The Reasons for Greensboro 101
Seven years ago, I started Greensboro 101. I was motivated by the fact that Greensboro had a dynamic corp of bloggers who were, in aggregate, a sort of new local media. However, one could not appreciate the full force of their research and commentary because they were dispersed across the internet with no local cohesion. Thus Greensboro 101's core purpose, to aggregate and present in an efficient manner the citizen voices of Greensboro.

Since its inception, there have been a few occasions where I have had to remove a blog's feed from Greensboro 101. Either it was not local, did not allow comments (as required since day one) or suffered some other defect that impeded the proper operation of the site. In all but one of those cases, each blog was restored as the deficiency was rectified or a technically incompatible post aged out of range. In every case, I never censored the blog itself, never removed it from the Internet, never altered its content or made it in any other way inaccessible—just temporarily removed its excerpts from my site.


Keeping it Working
Yesterday, I removed a blogger whose repeated posting of items that were intentionally incoherent made Greensboro 101 look inane. His posts had begun to intrude on the otherwise cogent content of other participants to such a detriment that I judged it to be no longer acceptable.

After some emails and conversations, the blogger and I worked it out. I think he understands the manner in which his posts became troublesome and I think he may even have come to understand that rectifying the problem stands to make him a more effective blogger. His blogs are back on Greensboro 101 and I look forward to the beer he graciously suggested we share.


Mendacious Whiners
The facts of this matter did not stop some other bloggers from slinging mud and impugning Greensboro 101 with false information. Ignoring the legitimacy of the actual reasons for my actions, blogger Joe Guarino made two posts on his blog accusing Greensboro 101 of "censorship." Ignoring the the fact that his and other blogs with points of view with which I disagree have long remained on Greensboro 101, Guraino claimed I was trying to "silence" the other blogger because of his "political speech." Even Ed Cone chimed in, chastising me for "filtering content."

Again, to be perfectly clear and as is understood by the blogger in question, the issue was not content, but its presentation as an incoherent stream of gibberish. Just as important, my actions in no way debilitated the blogger's blog or interfered with his ability to publish whatever he wanted to to his blog.

I would have made these points at Joe Guarino's blog or Ed Cone's blog, but they both have blocked me from commenting. Censored me, one might say. Yet, Joe wrings his hands and worries about my actions that "this is crazy" and "really a shame." For Ed Cone, it's "a big problem."

Spare me the duplicitous histrionics.

Hypocritical Moochers
Guarino, Ed and all of the other bloggers on Greensboro 101 have enjoyed whatever benefits, meager or immense, they derive from their presence on it through my benevolence and at zero cost to them. It is my mind, my work and my money that made it and keep it operating. Yes, Greensboro 101 would not have a purpose without bloggers; they write their blogs and are perfectly free to do so—no doubt would do so—independent of Greensboro 101, but their inclusion on Greensboro 101 provides some benefit to them at no cost.

I keep Greensboro 101 going for two reasons. The hope that someone with the resources to grow it into something bigger and better will buy it and because, for those people who tune in, I think it serves a useful purpose—makes people smarter and our community a little better. All I ask in return is that those who feed their content through it not muck it up and very, very rarely is that a problem.

No, I ask one other thing: If you rail against moochers on your blog while demanding that I provide my labor and resources to you at no charge as my "civic duty;" if you make misrepresentations to demean Greensboro 101 while benefiting from it; if you impugn its operator by screaming censorship while blocking me from commenting on the blog where you make those allegations, do me a favor and stand up and claim the mantle of hypocrite. Just go ahead and put it on your blog banner: "Joe Guarino, Moocher and Hypocrite."

Thanks.

"No person should be directed to undergo an invasive procedure by the state, without their consent, as a precondition to another medical procedure." Forced vaginal probe bill stalls in VA.

I was gonna leave a comment on this post at Roch‘s, but the captcha wouldn’t let me. I am SO glad he posted about this. Without GSO101 and the aggregators which preceded it and provided by him, Blogsboro would not exist. Some might say that in his absence another person might have come along and [...]

Kay Hagan releases a statement in opposition to NC's proposed anti-gay amendment: In today's hyperpartisan political environment, I view any attempt to alter our state constitution with a critical eye. Amendment One has far-reaching negative consequences for our families, our...

Faith Abubey

What a relief. A WFMY reporter does some actual journalism—and it's good too.

In a piece about Guilford County Commission redistricting and possible delayed elections, Faith Abubey researches source material, breaks it down in a concise manner, explains why it matters and the possible outcomes. Attuned to the web, she posts and links to the source material too.

Well done and far superior to the regurgitated press releases and exaggerations that plague WFMY. May we have some more, please?

Only three city council members showed up for the first presentation — Nancy Hoffmann, Marikay Abuzuaiter and Nancy Vaughan — though Zack Matheny slipped in about 20 minutes after the presentation was supposed to start.

William Saletan has written a powerful, carefully researched, and at times chilling article detailing the evolutions in former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney's public position on reproductive choice.

Romney wants to persuade pro-lifers that the pro-choice position he took in 1994 was based on ignorance. Had he known the reality of abortion firsthand, he would have stood for life. But Romney did know the reality of abortion. He knew it from Sandy Catalano, Carrel Sheldon, and possibly other women he had counseled. And he knew it from Ann Keenan.

Looking at the 1994 and 2007 videos, it’s hard to know which Romney to believe. The transformation they convey is more than a change of mind. It’s a rewriting of emotional experience, or at least what was advertised as emotional experience. Was Romney telling the truth in 1994 when he described how Ann Keenan’s death had shaken his family? Or was he telling the truth in 2007 when he told Tim Russert that abortion was only theoretical to him until he became governor? How can you forget or minimize something you portrayed as so wrenching? How can one man be real unless the other is acting?

That isn’t the only thing Romney blacked out between 1994 and 2007. On June 12, 1994, he and his wife, Ann, attended a Planned Parenthood fundraiser at the home of a Republican activist in Massachusetts. In May 2007, somebody outed the Romneys for having written a $150 check to Planned Parenthood, presumably for attending the event. The check, signed by Ann, was from their joint account. At this point, only the check was public. Reporters hadn’t yet learned about the event. Mitt Romney responded by attributing the check to Ann: "Her contributions are for her and not for me, and her positions I do not think are terribly relevant to my campaign." ...Six months later, a photo of Mitt at the event turned up. Did he not remember being there? Or was it just easier to pin the check on his wife and hope nobody found out more?

Nothing in Romney’s evolving autobiography is more misleading than his claim that he never called himself pro-choice...

...He’s also a gifted salesman. He learns your language and puts you at ease. He gives you the version of his record, position, or motive that will please you most. When he comes down on your side, it’s intentional. When he doesn’t, it’s inadvertent. He focuses not on communicating his beliefs but on formulating, framing, or withholding them for political effect. He tells moving stories of personal experience to show you his sincerity. Then, if necessary, he erases those stories from his playbook and his memory.

...Romney will always be what he needs to be. Count on it.

Best Bar in Greensboro? I've been quite fond of MCouls for sometime. Their Euroesque themed public house, themed of Ireland, and selling Guinnesses from the tap, in full British pint glasses, made me an instant fan. Indeed it still is the only place I know I can get real fish and chips in Greensboro. That said, I've become quite fond of the Old Town Draught House on Spring Garden Street. MCouls has a friendly atmosphere, and an awesome wait-staff unlike any I've ever met,  but the...

by Tristan Munchel These girls are kind of pretty! Even though that one has a gut. I like their shiny necklaces. This seat is so comfortable! Wow, are those swords? They are! Swords! On their heads! Boy, it’s warm in here. Wait, how old is that dancer? Why is the woman two seats down the
[continue reading...]

Rick Santorum is right about contraception and abortion. With nearly $7T in public money plowed into the markets in the last four years, the yet unborn will need everybody they can get to pay off the ever-growing debt. Of course, that’s assuming they’ll have well-paying jobs which generate lots of tax revenue. And if the [...]

The City Council tonight gave the go-ahead for developers to build both a 180-car parking lot off of South Elm and an adjacent restaurant to be called Dos Papayas Cantina, featuring Mexican cuisine.

Momentum Development Partners asked the council for a $200,000 loan for the project. The council agreed and voted 8-to-1 to make the loan. Council member Trudy Wade voted against.

The loan will come from the city’s federally funded Community Development Block Grant funds to be used for economic development. In return for the loan, the developers agree to create 12 new full-time and 20 part-time jobs at the restaurant and parking lot.

Technically, the loan was sought from the Greensboro Parking Group, owned by Jim Budd and Nick Piornack. Both also are the owners of Momentum Development.

The parking lot and restaurant development carry a $2.2 million price tag. In addition to the $200,000 city loan, the developers already have a commitment of $1.4 million from a local bank and will add $422,000 in their own funds.

The parking lot is projected to be open by May of this year and the restaurant by early 2013.

The cantina will be next to The WORX, which Momentum Developers have said should open this May, featuring comfort food as well as specialties like gourmet hot dogs and sausages.

Both restaurants will be on Barnhardt Street, which runs off of South Elm just south of the railroad tracks. Barnhardt is directly across Elm from the intersection with Martin Luther King Drive. That corner is the location of the monthly Indie Market on First Fridays.

Bill Hancock  ...

News 2 explains what the latest redistricting briefings say.

by John Sanford Friedrich Performance art is always a moving target. In theatre where all lines are devoted to memory, the audience is guaranteed to never truly see the same show twice. Dance is even more fleeting of an art and as an experience. With no words hanging in the air, dance exists only in
[continue reading...]

Twice in four days now, the Greensboro Police Department (GPD) has issued press releases containing errors and each has resulted in local media repeating the errors uncorrected.

Yesterday, the GDP issued a press release on recent crime statistics in which they erroneously said that murders in 2011 were:

"32 percent above the three year average"

That's incorrect. The three year average was incorrectly calculated and homicides were actually up 47 percent over the prior three year average according to the GPD's own data (see table below).

Nonetheless, although the table that afforded the opportunity to double-check the GPD's math accompanied the press release, WFMY apparently made no effort to check the official pronouncement and dutifully regurgitated the error, reporting:

"Homicides rose by 32% compared to a three year average."

Four days ago, a GPD press release erroneously stated the amount of light that state law requires be transmitted through window tinting. WFMY and WGHP repeated the error from the press release. The GPD press release, the WFMY and WGHP stories all remain uncorrected.

To their credit, whether intentional or happenstance, other local media avoided repeating the crime statistic error. Yet these events underscore two troubling circumstances;

1. In both cases, this blogger brought the errors to the attention of the GPD. Neither was acknowledged or corrected. It is troubling that the GPD makes these kinds of math errors to begin with, it is even more concerning when they fail to correct them.
2. The media has a duty to fact check the pronouncements people make, doubly so those made by governmental entities. WFMY has a horrendous history of fabrications, errors and plagiarism—the distinction of the worst far and away among local media—with which they seem completely unconcerned or unwilling to address.

-----------

Here is the table that accompanied the press release. The average of homicides for the three years prior to 2011 was 17, thus the percentage increase is actually 47 percent, not 32 percent.

Zack Matheny: I respectfully request that the City Council consider a bond referendum of $20 Million dollars for Job Creation and Retention and Economic Development. Full text of his email to the City Manager after the jump. [all sic] Denise,...

Dr. Peter Gleick, a renowned climate expert on water issues and President of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security posted a blog on the Huffington Post, confessing to obtaining internal information from the Heartland Institute under false pretenses and then distributing that information.

In an effort to do so, and in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else's name. The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget. I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues.

As Dr. Gleick undoubtedly knows, the conduct of science depends on ethical behavior and above all on a reputation for honesty. No one observes us in our laboratories or pouring over survey results, and even with peer review of the final product, much of what scientists do comes down to a matter of trust.

Indeed, part of the strategy of the Heartland Institute and others is to erode that trust by whatever means necessary.

Sadly, Dr. Gleick's deceit has helped that effort far more than the Heartland Institute could have dreamed.

As frustrating as it can sometimes be, science isn't a discipline where you can fight fire with fire. Scientific ethics can't be a sometimes thing.