May. 16, 2008 at 10:30
by BrendaBee
I suggested over a year ago on this site that a sure sign of inadequate policing is to have the police chief answerable to anyone but the people. In Greensboro our Police Chief is answerable to the City Manager, and is in truth the employee of the City Manager. ( ALL city employees are the employees of the City Manager. The City Council only employs the City Manager.) With this situation the police chief who is we hope someone who is trained in police procedures and crime investigation and prevention must report to and justify his actions to someone who doesn't have this training. Police work requires a great deal of specialized training and if a person doesn't have this training they should never be given the power to direct police procedures because if bad decisions are made the safety of the people is at stake.
Some say this is no problem, but I disagree. The police department isn't like any other department within the city government. In fact, police departments and fire departments are set up as quasi-military organizations for a very good reason. These departments require that members follow a chain of command immediately and without question much like the military. There is no time in an emergency situation to explain orders to underlings or to discuss the situation and take a consensus of all opinions before making a decision. If there are questions about an action there will be a time and a procedure for reviewing the action after the emergency is handled.
Because of the City Manager type of government we in Greensboro have ( one of only two in the entire state), an inept City Manager has single handedly destroyed what was once a top notch police department. We know now that he did this with lies and distortions. We haven't yet heard the truth for his doing what he did.
In order to avoid the kind of disaster we have been experiencing within the police department for the past two years my solution would be to make the police chief an elective office. So I read with interest the articled in this week's The Rhino where Sheriff Barnes (Guilford County,NC) was interviewed by John Hammer and compared his situation with that of the Greensboro Chief of Police. In effect Barnes stated that it was an impossible situation. He said they haven't the problems in their organization the GPD has because he answers to the people every 4 years and everyone in the organization answers to him. He has full authority given to him by the people to hire, fire and take any action in between. There is none of the going to the press by police officers as Hinson got away with or unions pressuring the sheriff to change policies he feels are best for the county. And neither does the sheriff's office have 12 deputies on paid administrative leave with pay while investigations take months and months to conclude such as the three police officers assaulting one other female police officer. This incident took place in December and just this week we heard the first decision when the DA said he did not have enough evidence to take the case to court. Now it is back in the hands of the police department internal investigations to determine what to do with these officers. Police Chief Bellamy said he should have a decision within a month. Six months to resolve this issue! Sheriff Barnes said it would have taken less than a week for this case to become past history in the Sheriff's Office because the decision would have been his to make after reviewing all the evidence. And it certainly should have been this way in the Greensboro Police Department.
One other point Barnes made: other than when an officer is involved in a shooting which the law requires that he be place on desk duty or leave while the case is being investigated, Sheriff Barnes said he has never had a deputy on administrative leave with or without pay. Greensboro currently has 12 officers on administrative leave and most with pay. The problem here as Sheriff Barnes sees it is that Police Chief Bellamy has no authority to fire as this is the decision of the City Manager. And for some reason Greensboro's current City Manager is protecting Black Officers.
The real irony here is that the Black officers now on administrative leave for some infraction of the rules or breaking of a law are also among those 60 + Black officers suing the city for discrimination. So these Black Officers are not only on paid vacation and being protected from any consequences for wrong doing but the City Council is now negotiating to pay them for alleged discrimination which neither the FBI nor the SBI could find any trace.
Our City Council needs to very seriously consider this option of making the Police Chief an elective office. It would be the best thing for the protection of the people since decisions can be made without all the fuss and thus more police time can be saved from these investigations to actually doing police work. Barring having the Police Chief elected by the people like the tax assessor and others the City Council should place the Police Chief directly under their control and answerable only to them. BB
0 Comments |
Post Comment |
Email This
May. 16, 2008 at 07:20
by BrendaBee
Greensboro's City Council voted 5 to 4 to place the City Attorney directly under their jurisdiction. We need to commend Trudy Wade for making the motion to do this and Council members Zack Matheny, Mike Barber, Sandra Anderson-Groat and Mary Rakestraw for joining Ms. Wade to make this much needed improvement to the efficiency of City government happen.
In my opinion all of the heads of departments should be directly under the authority of the City Council with the City Manager acting in the capacity of a foreman. When this City Manager/City Council form of government was set up in Greensboro a great injustice was done the people. It put too much, in fact all the power in the hands of one person. Even the elected officials have come to realize how llittle influence they have under this system altho the the impression is given that the elected City council is really in charge because the City Manager reports to the City council for their vote.
All the information the City Council requests however must be gotten from the City Manager. A situation that allows the City Manager to filter the information then given the City Council to his own desired outcome. This is wrong. The people elected the City Council members to govern the city and this is how it should be.
Mike Barber pointed out that only one other city in North Carolina operates under this system that puts so much power in the hands of one person. A person who is not even elected by the people. He went on to point out that the state legislature by statute allows city councils to directly control up to 8 employees and the budget director is one of these eight. I have previously blogged on this issue and it is my opinion that all heads of departments should be directly under the direction of the City Council with the role of the city Manager being that of a foreman to see that the Council's wishes are carried out.
Zack Matheny pointed out The Institute of Government at UNC/Chapel Hill informed him when he contacted them for advice that their research shows "that city managers have a tendency to filter the reports of city attorneys". And as we have seen the filtering applies to everything else with disastrous results. The current City Manager Mitchell Johnson has lied and manipulated information to single handedly take down a police chief and his entire command staff minus one and all but destroy the GPD. If the Police Chief had been under the direct control of the City Council the City Manger would have had to bring his complains before these 9 people thus giving David Wray and the other officers a forum to state their side of the story. Then the City Council would have made the decision to retain or force Wray to resign. Since this didn't happen the tax payers are going to be paying thru the nose for years for the blunders made by this one man and the City Council that followed him blindly.
The City Council is directly responsible for deciding on the City Budget so it only makes sense that the Budget Director be under their direct control. The system of having the City Manager pass on the recommendations of the Budget Director with only the facts he sees fit is ludicrous at best.
It is clear to me that when this type of government was set up it was done with the clear purpose of putting the power in the hands of a few power brokers in the city. And by some of the things that have been done in Greensboro not only in the recent past with the current City Manager, but further back many decisions made were to benefit a few to the detriment and costs of the people. It is high time this system be overhauled to reflect American values.
One other thing that greatly upsets me is the Protest Petition having been taken from the people of Greensboro when every other city in NC has it. This is the right of the people concerned to petition the City Council when they feel strongly about a zoning issue. And when this is done and has the signatures of a majority of the people in the affected area then any zoning changes must have a super majority vote from the City Council rather than a simple majority.
This was another shady shenanigan obviously pulled off by power brokers and I think the seriously flawed way some of the city has been developed is proof that more control needs to be placed in the people's hands where zoning is concerned. The City Council will still make the ultimate decisions concerning zoning as they should, but when the people see a problem serious enough to petition then the need for a super majority vote of City Council should not be difficult to obtain if the decision is a good one.
The way things are now there is a definite bias in the voting. I will be blogging on one such instance of this bias in zoning after this last decision the City council made not to allow an apartment building built adjacent to a residential area after the residents complained and comparing it to another decision the Council made. BB
0 Comments |
Post Comment |
Email This
May. 15, 2008 at 07:35
by BrendaBee
There is an interesting Op-Ed article in the New York Times today that refers to China's stupendously advanced society that came to a sudden and terrible stop just a few centuries ago. Many looking at China of this past century are not aware of just how remarkable the ancient Chinese were. They were far ahead of any other known society in all areas of science and medicine and art. If you have never read about China's past accomplishments it is well worth your time to do so. At the very least it will bring home to you just how little we in Western Society have to brag about.
But the purpose of the article today is not extol China's past glory, but to wonder why this knowledge has been cast aside in the present and by doing so is causing the kinds of disasters in the present that the ancient Chinese knew how to avoid. It refers to the current rush to build substandard infrastructure and buildings with no regard for the future, and certainly no regard for the health and safety of the population. The article asks why this is happening.
I found this question interesting because it mirrors exactly what is taking place all over the world today. Even in our own rinfancy in comparison to China we too are disregarding our past knowledge and care in building for the future and with respect for the vagaries of nature in mind when building so as to last while protecting both the earth and the people. Bridges built in the early 1900's and even before are still standing in good condition and safely being used while bridges built within the last 50 years are crumbling. Tampa, Florida's famous Skyway Bridge across Tampa Bay built in 1969 and considered to be one of the finest until it tumbled down when in 1980 a freighter collided with one of the support columns. Even more troubling is the problems that are cropping up with the replacement bridge that was supposed to have been built to last well into the next century. There seems no end to the problems found with the structure that have to be repaired.
Buildings built even two hundred or more years ago are still being used while buildings constructed just within the last ten years are being condemned as unsafe.
What is happening to allow or cause the modern mind set of ignoring the knowledge we used in the past? Why is modern society rushing towards annihilation and what will be the total destruction of any signs in the future that our time existed?
Well, anyhow I think it an interesting philosophical question to explore; perhaps on those sleepless nights. BB
0 Comments |
Post Comment |
Email This
May. 13, 2008 at 11:42
by BrendaBee
I read the following on Mebloggin's site and told him it should be repeated often; so I am repeating it on my site again in hopes a few more people will read it and perhaps finally understand. BB
Speech Pres. W should give.....
Normally, I start these things out by saying "My Fellow Americans."
Not doing it this time. If the polls are any indication, I don't know who more than half of you are any longer. I do know something terrible has happened, and that you're really not fellow Americans any longer.
I'll cut right to the chase here: I quit. Now before anyone gets all
in a lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment, or to avoid prosecution or something, let me assure you: there's been no breaking of laws or impeachable offenses in this office.
The reason I'm quitting is simple. I'm fed up with you people.
I'm fed up because you have no understanding of what's really going on in the world. Or of what's going on in this once-great nation of ours. And the majority of you are too damned lazy to do your homework and figure it out.
( This next paragraph was true until the recent housing crash. The housing crash was not due to President Bush's mistakes or even the federal government. It was due to greedy mortgage brokers passing out mortgage loans to people who didn't have a hope or a pray of making the mortgage payments once the Adjustable Rate Mortgages adjusted upwards. The greedy brokers then took their slice off the top and sold the mortgages to brokers who again took their slice off the top and sold the mortgages. And so finally the stuff hit bottom and hit the fan. Anyhow that is why I am leaving it in here although it is a bit out of date and can't all be saidto b e true today. )
Let's start local. You've been sold a bill of goods by politicians and
the news media. Polls show that the majority of you think the economy is in the tank. And that's despite there being a record number of homeowners including a record number of MINORITY homeowners. And, while we're mentioning minorities, I'll point out that minority business ownership is at an all-time high. Our unemployment rate is as low as it ever was during the Clinton Administration. I've mentioned all those things before, but it doesn't seem to have sunk in.
(From here on out is accurate and as current today as when it was first posted. And in this election year as we get closer to seeing Barack Obama and John McCain facing off in November I think we need reminding of a few facts so as to make a reasonable choice for the next president. AND. I am not endorsing either candidate. BB)
Despite the shock of 9/11 to our economy, the stock market has
climbed to record levels and more Americans than ever are participating in these markets. Meanwhile, all you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you are too stupid to realize that gas prices are high because there's increased demand in other parts of the world competing with us for the available oil. So we in the United States who have lived with cheap gasoline allowing our love affairs with our big gas guzzling road monsters will just have to suck up and do what the rest of the world has always done. We can be satisfied with smaller automobiles, learn to bike and get off of our dead asses and WALK.
We face real threats in the world. Don't give me this "blood for oil" crap. If I was trading blood for oil, I would've already seized Iraq's oil fields and let the rest of the country go to hell. And don't give me this "Bush Lied, People Died" crap either. If I was the liar you morons take me for, I could've easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they could be "discovered." Instead, I owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty. Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as me. Let me also remind you that regime change in Iraq was official US policy before I came into office. Some guy named
"Clinton" established that policy. Bet you didn't know that, did you?
You idiots need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back during the cold war, there were two major competing political and economic models squaring off. We won that war, but we did so because, fundamentally, the Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We were simply able to outspend and out-tech them. The Soviet Union went bankrupt because the government couldn't continue their cradle to grave support of the people known as Communist Socialism and carry on a modern game of chicken at the same time.
That's not the case this time. The soldiers of our new enemy don't care if they survive. In fact, they want to die. That'd be fine, as long as they weren't also committed to taking as many of you with them as they can. But they are. They want to kill you. And the bastards are all over the globe.
You should be grateful that they haven't gotten any more of us here in the United States since September 11. But you're not. That's because you've got no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that. When this whole mess started, I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight. I'm disappointed how many of you people think a long and difficult fight amounts to a single season of "Survivor."
Instead, you've grown impatient. You're incapable of seeing things through the long lens of history, the way our enemies do. You think that wars should last a few months, a couple of years, tops.
Making matters worse, you actively support those who help the enemy. Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat's political campaign, well you might just as well FedEx a grenade launcher to a Jihadist. It amounts to the same thing.
In this day and age, it's easy enough to find the truth. It's all over the Internet. It just isn't on the pages of the New York Times or on NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt you'd be any smarter. Most of you would rather watch American Idol.
I could say more about your expectations that the government will always be there to bail you out, even if you're too stupid to leave a city that's below sea level and has a hurricane approaching. I could say more about your insane belief that government, not your own wallet, is where the money comes from. But I've come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it would sail right over your heads.
So I quit. I'm going back to Crawford. I've got an energy-efficient house down there (Al Gore could only dream of one like it), and the capability to be fully self-sufficient. No one ever heard of Crawford before I got elected, and as soon as I'm done here pretty much no one will ever hear of it again. Maybe I'll be lucky enough to die of old age before the last pillars of America fall.
Oh, and by the way, Cheney's quitting too. That means Pelosi is your new President. You asked for it. Watch what she does carefully, because I still have a glimmer of hope that there're just enough of you remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing around in 2008.
So, that's it. God bless what's left of America. Some of you know what I mean.
The rest of you: Buzz off...!
1 Comments |
Post Comment |
Email This
May. 12, 2008 at 13:54
by BrendaBee
A Townhall.com commentary refutes the so called anti-American wave and the hysterical cries that the United States is losing influence in the world. Newsweek and The New York Times are best at leading these "America is hated" parades. So here is one for followers of that nonsense. BB
***************************************
May 12, 2008
A New Conservative Tide
—Michael Medved
With Newsweek running a cover story on "The Post American World" and Democrats complaining that President Bush destroyed our influence abroad, it's instructive to consider a recent string of election successes for foreign candidates who support our values and our policies.
In Canada, Mexico, Germany, Denmark, Greece, Ukraine and France the parties identified as "pro-American" swept to important victories. Most recently, the conservative candidate in Italy, Silvio Burlesconi, won a smashing triumph to return to power and Rome elected its first right-wing mayor in 50 years. Then in local elections throughout Britain, the Conservatives thumped the ruling Labor Party, 44 percent to 24 percent, and turned out the anti-American mayor of London, "Red Ken" Livingstone. The global trend favors politicians who back free markets and welcome U.S. leadership--hardly a sign of a "Post American World."
0 Comments |
Post Comment |
Email This
May. 10, 2008 at 15:18
by BrendaBee
I am always trying to correct misunderstandings about history that crop up more often than they should. This of course is a consequence of the schools beginning in the 1960's to teach "social studies" instead of History. As a result we have two generations who know more about how the local sewage treatment plant operates than how the government operates. A generation who believe there was no intelligent life on Earth before they came on the scene. This is not to put younger people down, it is merely a sad fact that they have been cheated of vital information. Youth has always been arrogant and felt their elders were "behind the times" and "just didn't understand". My Dad could tell you I was absolutely horrid in my arrogance. But aside from that I do think there are those out there who do care what went down in the past and will appreciate a short history lesson.
I had started a post on this same subject, but haven't yet finished. So am passing on a post sent to me by a friend (Dallas W) about the statement Barack Obama made in his NC victory speech that shows his incredible and dangerous lack of knowledge of history. Please read. BB
************************************************************************************
In his victory speech after the North Carolina primary, Sen. Barack Obama said something that is all the more remarkable for how little it has been remarked upon.
In defending his stated intent to meet with America's enemies without preconditions, Sen. Obama said: "I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did."
That he made this statement, and that it passed without comment by the journalists covering his speech indicates either breathtaking ignorance of history on the part of both, or deceit.
I assume the Roosevelt to whom Sen. Obama referred is Franklin D. Roosevelt. Our enemies in World War II were Nazi Germany, headed by Adolf Hitler; fascist Italy , headed by Benito Mussolini, and militarist Japan , headed by Hideki Tojo. FDR talked directly with none of them before the outbreak of hostilities, and his policy once war began was unconditional surrender.
FDR died before victory was achieved, and was succeeded by Harry Truman. Truman did not modify the policy of unconditional surrender. He ended that war not with negotiation, but with the atomic bomb.
Harry Truman also was president when North Korea invaded South Korea in June, 1950. President Truman's response was not to call up North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung for a chat. It was to send troops.
Perhaps Sen. Obama is thinking of the meeting FDR and Churchill had with Soviet dictator Josef Stalin in Tehran in December, 1943, and the meetings Truman and Roosevelt had with Stalin at Yalta and Potsdam in February and July, 1945. But Stalin was then a U.S. ally, though one of whom we should have been more wary than FDR and Truman were. Few historians think the agreements reached at Yalta and Potsdam , which in effect consigned Eastern Europe to slavery, are diplomatic models we ought to follow. Even fewer Eastern Europeans think so.
When Stalin's designs became unmistakably clear, President Truman's response wasn't to seek a summit meeting. He sent military aid to Greece , ordered the Berlin airlift and the Marshall Plan, and sent troops to South Korea .
Sen. Obama is on both sounder and softer ground with regard to John F. Kennedy. The new president held a summit meeting with Soviet leader Nikita Khruschev in Vienna in June, 1961.
Elie Abel, who wrote a history of the Cuban missile crisis (The Missiles of October), said the crisis had its genesis in that summit.
"There is reason to believe that Khrushchev took Kennedy's measure in June 1961 and decided this was a young man who would shrink from hard decisions," Mr. Abel wrote. "There is no evidence to support the belief that Khrushchev ever questioned America 's power. He questioned only the president's readiness to use it. As he once told Robert Frost, he came to believe that Americans are 'too liberal to fight.'"
That view was supported by New York Tim es columnist James Reston, who traveled to Vienna with President Kennedy: "Khrushchev had studied the events of the Bay of Pigs ," Mr. Reston wrote. "He would have understood if Kennedy had left Castro alone or destroyed him, but when Kennedy was rash enough to strike at Cuba but not bold enough to finish the job, Khrushchev decided he was dealing with an inexperienced young leader who could be intimidated and blackmailed."
It's worth noting that Kennedy then was vastly more experienced than Sen. Obama is now. A combat veteran of World War II, Jack Kennedy served 14 years in Congress before becoming president. Sen. Obama has no military and little work experience, and has been in Congress for less than four years.
The closest historical analogue to Sen. Obama's expressed desire to meet with no preconditions with anti-American dictators such as Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the trip British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and French premier Eduoard Daladier took to Munich in September of 1938 to negotiate "peace in our time" with Adolf Hitler. That didn't work out so well.
History is an elective few liberals choose to take these days, noted a poster on the Web log "Hot Air." The lack of historical knowledge among journalists is merely appalling. But in a presidential candidate it's dangerous. As Sir Winston Churchill said:
"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
0 Comments |
Post Comment |
Email This
