Guarino

Protest Petitions, Simkins and TREBIC

Keith Brown has an op-ed piece in the paper today advocating for protest petitions as Guilford County's delegation to the state legislature get ready to consider the matter. 

It would be very helpful for the City Council to pass a resolution in favor of the state legislature reinstating this important vehicle on behalf of the residents of the city of Greensboro.

This would not be without its political costs, however.  The two major power groups that together form a machine to govern the city are the city council members representing the Simkins PAC and those representing development interests.  These two groups oft overlap.

Protest petitions would diminish the power somewhat of each of these two groups.  TREBIC has already weighed in, and its interests in this matter are self-evident.   But the Simkins PAC's power would also be  diminished somewhat, because its elected officials would then be less able to make things happen for development interests.   The strength of the informal arrangement between these two groups would be weakened a bit. 

Yet another reason to root for protest petitions.

Barack Obama and Pro-Abortion Politics

NewsMax reports today that NARAL Pro-Choice America has directed its endorsement to Barack Obama.  The organization had been holding its cards close to its vest because of internal division, awaiting the emergence of a reasonably certain nominee.   Some of its people had wanted to support Hillary.

But the fact that NARAL was initially split on whom to direct its endorsement does not mean that Obama is not ardently pro-abortion.  In fact, he is.

Last summer, Senator Obama spoke before the Planned Parenthood Action Fund--  a fund which helps the notorious organization achieve its objectives.  Planned Parenthood, of course, is the largest abortion provider in America.

What did Obama tell them?

Will our daughters grow up with the same opportunities as our sons? Will our daughters have the same rights, the same dreams, the same freedoms to pursue their own version of happiness? I wonder because there’s a lot at stake in this country today. And there’s a lot at stake in this election, especially for our daughters. To appreciate that all you have to do is review the recent decisions handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States. For the first time in Gonzales versus Carhart, the Supreme Court held—upheld a federal ban on abortions with criminal penalties for doctors. For the first time, the Court’s endorsed an abortion restriction without an exception for women’s health. The decision presumed that the health of women is best protected by the Court—not by doctors and not by the woman herself. That presumption is wrong.

Some people argue that the federal ban on abortion was just an isolated effort aimed at one medical procedure—that it’s not part of a concerted effort to roll back the hard-won rights of American women. That presumption is also wrong.

Of course, Obama is speaking of the partial birth abortion ruling.  According to his standard of reasoning, it is constitutionally impermissible for the states to decide whether it is legally acceptable to take the life of a late-term baby as it is being delivered, even if the mother's life is not jeopardized.  That decision must be made by the federal courts, according to Obama.

 

We know that five men don’t know better than women and their doctors what’s best for a woman’s health. We know that it’s about whether or not women have equal rights under the law. We know that a woman’s right to make a decision about how many children she wants to have and when—without government interference—is one of the most fundamental freedoms we have in this country.

Throughout the speech, Obama uses rhetorical devices, and plainly inaccurate assertions, to make his case in favor of legal abortion on demand.

We know, we know it’s not just one decision. It’s the blow dealt to equal pay in the Ledbetter [v. Goodyear] case, it’s the blow dealt to integration in the school desegregation case, it’s an approach to the law that favors the powerful over the powerless—that holds up a flawed ideology over the rights of the individual. We don’t see America in these decisions—that’s not who we are as a people. We’re a country founded on the principle of equality and freedom. We’re the country that’s fought generation after generation to extend that equality to the many not restrict it to the few. We’ve been there before and we’re not going back.

I have worked on these issues for decades now. I put Roe at the center of my lesson plan on reproductive freedom when I taught Constitutional Law. Not simply as a case about privacy but as part of the broader struggle for women’s equality.

He speaks about jurisprudence and judicial interpretation as if they are to be assessed by the political outcome they produce.  He doesn't seem to care whether the case is correctly decided.

I’ve stood up for the freedom of choice in the United States Senate and I stand by my votes against the confirmation of Judge Roberts and Samuel Alito [Applause].

There will always be people, many of goodwill, who do not share my view on the issue of choice. On this fundamental issue, I will not yield and Planned Parenthood will not yield.

But I am absolutely convinced that culture wars are so nineties; their days are growing dark, it is time to turn the page. We want a new day here in America. We’re tired about arguing about the same ole’ stuff.

Obama clearly paints himself as an extremist.  A number of Senate Democrats voted in favor of Roberts and Alito.  Obama did not.  Roberts has thus far developed into a fine Chief Justice. 

He pats himself on the back for how inflexible he will be on the issue; and he mischaracterizes the pro-life movement as outdated.

It is time to turn the page on policies that fail to deal with tragedy of ten thousand American teenagers getting an STD everyday... It’s time to turn the page on a policies that provides almost 1.5 billion dollar to teach abstinence in our schools but refuses to teach basic science and basic contraception.

Obama fails to acknowledge that it was the culture of contraception that created the explosion in unwed pregnancies and STD's.  And he fails to point out that Planned Parenthood gets much more funding from the federal government than abstinence programs ever did-- even when the Republicans controlled Congress. 

There’s nothing wrong with science. It’s actually made our lives better. [Applause] Let’s teach science to our kids.

Does this strike anyone else as condescending?  Is he asserting that pro-life individuals are against science?  This is silliness.

The truth is, too often our daughters don’t have the same opportunities as our sons.

Obama's conception of legal abortion on demand and federal funding for contraception is that they are necessary to help women achieve quality.  In fact, the real world suggests otherwise.  In high schools and universities, girls and young women are outperforming (and in many cases, outnumbering) men significantly.  Concerns have been registered over the future many young men may face because of a failure to pursue higher education.

This was a horrible, yet revealing, performance by Barack Obama.   The rhetoric he employed is quite unlike that which we see displayed in front of the American people on television.  Unfortunately, however, this is his message when he speaks before one of the national Democratic Party's key interest groups.

And it is probably a lot closer to his true worldview than the homogenized picture to which we are regularly treated in the media. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Protest Petitions, the City Council and TREBIC

Keith Brown has been doing some excellent work in advancing the protest petition issue.  Protest petitions are a vehicle for citizens to challenge development proposals affecting their respective neighborhoods.  A law passed over three decades ago exempted Greensboro from protest petitions even though they are legal throughout much of the rest of the state. 

Keith recently posted regarding a Mark Binker article in which Senator Phil Berger was quoted.   Berger said that it would be helpful if the Greensboro City Council would pass a resolution requesting that the city once again be subject to protest petitions.

This needs to be a high-priority item of business for the City Council to tackle.  The council should pass this resolution.

Unfortunately, I am advised that TREBIC sent a communication to our state legislators today, using ample bold-faced type, urging them to refrain from advancing the protest petitions proposal for Greensboro.  (Bubba has the details.)

Concern has recently been expressed regarding the new development approved on Horsepen Creek Road.  Perhaps it is time to level the playing field a bit, and increase the level of accountability to the community that otherwise politically influential interests should have to demonstrate.

Mike Baron, Greensboro Water Demand and Polygraphs

Most of us know that Mike Baron has, at least for a time, cranked down active work on his blog.  I am very grateful to Mike for his courage in speaking out regarding what has been amiss.  He has given us all a real education regarding water demand in the city of Greensboro; what factors drive water consumption; and what our city government has been doing on these matters.  And he has demonstrated a real artistic flair in presenting his information.  We owe him a huge debt of gratitude.

Mike has even offered to take a polygraph to demonstrate the veracity of the story he has told.

He has been battling various medical problems, and I hope readers will keep him in their thoughts and prayers.

Thanks, Mike.  Hurry back when you think the time is right.

GPD Sexual Assault Case Part of a Pattern

One of the accused officers in the GPD sexual assault case is Allen Wallace.  I was reminded yesterday reading comments at Ben Holder's blog that Wallace was the subject of one of the segments in the Jerry Bledsoe series.  And today, Ben provides a list of previous infractions or personnel actions involving this officer:

10/06/00: Administrative Investigation Sustained: Divisional Reprimand Recommended by Captain A.C. Stewart, Appealed and Disciplined reduced to first level Reprimand by Assistant Chief A.L. Scales.

8/31/01: Administrative Investigation Sustained: Discretion (Photos on Website) First Level Reprimand.

3/14/02: Violation of D.D. 1.512, Duty Responsibilities. This is just entirely too long to rehash. read Bledsoe's story here for full recap.

3/25/03, Counseling for improper driving.

9/15/03: Counseling for parking Ticket Violations.

My summary of the Bledsoe installment that discusses Allen Wallace is found here.  But the point is that Wallace's actions-- whatever they may have been-- in the alleged sexual assault case did not occur in a vacuum.  Yesterday, I pointed out that Chief Bellamy must satisfy a greater-than-50% standard of administrative proof before taking any personnel action.  Of course, many would argue, as Ben seems to, that Wallace's employment history should be taken into account.  We should be reminded, however, that North Carolina is an employment-at-will state.  This means employees can theoretically be terminated at any time, for any reason, as long as there is no discrimination.

In today's paper, we heard from the GPD and the deputy city manager:

"They will be held accountable for their mistakes," Assistant Chief Ron Rogers said Saturday...

Deputy City Manager Bob Morgan said the city will be vigilant about correcting issues exposed by the six-month controversy.

"We will do a thorough investigation," Morgan said. "We stand ready to make a tough decision, the right decision, based on the facts."

To what extent should we feel reassured that any discipline meted out will not be a mere slap-on-the-wrist?
 

The GPD Sexual Assault Case: Gender Politics vs. Racial Identity Politics

The News and Report this morning reports regarding the decision by Simkins District Attorney Douglas Henderson to refrain from prosecuting on the matter of the alleged GPD sexual assault incident.

Let's examine some of the information in the article.  I will provide excerpts and analysis:

A written statement from District Attorney Doug Henderson said his office decided against bringing charges after reviewing the investigative report and the lab tests from the State Bureau of Investigation.

"Significant factors considered in arriving at this decision include the intoxication or impairment of the complainant, the delay in filing the complaint, the delay in seeking a medical examination, and the absence of supporting physical evidence," Henderson's statement said.

It was always questionable whether the allegations made could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.  It had been strongly suspected that the complainant was intoxicated; and in fact, this was the supposed reason she was picked up by the police that fateful night-- to give her a ride home after a night of partying at a nightclub in the Four Seasons vicinity.

The delays in filing a complaint and in seeking medical examination also would be understandable if she were drunk.  We should remain mindful, however, that the GPD's delays with respect to investigating this situation after it was reported were glaring.   The reduction of this case to a "he-said/she-said", for various reasons, made it much more difficult to prosecute.

Remember that Henderson long ago promised that his office would have a determination in a matter of a couple of weeks.  It took much longer.  Why?

Henderson could not be reached for comment Friday, but the district attorney's statement said his decision does not mean his office believes the three on-duty police officers acted appropriately or that they abided by police department regulations. His office said those issues will be taken up by an administrative review within the Greensboro Police Department.

This incident occurred nearly five months ago.  The GPD has had ample opportunity to review this matter internally.  It is hoped that this situation is not dragged out further unnecessarily.

But let us consider the implications of Henderson's statement.  The female in this case-- the alleged victim, the accuser-- is reported to have been drunk to the extent that she received a ride home from on-duty police officers.  And she was an off-duty police officer.  Is it considered acceptable for off-duty GPD officers to exhibit public drunkenness to the extent that they require a ride home from fellow police officers?  I hope not, but with this police department, it is hard to know. 

In any event, Henderson's statement seems to place an obvious obligation upon Chief Bellamy to take serious disciplinary action against the female officer.  Whether that will happen is another matter entirely.  In the recent past, allegations of sexual assault and rape are treated politically according to a different standard than other crimes.  The operating premise is that women never lie when they make such allegations, that their allegations must be regarded as true.  Of course, that is a faulty premise, but that has been the state of our gender politics.

So Chief Bellamy has a huge problem on his hands.  Henderson's statement seems to create an obligation to take action against the female officer.  But the ground rules of gender politics is that she is the aggrieved victim, to be reflexively believed.  There is no easy way for Bellamy to resolve this quandary. 

This dilemma Bellamy faces is accentuated by the fact that any administrative determination he makes is not governed by the criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt".  Instead, he merely needs to make a determination of greater-than-50%-probability in order to take disciplinary action against the male officer(s) or the female officer.

One theoretical outcome is that both the male officer(s) and the female officers could be seriously disciplined.  But for some reason, that seems unlikely.  Henderson discussed a lack of evidence against the male officers.  But one key factor is the issue of gender politics.  And another, of course, is racial identity group politics, which governs the city of Greensboro.

"I know that it will be handled correctly, whatever the next step is," Councilwoman Goldie Wells said. "I am sure that Chief Bellamy will handle it the right way."

City Councilman Robbie Perkins said: "I have full confidence that he'll make a decision that is fair, just and based on the procedures already in place at the police department. And that decision will be based on facts and evidence, not rumors and innuendo."

It is unclear how Wells knows that Bellamy will handle it the right way.  And it is unknown upon what basis Perkins expresses confidence in the Chief's decision.  Together, Wells and Perkins represent the Melderec con Simkins majority on the City Council.

At this point, we should be reminded of some details.  One of the accused male officers in this matter, Allen Wallace, was among the group of black officers reportedly assembled by Mitchell Johnson, Linda Miles and Joe Williams to hurl accusatory questions against former Chief David Wray at a meeting assembled during August of 2005.   And I have been told he also was one of the officers who initially disseminated allegations or concerns regarding the "black book". 

The black male officers are members of a group that has previously been protected politically in the city of Greensboro.  In view of this fact, it would be remarkable if Bellamy were to take serious disciplinary action against them, particularly in view of Henderson's statement regarding a lack of  evidence.

This is not the only time we are seeing a tension between gender politics and racial politics.  In fact, the Democratic presidential primaries are a prime example of this phenomenon.  And it appears that, at the national level, gender politics will not prevail.

If I had to make a prediction at the local level in the GPD assault case, I would have to guess that gender politics will not prevail here either-- even though the three Simkins members of the City Council are female.  Racial politics might very well trump gender politics-- surprise, surprise-- in the city of Greensboro.  And Henderson's statement seems to  foreshadow that outcome.  But I am not sure, and we shall see in the long run.  I hope the City Council releases all possible documents on this matter to maintain public confidence. 

Finally, consider the following scenario-- that the female officer is severely disciplined, but the male officer(s) are not.  Again, the politics would seem to dictate that this outcome not be reached.

So it seems entirely possible that none of the officers will be disciplined in a serious way.  Again, we shall see. 

Mike Barber spoke strongly on this matter as quoted in today's article.  But unfortunately, for practical purposes in this case, he is a member of the minority. 

The citizens of Greensboro, however, should be extremely concerned if this matter is swept beneath the rug.

 

 

Cops in Black and White, Part LII

Jerry Bledsoe continues his series in the Rhino Times with a discussion of Risk Management Associates' (RMA) work on behalf of the city of Greensboro.  The following is a synopsis, and will omit some material covered during previous installments. 

A draft of the city legal report, prepared by ToNola Brown-Bland and Blair Carr, was completed by the end of October, 2005.   The date on RMA's initial contract with the city was November 10, 2008.  RMA billed the city, however, for work ostensibly performed during October.  It has been alleged that RMA had some involvement with the city legal report, but it is unknown what role precisely was played.    Its initial  review of the report, however, was completed on November 3, and a "thumbs up" was given.  The city legal report made reference to some of RMA's erroneous conclusions.

Bledsoe said that later evidence showed that the interviews conducted by Carr and Brown-Bland were not thorough and unbiased.

A couple of weeks were then spent by RMA performing background investigations and inquiries.  Then the confrontational interrogations and polygraphs of Wray and his men would begin.  The contract with the city only described review and analysis of interviews and documents, but RMA went much further.  And it was clear RMA was not able to comprehend such a complex matter in such a short time frame.

Bills were submitted to the city on a nearly monthly basis.  The total amount paid to RMA by the city was in excess of $147,000.  This included the pointless, futile work performed to investigate the leak of a city council member's copy of the RMA report, to the tune of more than $33,000.  At one point it was demonstrated that RMA had overbilled the city.

Much has previously been made of the fact that outside law enforcement officers had concerns regarding Wray's methods.  But it turns out that Mitchell Johnson contacted them-- not the other way around.

Bledsoe explains that the city legal report began with the investigations of James Hinson and Julius Fulmore, but also covered David Wray's management practices.   He outlined in detail the major sections of the report. 

Said Bledsoe: "With this report the city builds a civil legal case against itself for discrimination against black officers, particularly in Part V.  The findings appear to have been designed for that purpose and to ensure cash settlements for black officers... City Council sources have said that the number of black officers filing complaints is now more than 60.  Lawyers for some of the officers have asked for settlements of $300,000 for each officer, the sources say, but some officers are demanding more.  Although no racial discrimination has been proven, city councilmembers already have held closed discussions on settlements.

"If trials were held based on the city legal report, those findings might be easily undermined, because the report is rife with inaccuracies, inapt comparisons, false conclusions, misstatements and critical omissions."

A Train Wreck on Staten Island

It is apparently a sad day on Staten Island.

Congressman Vito Fossella, the Republican who inherited the seat previously held by my cousins Guy and Susan, was arrested for drunk driving in northern Virginia one week ago.  According to another report I had seen, it started with some festivities.  He was celebrating with some fellow Staten Islanders on a night the Super Bowl champion New York Giants were being feted at the White House. 

He reportedly will have to do some jail time because of the DUI.

Fossella told the northern Virginia police when he was arrested that he was on the way to see his daughter.  It turns out he had fathered this daughter during the course of a prolonged extramarital affair.  He also has a wife and children on Staten Island. 

A news report describes him being trailed by the media as he attended his son's confirmation yesterday morning.

I did not know Fossella because he emerged politically long after I moved south.  When I was a teen, his father, also named Vito, was the New York City ferry commissioner-- under Mayor Beame and Mayor Koch, by my recollection.  I knew Fossella's older sister, who was in my high school class.

This is an enormous personal tragedy for Fossella's wife and children.  They were apparently let down in a number of serious ways.

This episode also may result in the loss of another Republican seat in the House of Representatives.  The congressman's political future appears, at best, uncertain.

(Sigh.)
 

Bill Clinton in NC: The Old Gray Mare

Once upon a time, there was a dashing young southern politician who, in spite of his questionable past, swept the nation off its collective feet.  He and his running mate-- another dashing young southern politician-- put on a great show touring the country by bus and capturing the imagination of female voters.  They wrestled the White House from an incumbent president.  The year was 1992.

Sixteen years later, the dashing young southern politician decided that he wanted a third term, and the best way to achieve it would be to help his wife become elected president.  He wanted it badly.  When he reached the state of North Carolina-- a critical primary deep in the campaign season-- he visited and spoke at 10-12 small towns daily.  That is quite a strenuous pace.  Try it some time.

The problem is that he was no longer dashing nor young.  He no longer fired up the imagination of the masses.  In fact, he oft appeared a bit... older.  And the competition was more youthful and appealing to the young than he was.

Recall the old folk song:
         
          Oh, the old gray mare, she ain't what she used to be,

Ain't what she used to be, ain't what she used to be.

The old gray mare, she ain't what she used to be,

Many long years ago.

Many long years ago, many long years ago.

The old gray mare, she ain't what she used to be,

Many long years ago.

In the eyes of the Democratic faithful, the old gray mare once was the epitome of leadership and enlightenment.  They would marvel at his wonkish ways, and exult over the victories he seemed to provide for them.  They arose to his defense-- again and again and again.  They celebrated the correctness of his political positions, and the fact that he helped them prevail over the opposing party.

In the op-ed pages, his supporters in the media and from within his party back then even claimed that his extramarital interests gave him some kind of competitive, psychological edge.

This year, the plan was for him to capture the hearts of conservative Democrats in small town North Carolina.  But in spite of the fact that his competition was going through a rough spot politically, he could not bring home the vote in that state.  Unfortunately, small town southerners were wise to his ways long before the rest of the country, many years ago.

He had a surprising grip on the machinery of his national party long after he left the presidency.  This was in anticipation of his wife's run for the White House.  But if his opponent-- Mr. Obama-- is nominated, then he loses all of that influence.

So it is not merely a matter of his losing another shot at the presidency.  It is also a matter of losing clout and influence within the national party-- which had already been slipping through his fingers to some extent.

So the old gray mare-- who at one time in the eyes of his party faithful and the media could do no wrong, who once was felt to be the embodiment of smart leadership, who once could almost single-handedly propel the party to victory-- ain't what he used to be.

The question is whether he keeps on trying, or whether he succumbs to the reality that is unfolding.

Elections and Schools, Guilford Cty.

Some of the biggest disappointments this evening come in education-related races and ballot questions.  The passage of the non-Eastern school bonds-- together with other bond packages passed-- promise significant tax increases for Guilford County residents, on top of those we would ordinarily experience nearly every year.  It also means massive additional sums will be wasted in the school construction process.

And in addition, Sanda Alexander and Michael McKinney-- arguably the two least desirable candidates-- appear to be the top two vote getters in the school board race.   It is a bit difficult to understand some of the school board results.   For instance,  David Crawford is polling ahead of EC Huey and Alan Hawkes-- two much more substantive candidates.  In addition, Sandra Alexander is outpolling everyone else by a large margin.  This is a surprising outcome.  I am unsure whether this reflects huge wells of support she has within the education community; or whether, perhaps, voters are confusing her with Sandra Anderson.

In any case, these results are not auspicious for county taxpayers, or from the standpoint of predicting a positive transformation of our schools.  My condolences to EC Huey and Alan Hawkes, both of whom had the right ideas.

Greenways: Pluses and Minuses

There have been a number of posts recently in our local blogosphere extolling all the putative benefits of the proposed local Greenway, which is included in the Parks and Recreation bond proposal on today's ballot.

But a survey by the John Locke Foundation published yesterday suggests otherwise, indicating nearby residents complain regarding effects on crime, litter, diminished property values and decreased privacy.

The plot thickens.  Let's see what the voters decide.

5 Minute Line at the Polls

I voted at about 7:10 this morning at my precinct-- First Lutheran Church on Friendly Avenue.  There was a fair amount of activity.  It took about 5 minutes to move through the line. 

The person ahead of me was unaffiliated-- a white male-- and elected to vote in the Democratic primary.

It would be interesting to know what the lines would have been like had there not been early voting.  A brisk turn-out appears likely, but I wonder how many independents and unaffiliated voters will be voting in the Republican primary. 

Governor Easley, Jeremiah Wright and the Greensboro Pulpit Forum

Governor Mike Easley made some statements recently regarding Barack Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright.   Easley indicated that Wright is not representative of North Carolina African-American churches, and that the problems he created would not be of significance in North Carolina:

It's not going to -- it's not going to be an issue.

The only thing I want people to understand is that the African- American churches in North Carolina, this is not emblematic of that. They are -- they're welcoming, they're open, they're uplifting. It's based on scripture. It's about forgiving God, a good god and I don't want people across the country to get the wrong idea about the African-American churches.

I do not mean any disrespect to the Governor.  It appears, however, that he may need a brief remedial course on the Greensboro Pulpit Forum.
 

The Tuesday Primary in Guilford County

The primary is Tuesday, and I wish to summarize and recap my choices in selected races and ballot questions:

1. Governor-- Fred Smith

The News and Record endorsed Pat McCrory today.  One should keep in mind, however, that the overall orientation of the News and Record's editorials is center-left.  The race has tightened over the last couple of weeks.  I think Fred Smith is the better choice of the two to represent the values of conservative Republicans during the November election.

2. State Court of Appeals-- John Tyson and Dean Poirier

These two candidates elucidated an appropriate approach toward constitutional interpretation.  We need them on our state courts.  Otherwise, we will be more vulnerable to liberal manipulation of our state courts to achieve policy objectives.

3. County School Board At-Large- Erik (E.C.) Huey

Erik would bring a much-needed common sense conservative approach to the county school board.

4. Board of County Commissioners At-Large- Wendell Sawyer and Larry Proctor

These two individuals are the preferred candidates who will hold the line on county spending and taxes, and avoid inappropriate entanglements with special interest groups.

5. School Bonds- Vote No

This greater-than-$400 million monstrosity should be voted down.  It would be understandable if some wish to support the Eastern High School rebuilding portion, which is to be considered separately.

6. Local sales tax increase- Vote No

An increase in the local sales tax is being considered in Guilford and Rockingham Counties.  Citizens should vote in opposition because there is no commensurate property tax reduction to accompany this sales tax increase.

7. "The other bonds"-- Vote No if in doubt

There will be an assortment of other bond proposals on the ballot in Guilford County.  One or two might have some merit.  But voters otherwise should resist the temptation to vote in favor of these.  They are an automatic pathway to tax increases.

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas at High Point University

Nancy McLaughlin of the News and Record provides an excellent report this morning of the commencement address given by Clarence Thomas at High Point University.

It was good that there was no indication of any disrespect shown toward Clarence Thomas at the event.  This is in contrast with some treatment he has received at other colleges and universities to which he has been invited in the past.  He has elsewhere been the object of protests and efforts to silence him.  I am glad High Point University apparently did not follow this pattern.

Nancy did a nice job summarizing his remarks.  Some of the concepts seem to mirror those in his recent book.

The character of the man, and the austere intellectual power of his jurisprudence, is coming into better focus with the passage of time.  He is developing into one of the important historic figures on the Supreme Court.

Footnote: I hope members of the left locally do not take shots at Nancy because she did not take a confrontational, negative approach to Thomas, which would have been inappropriate for the occasion.  Remember that a couple of years ago, Condoleeza Rice visited Greensboro to speak at the meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention.  Nancy covered it in a respectful manner-- also entirely appropriate for the occasion.  Some could not resist the temptation to take shots at her for having done so.

The Bonds on the Primary Ballot: When in Doubt, Vote No

I will not be launching into an extended discussion of each of the bonds on the primary ballot Tuesday.  I previously posted on the school bonds-- the behemoth proposal that should be rejected summarily.

With all the other bonds on the ballot, I think there should be a guiding principle.  When in doubt, vote no.  Remain mindful that in an area such as ours, a vote in favor of bonds is also likely a vote to raise taxes.  The elected officials that serve us, for the most part, are not of a disposition to hold the line on taxes.  Instead, they are continuously seeking ways to boost tax revenues.  The bonds would merely be another excuse for these elected officials to throw up their collective hands in despair, and pretend there is no option but to jack up taxes even further.

We also need to remain mindful of two factors the Rhino has pointed out.  First, when voters pass bonds, the county will be legally authorized to later borrow an additional 2/3 of the face value of the bonds without voter approval.  In addition, the new infrastructure the bonds furnish will inevitably increase operational expenses.  Both of these dynamics will tend to feed further tax increases well into the future. 

I am considering a vote in favor of one or two of the individual bond proposals.   But again, the guiding principle should be-- when in doubt, vote no.

County Commissioner At-Large Race-- Sawyer/Proctor

At the forum sponsored by Concerned Citizens of Northeast Greensboro last night, the candidates for the at-large seat on the Board of County Commissioners were to attend and participate.  Unfortunately, when they were called to the front, only one candidate-- Joe Rahenkamp-- was present.  I was hoping to hear an interesting discussion, and learn the candidates' positions more fully.  Unfortunately, that would not happen, so I left at that point.

The race has already generated some discussion at this blog and elsewhere because one of the candidates-- Rudy Binder-- is a developer who has sought and secured the endorsement of the Simkins PAC.  The PAC, of course, is Skip Alston's power base on the Board of County Commissioners.   

There are two other credible candidates in the race-- Wendell Sawyer and Larry Proctor, neither of whom, as far as I can tell, is beholden to the Simkins PAC or to development interests.

Wendell, a local attorney, is a long-time commenter at this blog, and has made some insightful contributions here regarding local politics and political history.  He is a former state senator.  He is a strong conservative who wants to reduce county taxes and hold the line on spending.  He feels so strongly about this that he even opposes the jail bond. 

Larry Proctor owns a local business and has been chairman of the Guilford County Planning Board.  According to a direct mail piece I received from his campaign, he wants to end tax increases, promote smart growth and emphasize crime and public safety.   I had a chance to meet Larry briefly at the Fred Smith rally. 

I have enormous esteem for Wendell because we go back quite some time on this blog, and I will be voting for him.  He would be very good at representing conservative principles on the Board of County Commissioners. 

Again, my recommendations in this race are Wendell Sawyer and Larry Proctor.   

Operation Chaos and Rush Limbaugh

I was tuned in to Rush Limbaugh on the radio over the lunch hour as I was driving just a short while ago.  Rush was playing audio from Chris Matthews' Hardball program on MSNBC.  My cousin, Susan Molinari, was Matthews' guest.  She said that, at this point, it appears Hillary Clinton may be the stronger Democratic candidate in the fall.  It therefore would appear that Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos efforts may be misguided, according to Susan's logic.

Beau Snerdley, Rush's assistant, made the statement that he did not know what had happened to Susan, that she had always seemed so level-headed.

Let me make this clear.  I may not necessarily agree with cousin Susan on every single issue.  But on this one, I think she may be right.  Obama's stock nationwide seems to have tumbled a bit due to the mess emanating from his pastor's mouth.

I am not sure, however, that purely utilitarian considerations should guide whether Operation Chaos should proceed.  I am not concerned about whether it would help or hurt one Democratic candidate or the other.  While I have always liked Rush, I don't think Operation Chaos is an ethical enterprise.  It is a form of mischief in which voters are persuaded to interfere with the primary of a political party to which they do not belong.

I would not like it if Democrats or unaffiliated liberals did it in a Republican primary.  And I don't think Republicans or unaffiliated conservatives should do it in a Democratic primary. 

Operation Chaos is plainly wrong.

At-Large School Board Race: E.C. Huey

I had the opportunity to attend the candidate's forum earlier this evening sponsored by Concerned Citizens of Northeast Greensboro.  Participating in the forum were Sandra Alexander, Alan Hawkes and Michael McKinney.  Unfortunately, E.C. Huey could not attend.

I will not attempt to provide a blow-by-blow account.  However, I have some observations.

It would be a bad mistake to elect Sandra Alexander or Michael McKinney.  Both are cheerleaders for the enforced "diversity" ideology that currently prevails.  They both appear to support forced busing through manipulation of district lines rather than neighborhood schools.  They try to make the point that it is necessary to prepare students for a global environment; but in reality forced busing as it is practiced locally is not a global exercise.

McKinney would grant full taxing authority to the county school system, which would be a disaster.  Alexander is unable to muster any sense of outrage over the irresponsible manner in which school construction has been handled.  McKinney claims to want to achieve management efficiencies and goals of various types, and may have some good ideas in this regard.  Both McKinney and Alexander banged their respective shoes on the table regarding black contractors getting their fair share of school construction business.  McKinney spoke in terms of a target percentage of minority contractors getting work-- which is essentially a set-aside. 

Both McKinney and Alexander do not appear to want to remove the misbehaving student from the school setting unless there is an alternative setting in place for that student that meets their specifications.  They claim to want to enforce safety-- but what if that alternative setting is not in place to their satisfaction?   What will they do about recalcitrant misbehaving students then?   McKinney went out of his way to emphasize that he did not want these misbehaving students put out "on the street". 

It should be noted that Michael McKinney is the endorsee of the Simkins PAC and Dot Kearns.   These endorsements raise red flags.

Today the Rhino endorsed E.C. Huey, as I have done previously.  Many of us have had the opportunity to watch Erik's thought process unfold on his blog on a daily basis for a long time; and he appears ready to serve with the right principles guiding him.  He is a vast improvement over McKinney and Alexander. 

I had the opportunity to watch Alan Hawkes tonight.  His platform is fairly comparable to that espoused by E.C. Huey.  He is another conservative who speaks very well regarding school construction costs, setting higher expectations for students and parents,  maintaining order and discipline, and emphasizing neighborhood schools.  He refers frequently to the successful approaches taken at Greensboro Academy, a high-performing charter school where he has been a board member for a number of years.   

Hawkes talks much about the educational process taking place at the classroom level-- where accomplishment needs to be emphasized, teachers need to be empowered, and resources need to be directed.  He emphasizes the imperative nature of kids acquiring fundamental skills-- reading, writing and math.  He warns against coddling, patronizing or indulging students.  Instead, he wants to get them excited about learning, and obtain the buy-in of parents.

The risk, of course, is that conservative votes will be split between Huey and Hawkes.  We don't want that to happen, because it is imperative that one of these two candidates survives the primary.  I received a direct mail piece from Hawkes at my home yesterday, and he is a good candidate.  Even though I liked Hawkes' presentation tonight very much, I am urging my readers to unite behind E.C. Huey because he has demonstrated over a prolonged period the rightfulness of his positions, his grasp of the issues and his passion for the job. 

Civic Education

The nation's universities are failing at the task of educating young Americans on the fundamentals of civics and citizenship.  Various parties have attributed this failure at least partially to the absence of a core curriculum in the vast majority of university settings.  Thomas Lindsay, a deputy chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, said this needs to be turned around.  Otherwise, we risk becoming subject to a "soft despotism".

Says Lindsay:

To establish such an education, the professoriate must dare to tread territory still scorched from the campus “culture wars” of recent decades and revisit the discussion of a required core curriculum. To do this, perhaps we can begin by agreeing that there are at least certain core questions that all students should examine. Here, I offer a half-dozen, along with some of their ancillaries.

First, what is the meaning of human equality as articulated in the Declaration’s assertion that “all men are created equal”? Equal in what respects? What view of human nature does this presuppose? Does the Declaration mean to include African-Americans, as Abraham Lincoln, along with Frederick Douglass and the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., insisted?

Second, what does the Declaration mean by asserting that we possess rights that are not “alienable”? Who or what, precisely, cannot alienate our rights? Are all rights deemed inalienable, or only some? And why?

Third, why does the Founding generation consider government just only when it is instituted by the consent of the governed? Is justice for the Founders merely consent-based? If not, what might trump consent?

Fourth, why did the Founders opt for representative democracy over the “pure” version of democracy practiced in ancient Athens? What did The Federalist (penned by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay) assert was the inadequacy of ancient democracy?

Fifth, how does the Constitution seek to reconcile democracy, which means rule by the majority, with the rights of minorities? Stated differently, how do we do justice both to the equality of all and to the liberty of each?

Sixth, and finally, what economic conditions make American democracy possible? Why does the Constitution protect property rights? Why do its critics, such as Marx, believe private property to be the root of injustice? How would Madison and Hamilton have responded to Marx’s and his followers’ critique?

Implicit in these questions are at least ten fundamental documents and major speeches that every American citizen should study.

It seems to me that much of the political ignorance we see, and the false perceptions that exist regarding how the citizen should most optimally relate with the state, are rooted in a failure to absorb and transmit the basic ideas of the American founding and, of course, its primary founding documents.

We can do much better than all the erroneous perspectives that seem to prevail.