locally are Kay Hagan, Mel Watt, Brad Miller, Pricey Harrison, Ed Cone, Roch Smith, Lex Alexander, and both the news and editorial pages at the News and Record. 

If the Supreme Court does not overturn Obamacare, then we can only hope that the GOP wins the presidency and gains a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.  (Rick Santorum has suggested he can repeal Obamacare using the reconciliation process, and avert the need for a filibuster-proof majority.  We shall see, I suppose.)

Daniel Hannan spoke before CPAC last week.  He is a member of the European parliament; and is probably one of the most eloquent, compelling political orators in the English-speaking world.  His speech dramatized the problems that Great Britain and the European Union are facing because of Eurosocialism.  He delivered quite a number of hilarious one-liners that expose some of the other European leaders as fools and knaves.

Here is his speech.  It is well worth the time-- not only because it is entertaining, but also because it presages what our future could be in the United States: (HT: Polifrog)