Guarino

Washington on Morality and Religion

George Washington:

Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

New Greensboro Sons of Italy Chapter Named After Famed Carolinian

I had posted several months ago about an Italian festival that took place on Elm St. in downtown Greensboro.  Energetic representatives of the Winston-Salem affiliate of the Order Sons of Italy in America (OSIA) were present, and recruited attendees to form a new Greensboro chapter.

The first meeting was held earlier this month.  The News and Record published a small announcement this morning.

One of the first tasks of a new local affiliate of OSIA is to select a name.  It was decided that we would try to name the chapter after someone who has some significance for the state of North Carolina.

One woman nominated an Italian Revolutionary War soldier who apparently fought at the Battle of Guilford Courthouse (and whose name unfortunately escapes me).  Another member nominated Amadeo Giannini, who founded Bank of America. 

But the "winning" nominee was this guy.  And so the chapter is being named after him-- with whom some are doubtless familiar.

The Contribution Made By Pregnancy Resource Centers

This video explains the role played by Pregnancy Resource Centers.  The assistance provided at a critical moment for unwed pregnant women is invaluable on a number of levels:

My Conversation with Amos Quick About Tasers and SRO's

A couple of commenters here have noted the story this week regarding our esteemed Guilford County Board of Education and the fights associated with Eastern Guilford High School.

Both Doug Clark and Sam Hieb have done a good job of posting on this topic.

Several months ago, I received an e-mail from school board member Amos Quick, who had seen one of my posts.  It was apparent he wanted to speak with me, so I gave him a call.

It was obvious that Mr. Quick wanted to communicate his justifications for the positions he has taken on the matter of Tasers and SRO's.  He explained to me that, in the course of his position with the Salvation Army, he has had the occasion to direct and oversee programs that serve teenage boys.  He said these boys sometimes become unruly; and he is certain there are effective techniques to defuse these situations without having to resort to the types of measures that the county school system has taken.  He had seen it within his own domain.

I have to admit that the conversation momentarily became just a bit contentious, on both sides.

But he also had an interesting perspective about the phenomenon of teen-age boys becoming disruptive or even violent in the school setting.  It was his contention that this was partially rooted in the fact that some of these boys cannot do the school work.  Frustration and anger over their failure builds, and it becomes manifest in other ways.

I countered that perhaps this is an argument for more vocational education.  In the recent past, the public school establishment has been resistant to the concept of returning to the old vocational tracks offered to certain students.  I think this is a big mistake, because not every student is going to succeed in college.

I emphasized with Mr. Quick that I felt it was necessary for school board members, and the school system, to place primacy on the need to maintain a safe environment in the schools-- not to protect individual students from police officers and from discipline.

I suggested to him that perhaps he might consider directing his focus to the question of whether tasers are being used safely, and whether officers are properly trained in their use.  I had posted about this topic previously:

(T)here is a "standard of practice" for police professionals that the electric shock not be discharged for more than 5 seconds, and no more than three times. 

I know that this debate is fraught with racial overtones.  There has certainly been a tendency in the African-American political community to act in a manner that is suspicious of the use of police force, particularly when white officers might be involved; and also to protect black students from discipline.  That is a nationwide phenomenon-- it is not just here in Greensboro.

I notice that Mr. Quick now seems to be leading this public discussion; and Deena Hayes may have faded more into the background after her hands seem to have been caught in the cookie jar with the hotel deal.

What these two school board members need to consider-- and in fact what all school board members and administrators need to consider-- is that black students are just as terrorized by the threat of school violence as white students.  Well-behaving black students who are motivated to learn have just as much of a right to a safe, productive learning environment as white students.

Doug Clark is correct that this needs to be an issue in the upcoming school board elections.  But the task of creating safer schools is a daily battle-- and the question is whether we choose to wage that battle every day.

Coliseum Deficits, Moral and Otherwise

Robbie Perkins is proposing that a new public authority be established to take over operations of the Greensboro Coliseum.  This is apparently being initiated in response to the City Council's refusal at a briefing earlier this week to permit the amphitheater project to proceed.  Perkins said the concern is that the Coliseum is being "politicized".

Translation: city staff is not getting what they want automatically, so we need to create a different structure.  The fact that some very dishonest things happened with regard to the amphitheater and the aquatic center appear to be of little concern.

The City Council did a good job of shooting down this particular proposal.  When Matt Brown initiated construction, it simply had not been aired publicly; and there had been no discussion in council as to whether it would be approved, and if so, where it should be sited.

Now Robbie wants to use the hotel tax, or raise restaurant taxes, to fund the coliseum deficit.  But remember that we heard the lament of the local hospitality industry, with all its travails, when it was time to argue in favor of the aquatic center.  Do we truly want to raise the taxes they must collect from their patrons after having accepted all the arguments they had made about the difficulties they are having?

The problem with public authorities is that they often tend not to be terribly accountable to the public.  It could provide a structure for Matt Brown to have his way even more than he already does.  Robbie is correct that it would be good to get other jurisdictions to share in the Coliseum deficit-- but good luck with that. 

On a somewhat entertaining side note, a Fox 8 reporter referred to Robbie Perkins as the City Council Chairman when this story was aired.  It is not clear whether that was an honest mistake, or if it was a Freudian slip:

 

Check-kiting Conviction

There was an interesting story in the News and Record this morning regarding the check-kiting case, which has some relevance to the GPD fiasco.

I had posted here in the past about the connection.  Now Terrell Raynor has pled guilty, and Beverly Hinson-- James' ex-wife-- is reported to be in prison.  Charges against attorney Pella Stokes are reported to be pending.

The Nuts and Bolts of Reconciliation

Former Senator Rick Santorum hosts the Bill Bennett radio program on Friday mornings.  Today, he discussed how reconciliation works. 

In a nutshell, the Democrats would have to violate long-standing parliamentary procedure to make it happen; and Vice President Joe Biden would likely have to intervene with certain rulings.

Of course, a health care bill would theoretically also have to pass the House-- and that is a tough hurdle at the moment.

Santorum's explanation of the reconciliation procedure is found on podcast here (look to the right side of the screen).  If you listen, the discussion begins at approximately the 6:00 mark.

Don't Pull Any Punches, Andrew

WFMY, Tim Bellamy and the New Chief

There was much gnashing of teeth over a post I had made here a week ago regarding WFMY.  But since then, a couple of local bloggers have submitted questions to the local TV station; and Jerry Bledsoe has come out with an excellent article in the Rhino that refutes the station's reports.  Bledsoe had also had some questions of the station.

Thus far, the folks at WFMY have seen fit to ignore the queries posed by these three individuals.  This smacks of a lack of accountability.  The key individuals and reporters at that station certainly are free to remain obdurate and recalcitrant with respect to their ignorant, biased, agenda-based reporting.  But to the extent they do so, they risk alienating parts of its viewer base. 

I continue to encourage folks to boycott WFMY.  There are other alternatives for local TV news in the area.  I have noted the product of News 14 Carolina recently.  Their local news reporting is utterly guileless, with no detectable agenda.  There is little glitz, barely detectable levels of manipulation, and minimal interjection of bias.  Just straightforward reporting for the most part.

It is an open question as to who are the forces within WFMY that contribute to this type of reporting.  Is it the reporters themselves?  Is it the news director or the program manager?  Is it corporate CBS, which has a well-established reputation of bias in its news division?  Or is it corporate Gannett, which owns the station?

I had raised questions with regard this station's chief anchor, Sandra Hughes, who is regarded in some quarters as the matriarch of local news here in Greensboro.  Does she merely read the news?  Is she merely a marionette whose strings are pulled from behind the scenes?  Or does she have some degree of creative input into the station's news product, especially in view of her greater-than-37 years of service?  If she has creative input, she shares partial responsibility for this mess.

In any case, in view of the station's non-response, perhaps people need to complain to corporate CBS, or corporate Gannett.

Meanwhile, we had a thread here several days ago that elucidated the flawed process used to recruit Chief Bellamy during 2007. 

We learned there were nine people the city appointed to screen the candidates.  One of these was a Pulpit Forum minister.  Two were members of the Human Relations Commission, which historically is the local organization that tries to keep allegedly overbearing police in line-- most typically in  response to complaints registered by aggrieved minorities.  Another was a former Greensboro assistant city manager-- someone who had been within the system.  Two were representatives of the local business community-- including a funeral director and someone from the Merchants' Association.  It is unclear to me whether these are typical members of Greensboro's "downtown business establishment", or are part of the culture of "business progressives" we have here in Greensboro.  One was a community association representative; and there was also a conservative state Supreme Court Justice.  Finally, there was one out-of-town police chief.

Of these eight individuals, there was only one who had expertise in running a police department and reducing crime-- the Fayetteville police chief.  But even in the case of that person, one cannot know what his individual approach would tend to be.  For the majority of these people the city chose to conduct this search, we must wonder why they were chosen.  We must wonder what political inclinations or leanings they may have had that led the city to believe they would produce the desired outcome.

As I have mentioned here previously, City Manager Rashad Young has proposed a similar process to recruit our next chief.  That would be a huge mistake.  If we take this approach, we run the risk of getting another impotent, milquetoast, "connected" choice.  The City Council needs to step in, and assure that the search for a new chief is conducted appropriately.  We need a chief who is committed to a proactive approach, who wants to aggressively reduce crime and clean up the department.  We need someone with a background that suggests he can get the job done.

In the meantime, there ought not be any expressions of surprise over the manner in which WFMY is behaving.

Ryan vs. Obamacare

Double Jeopardy Hero

A former GPD officer, Maurice Merritt, has been shot twice in the line of duty-- once here in Greensboro, and once with his current position in Cheraw, SC.  The man deserves ample appreciation for what he does.  He is a real hero. (HT: Fred)

And it would be an understatement to point out that this is one officer who does not shrink from doing his job-- unlike some about whom we have heard currently with the GPD.

The Latest Talking Points on Health Care

Today is the day of the big summit, in which congressional Republicans are probably ill-advised to participate.

There have been two talking points that have been recently emphasized by the national Democrats regarding health care.  They are using these issues to persuade people of the need to introduce even more socialism into the delivery of health care.

The first issue is the recent large increase in insurance premiums for California Anthem Blue Cross individual customers.  This was accentuated and demagogued by various parties.  But there is an explanation for what happened.  It was caused by governmental measures at the state level:

The Wall Street Journal points out that while Wellpoint as a whole is profitable, it has been losing money in this particular market, and these steep premium increases are the direct result of California’s state insurance regulations. Regulations require that insurance companies offer individual “conversion policies” to former employees who have exhausted their COBRA continuation coverage rights. This may be a good idea in principle, but California takes it a step further and sets the premiums to be charged for such coverage by statute. And, since those electing to take advantage of this option are disproportionately those with higher than average health care costs (often due to pre-existing conditions), the statutory rates aren’t sufficient to cover the costs of providing care for those patients. To stay in business – and indeed, to meet financial solvency regulations also imposed by the state – insurance companies have to get the money someplace, and the only place left is to increase premiums for customers not covered by the statute. Essentially, several of California’s regulations have combined to, in effect, require these steep premium increases.

California’s regulations are much less extreme versions of the regulations imposed by both the Democrat health care reform bills – the one that passed the House on November 7 and the one that passed the Senate on December 24.

So it was inappropriate governmental intervention at the state level that caused the dramatic increase in premiums that the national Democrats are now seizing upon for partisan purposes.

The second issue that the national Democrats have been decrying is the anti-trust exemption for health insurance companies.  While I personally do not see the need for this exemption, there have been two substantive articles that raise considerable doubt as to whether this is really the big issue it is being made out to be.

Scott Harringon, WSJ:

Repealing the antitrust exemption for health insurers would not significantly increase competition, and it would not make health-insurance coverage either less expensive or more available. There is no evidence that the exemption has increased health insurers' prices or profits or contributed to higher market concentration...

Rhetoric about monopoly notwithstanding, Congress's reform proposals are not designed to increase competition in private health insurance. The House bill proposes a government-run insurer. The Senate Finance Committee proposes creation of quasi-public cooperatives. Both bills (and the Senate HELP bill) include restrictions on health insurance underwriting, pricing, profitability and policy design that would essentially turn private health insurers into regulated public utilities.

If the goal were to promote robust concentration in private health insurance, Congress would focus on reducing impediments to competition. It could do so by allowing consumers to buy insurance across state lines at terms that do not require them to subsidize other buyers or to buy coverage for state-mandated benefits they are unwilling to pay for. Congress could also eliminate tax and regulatory rules that favor employment-based coverage over individual coverage.

Pacific Research Institute:

Fact is, health insurers enjoy no “exemption” from antitrust laws. Instead, federal law ensures that state antitrust and other consumer-protection laws dominate the field of insurance regulation. And this goes for all lines of insurance, not just health insurance...

Despite periodic crises, states retain their sovereign role in the regulation of insurance, a situation that has persisted since the founding and currently causes no public outcry.

Virginia Stands for the Constitution; North Carolina Continues to Disappoint

There was some big news in the state of Virginia recently.  In response to Obamacare, the Virginia Senate passed legislation that would theoretically make residents of that state exempt from any federal requirement to purchase health insurance.  And the Virginia Senate is controlled by Democrats!  This move was part of a nationwide trend seen in numerous states to take preemptive action against "health care reform".

You would think a move like that in Virginia would make big news in the neighboring state of North Carolina.  Sorry-- it just doesn't work that way.

North Carolina's state legislature, of course, has not seen fit to pass comparable legislation.  There was an effort to introduce an anti-Obamacare bill by state Republicans, but it likely will not see the light of day.  State Democrats simply will not permit it.

Meanwhile, local governments throughout our state-- including our own city-- must grapple with the fact that the state of North Carolina is holding back monies upon which they ordinarily rely:

(T)he state has once again withheld money promised to local governments because of their inability to balance the state budget or make cuts in their realm...The state has not acted in good faith and over the past ten years has lied to local governments again and again.  Sadly, the public could usually care less.

Jerry Bledsoe Asks Some Pointed Questions on GPD Off-Duty Program

From a comment thread in response to a previous post:

Good luck on making a public records request for off-duty work info. I made just such a request on Dec. 31. I've yet to receive anything, although the same information had been provided to me in the past and newspapers in other cities have received such information on a regular basis. Pat Boswell and Becky Jo Peterson-Buie are bound and determined that no such information is going to get out. Somebody needs to investigate why that is so. My request has been appealed to city management but after two months, I've still received nothing.Since you're chiming in here, let me ask you this. Aren't Capt. Reese and James Hinson in charge of off-duty work at the coliseum and other venues? Are they assigning jobs to themselves? Weren't captains exempt from off-duty work pay previously? If a captain is working off-duty at the coliseum at time and a half, isn't he getting far more than a patrol officer? Wouldn't it be a great savings to taxpayers if captains weren't allowed to do that? Major events require the presence of a lieutenant, but others only a sergeant, isn't that right? Is Hinson working at time and a half when a sergeant could be doing it at a savings to the tax payers. In your opinion is the off-duty work program corrupt? If it is corrupt why whould it continue? Why do you think I'm not receiving the information I've requested, which is clearly public record?

A Couple of Interesting Senate Races

There are at least a couple of interesting U.S. Senate races on the horizon.

First, Dick Cheney's daughter Liz is apparently rumored to be considering a run against Jim Webb in Virginia during 2012.

Second, there is a hot Senate race to fill the Illinois seat formerly occupied by Barack Obama.  The Democratic candidate is Alexi Giannoulias-- a name that should ring a bill for those of us who have read extensively regarding Obama's Chicago background:

Complicating things for the president in Illinois is that Giannoulias was battered by primary opponent David Hoffman, who used the Giannoulias family's Broadway Bank — and its loans to mob figures and a convicted influence peddler — in a series of devastating TV spots.

That influence peddler is none other than Obama's own real estate fairy, Tony Rezko.

The national Republicans are eager to take Obama's old Senate seat with liberal Republican Mark Kirk. And they're hoping to tie the president to the seamy politics of the state and to Obama's old friend Rezko.

Simkins: Incumbency Protection Racket?

Marcus Brandon, who is challenging Earl Jones in a NC House primary:

Brandon has been one of the more prolific fundraisers among those challenging incumbents in the primary. His 2009 end-of-year campaign report showed (click here) he had raised $14,460 last year as part of his bid to unseat Jones.

Brandon said he needed the money because Jones was both a four-term incumbent as well as a member of the Simkins PAC, an influential political action committee that works on behalf of African American communities in Greensboro.

“This is how I feel about the Simkins PAC…It’s not new for incumbents to create tools to keep themselves in office and I don’t necessarily take a position against that. Where I have an issue with the Simkins PAC is what it was intended for and where it is now. It was intended to express the views and the ideas of the African American community. And what it (has) become is an incumbency protector,” Brandon said.

GPD Off-Duty Program: Containing the Costs

Last month, I posted here regarding certain highly questionable dynamics with respect to how the GPD off-duty program works.

I have heard several times, from several different people, that James Hinson is the person who handles the GPD's off-duty assignments. 

Tony Wilkins has a post over at his blog that addresses the Greensboro Coliseum's operating deficit.  (Amanda Lehmert also reported today that the city council put a hold on the notorious amphitheater proposal.)

Tony suggests a $1 surcharge on tickets for all Coliseum events.  But he also has an interesting proposal about the police off-duty program at the coliseum:

It’s been mentioned that security is billed at about $1175 per hour on big nights. $47 per hour for 25 security folks. I’ve confirmed with Sheriff BJ Barnes that county personnel can offer the same security for $25 per hour. That’s a savings of $550 per hour. I was told it could be a political hot button to mention this. It should be a political hot button not to mention it. The city could easily schedule security at regular pay instead of time and a half for a city facility operating at a loss of taxpayer dollars.

All of a sudden the coliseum is a money maker.

 

North Carolina's Half-Billion Dollar Deficit

Brian Balfour:

In spite of more than $1 billion in new taxes, $1.7 billion in federal “stimulus” funds, $100 million of transfers from “special funds,” and $55 million in new fees; the state could still come up half a billion short this year.

And a once-great state says it also needs to delay our tax refunds.  The orgy of spending has taken its toll.

Robbie Preparing Us to Fork Over the Dough

Sam Hieb comments on Robbie Perkins' comments in the paper this morning on the competition to gain Google's favor.

The question is how much we would have to throw at Google, and what benefits we can expect to accrue from doing so.  Robbie seems to presume reflexively that this project is a winner--  even before it has been objectively analyzed and studied, even before we know all the details.  I think we need to be careful about the herd mentality that seems to be developing.  We need to be wary of giving away the store to make this happen, if that is what Google would require.

Robbie has historically had little compunction regarding the practice of spending the taxpayers' money, and raising taxes.

Question: was Robbie the city councilman who wanted to grant incentives for the Wal-Mart shopping center on East Cone Boulevard several years ago?

Why Was Chief Bellamy Hired?

An irresponsible, biased above-the-fold banner headline story appeared in the News and Record Saturday that basically reprised the information from the WFMY interview last week.

There was some commentary on the "real reasons" Chief Bellamy was hired.  It is absolutely breathtaking that they expect anyone to believe the contentions that were being made:

“As a professional law enforcement officer and as a person, if you say that the color of your skin is a qualifier (for your job)... that hurts,” Bellamy said.

“I went through a national search process that included five intense steps. I had an impressive resume, and I had worked in every assignment in the Greensboro Police Department”...

A member of the citizen review committee that interviewed Bellamy and recommended his hiring to former City Manager Mitchell Johnson in 2007 said race was not a factor in their decision.

“Those days are gone in my opinion. Anyone who would raise that issue wouldn’t understand (the decision),” said Al Lineberry Jr., former president and current consultant of Hanes-Lineberry Funeral Services.

Bellamy “was head and shoulders above the other candidates,” Lineberry said. “He was far ahead in his ability to interact with people. He was exceptional”...

Bellamy said statistics speak for themselves for his tenure. The violent crime rate has fallen 24 percent since 2006, when Bellamy became interim chief.

There hasn’t been a homicide in the city in nearly three months — the longest span since at least 2003. The chief said shootings and property crimes are also down so far this year.

City Councilman Zack Matheny — who was not familiar with Knight’s statements — said the city has improved with Bellamy in office.

“You can’t dispute that crime has declined, and you can’t dispute our homicides are down,” Matheny said.

“Have we had a few officers out of the more than 500 get in trouble? Absolutely,” he said. “But I respect Chief Bellamy, and the job he’s done is a tremendous one.”

One of the things we should consider closely is Chief Bellamy's communication skills.  Are we truly to believe that there was not even one single police professional in the entire country who had a better profile overall than Tim Bellamy during the recruitment process?  If so, that would reflect very poorly on the nationwide pool of police professionals.

In fact, we need to think back on the information in the Bledsoe series.  We need to remember how one Simkins machine operative in particular influenced the process heavily during 2005 when Wray was being toppled.  Recall how Bledsoe described the relationship between the city manager and Bellamy that seemed to be developing around that time. 

Bellamy became the beneficiary when other black officers completed their coup d'etat against David Wray.  But we should also recall once again how he misrepresented the "black book" and the community surveillance issue.  He became part of the series of events that entailed removing Wray, and justifying his removal.

It would be interesting to know precisely how the recruitment process took place.  I am told that the field was narrowed to the top half-dozen or so-- but then these top candidates were not even interviewed, according to my source.  I cannot verify whether that is true-- but if so, it would cast an entirely different light on the process of hiring Tim Bellamy.

With respect to the crime statistics quoted in the article, we have previously discussed here the fact that crime is cyclical.  The decreases in Greensboro most likely reflect a recent nationwide cyclical crime decrease. 

Tim Bellamy, for the most part, has not initiated all the proactive policing techniques that could engender drastic crime rate reductions.  He was forced to create a couple of special units, and to undergo a departmental review conducted by an outside consultant, because of public outcries over crime conditions. 

But it is entirely unclear that it was because of anything specific he did that caused any particular crime indicator to improve.

It seems the News and Record was highly determined to portray Bellamy's hiring, and his tenure as chief, in the best possible light in order to diminish Mayor Knight.