Guarino

Big Week for North Carolina Democratic Culture of Corruption

It was a fairly extraordinary week for observing some of the signs of the longstanding culture of corruption we have had among the state Democratic leadership in Raleigh.

We heard calls from Senate Minority Leader Phil Berger for Attorney General Roy Cooper to appoint a special prosecutor to deal with the various allegations swirling about former Governor Mike Easley. 

And then we saw the Provost at NC State resign apparently in connection with the well-paying job provided to Easley's wife.  This was followed by Erskine Bowles, the top gun at UNC, calling upon NC State's board chairman, McQueen Campbell, to resign also.

And finally we learned about the FBI getting involved.

I think Phil Berger is right.  I think we do need a special prosecutor at the state level.

But to the extent that the case might be prosecuted at the federal level, the appointment of the new U.S. Attorney will be of critical importance.  Senator Kay Hagan has input into that appointment.  It arouses some concern that Hagan was a part of the compromised state Democratic leadership in Raleigh when the numerous instances of corruption were brewing.

NC Spin reports:

Former NC Supreme Court Chief Justice Burley Mitchell has always been known for his integrity and high standards of ethics....along with his intense loyalty to NC State. Mitchell served on the NC State Board along with McQueen Campbell, who is being widely implicated in flying Easley around the state and hooking him up with an attractive land deal. We also hear that Mitchell might be working closely with Senator Kay Hagan to find a replacement for the current U.S. Attorney who is currently investigating Campbell, Easley and others. Some are questioning whether Mitchell might have a conflict of interest.

And so, the plot thickens.  Who will hold all these folks accountable when the Democrats control nearly everything?

The state's media, and the blogging community, need to insist that these matters not be swept under a rug.  These folks are not immune from the expectation to refrain from public corruption just because they are North Carolina Democrats. 

 

An Under-reported Story: Nation's Food Supply at Risk?

Last year we vacationed in California, and spent some time driving through the San Joaquin valley.  This area is well known as an amazingly prolific source of the nation's food products.  It was surprising to me to see what a hot, dusty, dry place it is-- where daytime temperatures routinely exceed 100 degrees.

What makes its amazing food production possible is irrigation, and now that is being shut off.  This jeopardizes the nation's food supply, and will make us depend more upon foreign nations for certain agricultural products.  It is an example of environmental extremism, and bad laws, putting the nation at risk.

Why? To save a very small fish-- a minnow referred to as the Delta Smelt: (HT: Fred) 

Tree Removal at Festival Park Downtown

John Hammer explains the real basis for a convoluted deal to remove trees from Festival Park downtown:

The whole thing doesn't make a lot of sense unless you know the rest of the story, and you won't find the rest of the story by reading the agenda packet, the news release put out by the city or going to the public meeting on the project.

The rest of the story is that Jim Melvin, president of the Bryan Foundation, who is responsible for Center City Park across the street from Festival Park, did not like the fact that the trees in the city park didn't match the trees in his park.

What gives the whole deal away is that Action Greensboro, which is a stepchild to the Bryan Foundation, and Downtown Greensboro Inc. (DGI) were both involved in this venture.

The Big Picture According to Steyn

I read some outstanding remarks from a lecture Mark Steyn gave at Hillsdale College recently.  Steyn is an interesting fellow, because he is Canadian, but was educated in the United Kingdom, and lives in the United States.  He brings a world-weary perspective that undoubtedly derives from that multifaceted background.

I am going to excerpt extensively:

Both the secular Big Government progressives and political Islam recoil from the concept of the citizen, of the free individual entrusted to operate within his own societal space, assume his responsibilities, and exploit his potential.

In most of the developed world, the state has gradually annexed all the responsibilities of adulthood—health care, child care, care of the elderly—to the point where it's effectively severed its citizens from humanity's primal instincts, not least the survival instinct...

Europe's addiction to big government, unaffordable entitlements, cradle-to-grave welfare, and a dependence on mass immigration needed to sustain it has become an existential threat to some of the oldest nation-states in the world.

And now the last holdout, the United States, is embarking on the same grim path: After the President unveiled his budget, I heard Americans complain, oh, it's another Jimmy Carter, or LBJ's Great Society, or the new New Deal. You should be so lucky. Those nickel-and-dime comparisons barely begin to encompass the wholesale Europeanization that's underway. The 44th president's multi-trillion-dollar budget, the first of many, adds more to the national debt than all the previous 43 presidents combined, from George Washington to George Dubya. The President wants Europeanized health care, Europeanized daycare, Europeanized education, and, as the Europeans have discovered, even with Europeanized tax rates you can't make that math add up. In Sweden, state spending accounts for 54% of GDP. In America, it was 34%—ten years ago. Today, it's about 40%. In four years' time, that number will be trending very Swede-like...

The problem isn't the cost. These programs would still be wrong even if Bill Gates wrote a check to cover them each month. They're wrong because they deform the relationship between the citizen and the state. Even if there were no financial consequences, the moral and even spiritual consequences would still be fatal. That's the stage where Europe is...

"Indolence," in Machiavelli's word: There are stages to the enervation of free peoples. America, which held out against the trend, is now at Stage One: The benign paternalist state promises to make all those worries about mortgages, debt, and health care disappear...

If you're a business, when government gives you 2% of your income, it has a veto on 100% of what you do. If you're an individual, the impact is even starker. Once you have government health care, it can be used to justify almost any restraint on freedom: After all, if the state has to cure you, it surely has an interest in preventing you needing treatment in the first place...So you do all this for the "free" health care—and in the end you may not get the "free" health care anyway... But that's the point: Tyranny is always whimsical...

That's Stage Two of societal enervation—when the state as guarantor of all your basic needs becomes increasingly comfortable with regulating your behavior. Free peoples who were once willing to give their lives for liberty can be persuaded very quickly to relinquish their liberties for a quiet life...

he story of the Western world since 1945 is that, invited to choose between freedom and government "security," large numbers of people vote to dump freedom every time—the freedom to make your own decisions about health care, education, property rights, and a ton of other stuff. It's ridiculous for grown men and women to say: I want to be able to choose from hundreds of cereals at the supermarket, thousands of movies from Netflix, millions of songs to play on my iPod—but I want the government to choose for me when it comes to my health care. A nation that demands the government take care of all the grown-up stuff is a nation turning into the world's wrinkliest adolescent, free only to choose its record collection.

And don't be too sure you'll get to choose your record collection in the end. That's Stage Three: When the populace has agreed to become wards of the state, it's a mere difference of degree to start regulating their thoughts...

And then comes Stage Four, in which dissenting ideas and even words are labeled as "hatred." In effect, the language itself becomes a means of control. Despite the smiley-face banalities, the tyranny becomes more naked...

America, Britain, and even Canada are not peripheral nations: They're the three anglophone members of the G7. They're three of a handful of countries that were on the right side of all the great conflicts of the last century. But individual liberty flickers dimmer in each of them. The massive expansion of government under the laughable euphemism of "stimulus" (Stage One) comes with a quid pro quo down the line (Stage Two): Once you accept you're a child in the government nursery, why shouldn't Nanny tell you what to do? And then—Stage Three—what to think? And—Stage Four—what you're forbidden to think ...

On the Continent, claims (a) professor, "government regulations actually allow people to make a desirable tradeoff-to modestly lower income in return for more time with friends and family"...How can an economist analyze "family friendly" policies without noticing that the upshot of these policies is that nobody has any families?...

"Give people plenty and security, and they will fall into spiritual torpor," wrote Charles Murray in In Our Hands. "When life becomes an extended picnic, with nothing of importance to do, ideas of greatness become an irritant. Such is the nature of the Europe syndrome."

The key word here is "give." When the state "gives" you plenty—when it takes care of your health, takes cares of your kids, takes care of your elderly parents, takes care of every primary responsibility of adulthood—it's not surprising that the citizenry cease to function as adults: Life becomes a kind of extended adolescence...

(T)he long-term cost of a welfare society is the infantilization of the population.

Genteel decline can be very agreeable—initially: You still have terrific restaurants, beautiful buildings, a great opera house. And once the pressure's off it's nice to linger at the sidewalk table, have a second café au lait and a pain au chocolat, and watch the world go by...

A government big enough to give you everything you want isn't big enough to get you to give any of it back. That's the position European governments find themselves in. Their citizens have become hooked on unaffordable levels of social programs which in the end will put those countries out of business. Just to get the Social Security debate in perspective, projected public pension liabilities are expected to rise by 2040 to about 6.8% of GDP in the U.S. In Greece, the figure is 25%—i.e., total societal collapse. So what? shrug the voters. Not my problem. I want my benefits. The crisis isn't the lack of money, but the lack of citizens—in the meaningful sense of that word.

Every Democrat running for election tells you they want to do this or that "for the children." If America really wanted to do something "for the children," it could try not to make the same mistake as most of the rest of the Western world and avoid bequeathing the next generation a leviathan of bloated bureaucracy and unsustainable entitlements that turns the entire nation into a giant Ponzi scheme. That's the real "war on children" (to use another Democrat catchphrase)—and every time you bulk up the budget you make it less and less likely they'll win it...

The bailout and the stimulus and the budget and the trillion-dollar deficits are not merely massive transfers from the most dynamic and productive sector to the least dynamic and productive. When governments annex a huge chunk of the economy, they also annex a huge chunk of individual liberty. You fundamentally change the relationship between the citizen and the state into something closer to that of junkie and pusher—and you make it very difficult ever to change back. Americans face a choice: They can rediscover the animating principles of the American idea—of limited government, a self-reliant citizenry, and the opportunities to exploit your talents to the fullest—or they can join most of the rest of the Western world in terminal decline. To rekindle the spark of liberty once it dies is very difficult. The inertia, the ennui, the fatalism is more pathetic than the demographic decline and fiscal profligacy of the social democratic state, because it's subtler and less tangible.

Cops in Black and White, Part LXXVI

Jerry Bledsoe has a new installment today in the Rhino.  I will briefly summarize.

Bledsoe discusses the RMA's discussion of the investigations of James Hinson.  Bledsoe points out certain errors and omissions:

It failed to note that Dwight Crotts, then commander of Internal Affairs (IA), was part of the anti-Wray faction when it mentioned his involvement in the Hinson inquiry.

It suggested incorrectly that a decision to turn the case over to IA meant it could not be substantiated.  It also claimed incorrectly that IA had reviewed a previous criminal investigation.

It quoted the negative findings made by Crotts and Ryan Walton, but did not reveal the insufficient basis for those findings; and failed to mention they refrained from questioning Hinson.

It claimed incorrectly that Crotts briefed the new IA commander, Matt Lojko, about the Hinson inquiry in May 2005.  In fact, Lojko did not learn about it until later.

It implied David Wray probably would have known about Walton's earlier work during June, 2005, but he did not until later.  It claimed Lojko gave the Hinson file to Randall Brady prior to June 17, 2005, but this was false.  This was important because RMA made it appear that Wray knew about the prior investigations at that time; and that this would have raised questions about his press conference and his actions to suspend Hinson.  In fact, Lojko had told RMA he could not remember when he turned the file over.  And his personal log indicated an entry about the file being turned over on June 28-- after the time period in question.

Concluded Bledsoe: "No matter what a person being interviewed actually says, or what a police document actually reports, RMA is apt to ignore the facts and report the investigators' premises as reality."

Racial Bean-Counting at the GPD

Last summer, the Buracker report was released which contained numerous recommendations to improve the management of the Greensboro Police Department.  At that time, I noted that the report encouraged the process of racial bean-counting from the standpoint of human resources management.

The "new, improved" promotions process within the department was the most highly touted recommendation that the report produced.  We were told that the old process was the source of many of the department's internal problems; and that the revised process would fix that.

Now, we learn that some complaints have been filed regarding the new promotions process.  And guess what?   It turns out that racial bean-counting is at the root of the new set of complaints.

This is pretty interesting.  The city may now have to defend itself against litigation because of the EEOC complaint filed by black officers over alleged racial discrimination.  And now, the city also may have to defend itself because of inappropriately tilting its promotions procedures to favor black officers.

Does anyone else see the irony?   The city is apparently getting hit from both sides. 

How did the city of Greensboro get itself into this predicament?

Fiscal Irresponsibility in Raleigh

Brian Balfour has some compelling observations about our state's precarious financial condition; and about how our state Democratic leadership brought us to this point:

How Did We Get Here?
Too many short-sighted, irresponsible spending sprees by state lawmakers have created another self-imposed, and entirely avoidable, “budget crisis.”

• In the last five years, state budget increases have outpaced inflation plus population growth by $9 billion.

• From 2004 to 2008, spending increased at an annual average rate of 8.6 percent- with a total of nearly $6 billion in new spending.
• Even after adjusting for inflation, per person budgeted spending in North Carolina is:
  
  • Up 25.7 percent over 15 years
  • Up 94 percent over 25 years

Explosion in State Debt Making Matters Worse

• North Carolina has authorized more than $7 billion in new debt since 2000.

• Per capita state debt has more than doubled in the last seven years.
• Debt service payments are now two-and-a-half times more than they were just seven years ago.

The Well is Almost Dry
In spite of state coffers being flush with tax revenue during the economic boom period, lawmakers have set aside very little for a rainy day. Moreover, Governor Perdue has already tapped into the state’s savings as well as federal stimulus funds designated for next year.

It turns out the Republicans in Raleigh have had some creative proposals to restore fiscal responsibility in Raleigh.  Take a look at a list prepared by Conservative NC that describes all the bills they have developed that have not been allowed a vote on the floor of the state legislature. 

The Republicans want to impose limits on the growth of the state budget and limit expenditures.  (They also have some good ideas that have been stymied about defense of marriage, bullying and annexation). 

Post-Abortion Syndrome

HT: Conservative NC

Obama Talks About Health Care Rationing (as agenda moves along)

Barack Obama made some fascinating statements in an interview recently.  He began to discuss, for the first time, the topic of health care rationing in an oblique way.  He certainly did not do so during the campaign last year.

Tevi Troy, NRO:

Obama... mentions Medicare and Medicaid and our “obligation to get those costs under control.” He is right about the problem of cost, but it was not clear what he could do to achieve this. While the White House is indeed looking for cost-cutting opportunities within Medicare, such ideas usually end up on Congress’s cutting-room floor.

One broader cost-cutting measure he mentions is comparative-effectiveness research, a $1.1 billion effort via the stimulus package to compare different therapies and try to get to official judgments about which ones work better. His vision for comparative effectiveness is one of objective studies through which you will learn that “the blue pill, which costs half as much as the red pill, is just as effective, and you might want to go ahead and get the blue one.” Once consumers have access to these studies, he believes, “if a provider is pushing the red one on you, then you should at least ask some important questions.”

The problem with his vision of comparative effectiveness is two-fold. First, per the stimulus legislation, it is supposed to be a measure of effectiveness, not a cost-comparison tool. Second, and more important, this binary view of effectiveness (one therapy is more effective than the other) is not compatible with the emerging notion of personalized medicine...

Another subject the president discusses with the Times is the problem of end-of-life care. He tells the story of his grandmother, who got an expensive hip replacement, then died two weeks later. President Obama says he “would have paid for that hip replacement just because she’s my grandmother.” At the same time, however, he notes that “whether, sort of in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill is a sustainable model, is a very difficult question.” Furthermore, he recognizes that Americans don’t want to hear that we will not provide expensive late-stage care, a la England. As the president puts it, “If somebody told me that my grandmother couldn’t have a hip replacement, and she had to lie there in misery in the waning days of her life — that would be pretty upsetting.”

His answer to this question, however, is also somewhat upsetting — and not just because he calls denying care to the terminally ill “very difficult” and “upsetting,” but never “something we won’t do.” He says that “there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place.” And not only will this be difficult, he claims, but he has trouble imagining “the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance.” It is unclear what this group will look like, but the notion of some empyrean body, developed outside the normal political channels, making health-care decisions for the country, is a notion that makes me very, very nervous.

Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that 45 "centrist" Democrats are protesting the "secretive process" being undertaken to write health care reform legislation.

And there is some major disagreement as to whether the tax-free status of employer-provided health insurance will be eliminated or diminished.  It would be a way for the government potentially to raise revenues, and to cause purchasers of health insurance to seek more economical policies.  But this is a political sacred cow.  Obama doesn't want the tax break reduced, but key committee chair Max Baucus does.

In any case, we have a secretive process in motion that would likely lead to health care rationing.  It will be very difficult otherwise to pay for the massive new health care entitlement Obama and the national Democrats want to create.

What is the DOJ Hiding? And Other GPD Issues...

I want to share some interesting developments regarding the overall GPD mess:

1. The Inside Scoop reported new information in the paper yesterday about the DOJ investigation into a complaint regarding minority hiring in the department:

(I)n the  cases Scoop examined, it was not clear whether the Justice Department investigated because it was tipped off or because it simply started poking around.  And a spokesman said the department would not, as a matter of policy, discuss the impetus for their investigations. 

So for the time being, that issue will have to remain murky.

Is that all we can learn?  Are we going to be satisfied with that?

What about the public's right to know?  Does it not seem odd that the city of Greensboro cannot be made aware of who its accuser is?  This raises more questions as to whether there may have been some type of political intervention with the Obama/Holder Justice Department.

2. Roch has posted some documents regarding the recent tribulations.  That post had two important revelations.  First, it is obvious that the city of Greensboro's attorneys feel that the Department of Justice is engaging in a witch hunt with preconceived notions as to the city's culpability. (That is somewhat understandable in view of the fact that the city outright admitted guilt in these matters several years ago.)

The city's attorney wrote the following to the DOJ:

(A)t several periods in the last two weeks you have stated that it was your intention to " build a  case against the City ". Consequently we have concerns about whether an unbiased assessment of this matter is occurring. 

The Department of Justice has a duty to approach these matters in an even-handed manner, regardless of how foolish the city may have been three years ago.  It has a duty to discern the truth, and to refrain from a malignant prosecution based on erroneous information.  It will be interesting to see what the Obama/Holder Justice Department does in the long run.

But Roch also posted complaints regarding the department's new promotion procedures.  I had been advised a couple of months ago that dissatisfaction was germinating among some GPD employees regarding this process.

Remember how we were told three years ago how everyone in the department was so happy that the old police chief was pushed out, and that a new police chief was installed.  And then remember how we heard last year that the department's promotions policy was the root cause of all the employee dissatisfaction within the GPD; and how fixing that problem would be the answer.

Perhaps it turns out that a new police chief and the new promotions policy were not the panacea they were thought to be.

3. Ben Holder has linked to some video of the Harvard conference attended by Yvonne Johnson and Tim Bellamy.  Recall that Mike Barber had suggested that their participation in this conference may have somehow led to the DOJ investigation.

There is no firm evidence of that, at least, on the video.  While there appeared to be somewhat of a DOJ connection present, Yvonne Johnson did not openly discuss the GPD fiasco during this portion of the meeting.

However, she did speak favorably of the Truth and Reconciliation process and cause; failed to accurately describe the events that occurred in 1979; and mildly castigated the City Council because it refrained from signing on to that process.  

In addition, the theme of this particular session was to promote the concept of a national Human Rights Commission.  The purpose of the commission would be to empower the federal government to investigate and regulate local and state police departments, jails and prisons around the country.  This, of course, is a profound perversion of the proper federal role; and would grant the federal government massive new extra-constitutional powers.

Liberals like Yvonne Johnson see few limits to the role of the federal government; and some apparently would have it effectively run our law enforcement/criminal justice agencies at the local and state level.

The Health Care Industry's $2 Trillion Offer

The buzz today was over the health care industry's offer to accept $2 Trillion less in future payments in order to help Obama pass his plan for increased socialized medicine.

Of course, it will be very difficult in the future to demonstrate that $2 Trillion worth of savings will have taken place.  Indeed, expenses overall would likely shoot up dramatically. 

Ultimately, the plan discussed today likely would lead to health care rationing and considerably higher taxes-- outcomes for which health care industry representatives doubltless would avoid accountability.  Private insurance would be crowded out of the system by Obama's public plan for the uninsured.   

Some other interesting observations have been made.

Yuval Levin:

The providers have a gun to their heads and are doing what they can to avoid being shut out of the Democratic reform effort, while the Democrats need a way to pretend their immensely expensive plan will be paid for somehow. So it’s rosy forecasts all around.

Conservatives should make clear to the public just what is being cooked up here. 

Michael Cannon from Cato:

Everyone may be at the table right now, but that's only because no one wants to be on the menu. Former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle says it's a coin toss whether we'll get comprehensive reform this year. But that's assuming he can pry a coin from your fingers, or mine.

But now, the health care industry seems to be saying, "Here, take our coin." Did the industry really just volunteer to pay for health care reform?

A good rule in politics is that if something sounds too good to be true, it usually is. Lobbyists don't simply propose to reduce their members' incomes. If they did, they would be fired and replaced with different lobbyists.

Another possibility is that the industry – which would get more customers under universal coverage – wants to help the president and Congress ignore the math.

Democrats have offered reforms that they claim would reduce health care spending over time, including more coordinated care, preventive care, and disease management. The industry endorsed those reforms in its recent letter to President Obama. But the number-crunchers at the Congressional Budget Office say there's little to no evidence that those measures will produce savings. And unless the CBO agrees, Congress has to cut payments or raise taxes.

Senate Finance Committee chairman has spoken openly about getting the CBO to change its mind. If reformers can say that even the industry is committed to achieving savings with these reforms, that might make it easier to get the CBO to relent, and allow health care reform to pass without the necessary payment cuts or tax increases – even if there's still no evidence that the assumed savings will appear.

Don't call it cooking the books. Call it the new math of universal coverage.

And more from Cannon:

What's in it for the industry? Universal coverage gives them a huge revenue boost in the short term — and then every lobbyist at today's White House media event will fight those spending reductions over the long term.

The industry isn't negotiating its surrender — they're negotiating the surrender of even more of our money.

The Cattle Rancher on Obama

Brenda Bowers:

While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75 year old rancher, whose hand was caught in the gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to Obama and his bid to be our president.

The old rancher said, ‘Well, ya know, Obama is a ‘Post Turtle”..

Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a ‘post turtle’ was.

The old rancher said, ‘When you’re driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that’s a ‘post turtle’.

The old rancher saw the puzzled look on the doctor’s face so he continued to explain. ‘You know he didn’t get up there by himself, he doesn’t belong up there, he doesn’t know what to do while he’s up there, and you just wonder what kind of (dummies) put him up there to begin with’.

I shared this story with my 80-year-old father-in-law, who used to ranch cattle on his farm in southside Virginia.  He really got a kick out of the story.  Thanks, Brenda!

State of NC Quick Hits

Some interesting developments are occurring at the state level:

1. The news that Mike Easley improperly accepted flights on private corporate jets is a revelation that demands accountability.  And this is not the only questionable situation that has come to the public's attention regarding Easley.  Attorney General Roy Cooper and Governor Beverly Perdue need to take action to deal with this situation to the fullest extent of the law.  Inaction on their part would suggest they approve of the former governor's actions.

2. Roy Cooper has some problems of his own with a lawsuit filed against him by a former campaign opponent.

3. The North Carolina Senate is considering a bill that would cause our gasoline tax to be higher than it otherwise would be.  Of course, there is a desire in the state legislature to generate additional revenues because of our serious budget shortfalls, and a reluctance to deal with spending.

4. NC Spin on the state Democratic leadership's unwillingness to deal with the serious budget issues:

This would be the perfect opportunity for our state leaders to reform and reorganize state government, consolidating unnecessary cabinet level agencies and eliminating duplicative programs while prioritizing what state government can and should be providing for our citizens. This was exactly what happened in the last great recessionary period, The Great Depression. But we don't have the leadership today like Governor O. Max Gardner, who recognized what needed to be done, had the fortitude to make bold changes and sold them to North Carolina citizens.

5. Beverly Perdue's popularity is sinking fast, and that is understandable.  While she initially took a stand against raising taxes, it now appears that outcome will not be likely because the state legislature has other plans.  She dealt with the budget mess by using stimulus money and other questionable maneuvers.  Her furlough plan has been unpopular, but achieves relatively little in terms of spending reductions.  And voters understand there is waste in the North Carolina budget that is not being addressed.

6. A new house bill (HB 1180) would increase competition for local phone service on land lines.  This is a very good idea that should pass.  I suppose it is possible it may also have some indirect implications for broadband competition.  Also, Americans for Prosperity has come out against municipal broadband.  I know that some folks locally are talking up municipal broadband as a solution for our problem with Time Warner Cable-- and a way to market the Greensboro area to outsiders-- but I would really prefer to see more private competition instead.  

7. Brian Balfour says that the recent discovery that our state budget shortfall is even greater than expected means two things.  First, we should use more accurate techniques for projecting revenues; and second, we should exhibit more fiscal discipline.  The state Democratic establishment clearly has been doing neither of these things.      

The Guilford County Commissioners' Compromise

Local conservatives can be gratified regarding the continued stance taken by the Guilford County commissioners that local taxes will not be increased.

We learn from the Inside Scoop, however, the trade-offs that had to be made with Skip Alston and Co. to achieve that outcome.

Local non-profits had to be funded.  Law enforcement had to be cut by $750,000, but we should remain mindful that the territory covered by the Guilford County Sheriff's department is contracting because of Greensboro's annexations.  I hope this cut will not significantly weaken law enforcement in the county.

Finally, there is a reduction in library money.  Remember several years ago that the city of Greensboro was planning to charge county residents who use city libraries; and the county provided some annual funding as an alternative.  Now the county is apparently reducing its support, so it will be interesting to see what the city's response will be.  

In any case, Republican county commissioners had to make some compromises to get a no-tax-increase budget. 

Greensboro's Hate Crimes: More Information About The Guilford College Incident

The gulf between the media's representation of what is important, and what the truth is, can sometimes be far and wide.  I have learned that almost by accident, and have refrained from revealing what I learned until today.  More on that later.

But today in the News and Record, there is a story about a local Muslim woman whose home in Adams Farm has been "egged" repeatedly.  The assumption is made that the incidents are a hate crime, and that it reveals the "ugly side" of our city.   Police had been fairly unresponsive when called.

Of course, egging a person's house repeatedly is criminal behavior regardless of whether it is motivated by "hate".  It is vandalism. 

It is a law enforcement problem because a house is repeatedly being vandalized.  The police need to be more responsive than they apparently have been in helping this woman.

This is a very serious problem regardless of whether it is motivated by religious or ethnic animosity.  But that was the angle the News and Record predictably chose to play.

It is a similar angle to that pursued when a Muslim woman was allegedly assaulted by a police officer at the Wal-Mart several years ago.  And it is a similar spin to the stories when a fellow named James Hinson had certain grievances against the Police Department. 

Finally, it is a similar approach to that taken in the course of the infamous Guilford College incident two years ago.  Long-time readers may recall a post I made here over two years ago regarding that incident, during which Palestinian students were alleged to have been victims of a hate crime.  That was felt to justify front-page, banner-headline coverage.

There were impassioned debates over the following days, here and elsewhere; and ultimately the police declined to prosecute the Guilford College students who were suspected of the alleged hate crime.

This is where it gets really wierd.

About a year later, I spoke with an acquaintance.  He told me that his son, whom I shall call Harry, had been injured severely a number of months earlier.  Apparently another young man had assaulted him with little-to-no provocation.  There was surgery required, and an extensive period of rehabilitation.

But my acquaintance explained to me something that was extremely ironic.  It turned out that the young man who assaulted Harry turned out to be one of the guys accused in the Guilford College incident.

My acquaintance and his son Harry are white Anglo-Saxon Protestant.  It was not a "hate crime" against young Harry; but it was a very serious assault.  That made me believe the young man involved in the Guilford College incident, who later assaulted Harry, had a serious problem.  He probably had a very quick trigger, difficulties with impulse control, and a tendency to "explode" with anger.  And he is likely a criminal because of these attributes.

Interestingly, this man ultimately evaded the criminal justice system in Harry's case, just as he had with the Guilford College incident.  It made me wonder if Harry's assault could have been averted if the police in Greensboro had focused on assault charges, instead of having to deal with the local media's juicy, sensationalistic demand to address the "hate crime".

The point is that we need strong, apolitical systems for law enforcement and criminal justice.  If we had these things in Greensboro, then perhaps the Adams Farm Muslim woman and Harry would both have been better served.  And the presence or absence of dreaded "hate crimes" would be of lesser consequence.