March 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

« GSO to DC | Main | The thing about bloggers is they blog »

Feb 02, 2007

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Bubba

Ah, good! We're back to "Wray the Racist" meme.

Let's see:

".....Hinson's association with the Turnbull criminal organization had been reviewed by the U.S. Attorney's Office and there was no evidence to support a criminal investigation into Hinson".

"The Internal Affairs Unit.....found no evidence".

It's not so much in what those words say, it's what they DON'T say.

Yet Wray started an investigation of Hinson.

I wonder what the implications are in that?


Good work, Ed.

PotatoStew

Uh... where in Ed's post did anyone say anything about Wray being a racist?

sean coon

why is this the "wray the racist" meme, backwoods bubba?

bledsoe dropped a ton of info about hinson being investigated, but provided no mention to the results of those investigations.

why?

and why is it that when ed provides the results of the aforementioned investigations, he's guilty of making wray into a racist?

i'll tell you why; because that's where your head is stuck, bubba.

the facts show that wray was either incompetent or worse. and bledsoe is proving week after week after week (god, when will it end!) that he's partial to providing incomplete information to frame this story in a light for miscreants to devour.

want a napkin?

Bubba

Let's re-read what Joe Guarino said about this particular topic.

"What is clear, however, is that the quality and quantity of evidence against Hinson was not enough to implicate him in a criminal investigation; or in a previous Internal Affairs administrative investigation. The words of these two women alone would not be nearly enough to convict anyone. Relying on the words of Withers and Ekwensi was not considered sufficient to recommend taking action."

Bubba

"Uh... where in Ed's post did anyone say anything about Wray being a racist?"

He didn't have to.

Why, given the previous statement about investigations, would Wray have started another investigation on Hinson?

The inference is clear.

Bubba

"....the facts show that wray was either incompetent or worse. and bledsoe is proving week after week after week (god, when will it end!) that he's partial to providing incomplete information to frame this story in a light for miscreants to devour."

Nice example of deluded denial, Sean.

Ed Cone

"No evidence to support a criminal investigation" is not necessarily the same thing as squeaky clean beyond a doubt.

However, if one mentions investigations and allegations, whether in a newspaper article or a staff meeting, it seems reasonable to make at least brief mention of the relevant facts about the resolution of any investigations.

I have seen no evidence that Wray pursued Hinson because Hinson is black, or that Wray is a racist. It may well be that Wray believed that Hinson was dirty, and pursued him for understandable reasons.

The methods of that pursuit, and the explanations of it provided to Wray's subordinates and superiors, are nevertheless at issue.

sean coon

bubba, if you believe that the RMA report was crafted to support mitch johnson and the city -- as opposed to it being an impartial assessment of the situation -- then we will *never* be speaking from the same base starting point.

when the RMA is taken into account, it's clear that wray made decisions that could be deemed as incompetence for a police chief. especially when he declined to respond to the report and instead chose to walk out of johnson's office.

beyond the points of not following SOP and providing honest answers to direct questions, he either had a thing for getting hinson that was on the up and up (hinson was actually dirty, even though all investigation results declared otherwise) but he didn't follow protocol in his attempts to nail him *or* he was chasing hinson for some other reason, whatever it may be.

until the SBI report is made public, we're all guessing. so maybe we can get back to the point of ed's post -- how about bledsoe providing all sides of the story, or at least a one liner regarding the outcome of the hinson investigations.

or is that some type of denial as well?

Mr. Sun

Am I wrong for not caring about the Wray situation? Seriously, why should I? What matters about it? I can't figure out what is even remotely significant about it.

As far as I can tell, it's being kept alive by the idea that David Wray was unfairly fired over false accusations of racism. For me to care about that, Wray is going to have to say it out loud. The guy resigned over a year ago, expressing regret that he had lost the confidence of the City Manager. As far as I can tell, he has not said a single word about unfair treatment. He sounds like a stand-up guy in a lot of ways. If he has something to say, I'm listening.

There's a bunch of investigations in various stages into questionable activities by police officers, but none have yet resulted in formal charges. It sure seems like there is plenty to be worried about from the various anecdotes, but that's just talk.

We've read a lot reporting from Jerry Bledsoe, but really the most significant thing was a couple of body blows on Lorraine Ahearn and the N&R.

Absent David Wray speaking for himself or charges being brought against a police officer, where is the story here?

sean coon

in the local blogosphere.

Bubba

"....then we will *never* be speaking from the same base starting point."

Darn! I had such high hopes.....

John Robinson

"body blows on Lorraine Ahearn and the N&R." Gee, there's a news flash.

Bubba

"As far as I can tell, he has not said a single word about unfair treatment."

Mr. Sun hasn't taken his own advice.

That's what he gets for looking in the mirror.

Hopefully, the damage is reversible.

sean coon

so bubba, when are you going to have some skin in the local scene and go by your real name. i may not agree with joe guarino most of the time, but at least he's man enough to stand behind his positions.

Joe Guarino

My recollection is that Bledsoe reported that new information had arisen that justified the 2005 investigation. We need to remain mindful that none of us have seen the primary documents from that investigation, which I am told contains very significant information.

Ed Cone

No need to trust your recollection, Joe, it's all online. Google is your friend.

But that's not the point here. Reference is made to the original investigation, but without any statement of the resolution of the investigation, or the investigation of that investigation. The implication of wrongdoing is made, and the highly relevant additional information is ignored.

And Wray is alleged to have made the same omission in his discussion with his staff.

Bubba


".....but at least he's man enough to stand behind his positions."

(yawn)

Anything else?


Bubba

"The implication of wrongdoing is made."

Unsubstantiated, and probably irrelevant.

Mr. Sun

I've read Wray's carefully crafter written statements and the tablets he is sending Jerry down the mountain with Jerry. I'm serious, though -- has he stood up yet and said he got jobbed and answered detailed questions? If he did, I missed it. Is he taking interviews? Can we hear from him on these things and ask tough questions? I know Jerry is deeply committed to access to primary sources, because I've read about his messianic belief in them over at JR's blog. I'm assuming that belief applies here and not just when it suits him.

Fred Gregory

Jim,

I recall that David Wray fas a lawyerr, a very good one in fact, who has told him not answer any of YOUR questions.

Jim Rosenberg

I see. He is giving his side of the story in buckets so huge that Jerry needs 20+ front-pagers to unload it, but when it comes to being accountable for it -- his lawyer says no. If you stay silent, that's a credible position. If you are part of the most comprehensive media presentation of a story I have ever seen in my entire life, then it seems like hiding.

Ed Cone

Sol,

Bledsoe's series is valuable beyond the Wray-centric stuff for its descriptions of the White-era GPD and the problems that followed.

He also tells us -- in passing, but it's still there -- that perceptions of racial problems in the GPD long predated White.

And some people think there is a thread of power politics that runs back to Project Homestead and entangles our City attorney and current and former Council members.

So there's a bit more in play than a personnel matter.

The question -- as you raised it eloquently elsewhen, is what constructive results might come from all of this.

The CA

Ed said "Jerry continues to provide troubling details about the inner workings of our police department."

Troubling indeed. Silence from the N&R on these allegations and no apparent desire to investigate these allegations or report on them, presumably because Bledsoe and The Rhino and I assume Wray "have no credibility" according to John Robinson, although he offers no evidence to support that assertion in any material way.

Gee, news flash there.

It's "Animal Farm" in reverse - "If The Rhino or Bledsoe says it, it must be wrong". Dismissing a story because it is featured in your rival publication by a person you have personal grudge with does not make it false. If you are going to make that allegation, you should have some evidence to support it. "They're lying" is not an effective rebuttal without supporting documentation.

Jim Rosenberg

My point about constructive results was in support of using the TRC process to create a middle-ground. I am having trouble stating this plainly, but to me it's the most important ingredient in this whole racial soup. I opposed the TRC process, but it ended up impressing me overall and it now seems to me like the best opportunity around which to aggregate people interested in moving forward. Without a space like that, look what's happening:

* The GTRP jumped into the Guilford College thing and confirmed people's fears about crying racism too early and often and in the process dinged the TRC.

* I shouldn't read minds, but I've been trying to see the truth in the Wray affair and I feel like what David Wray would want to tell is in his most honest moment is, "I can't win for losing!" It seems like he was trying to navigate racial minefields, but made some bad choices, and -- ka-boom! Now, Jerry's his mouthpiece and all the soft edges have been sharpened and Wray has been enlisted for one of the teams in a two-team town. This is why I'm trying to smoke out David Wray from behind Jerry Bledsoe, because I want to hear the guy talk. I'd like to hear his words before Jerry carves them into an arrowhead to shoot at the N&R.

* Everyone one one team reads Bledsoe on Thursday to confirm their pre-existing notions. Everyone on the other team reads Ahearn for the same reasons. Ditto for other online and traditional media sources.

With only two teams, there is no point of entry for anyone in the middle. The answer is a gesture. It's going to take someone doing something that isn't perfect as a gesture -- like Nixon going to China. Maybe it's Keith Holliday pimping the TRC process. Maybe it's the N&R throwing open the curtains a little wider on the question of whether its reporting has overemphasized racism.

My point is that ALL of the energy is at the poles -- ALL OF IT. There is all this intellectual and organizational energy around each side and none for everyone in the middle.

The best exemplar to me is labor/management and collective bargaining. They are hopelessly at odds, but they move forward together by committing to a process of engagement which builds certainty, trust, and leaders who are skilled at working within it. That' what we need here - a process of engagement, and those things will follow.

Ed Cone

There is a third team, Jim. You're the captain. I want to play. We don't have a TV deal, but we have blogs, and a foot in the door on the N&R oped page via my column and Hoggard's. Don't despair. Keep writing this good stuff and it will make a difference.

Cara Michele

I agree with Ed about the third team, Jim. I've talked to a lot of people (none of whom blog, so they're not posting or commenting) who think the "Wray fray" truth is in the middle, and I agree. It's entirely possible that people on both (multiple, all) sides did some things right and some things wrong, in varying degrees. No angels. But no demons either. The only team Greensboro needs is "Team Truth." I'm all for that.

David Hoggard

Captain Jim... it has a good ring to it! The team colors are purple with black and white accents. Jim gets to where the cape.

Jim Rosenberg

Cara: I believe you. The problem is that issues get framed by two big institutions: government and media. In Greensboro, both those institutions seem indifferent if not hostile to compromise. In particular, the Council just baffles me. They couldn't just ignore the TRC process, they had to outright publicly reject it. They couldn't find a constructive use for the report; Tom Phillips had to call it a "crock," and let everyone know that the last thing he wants to do is hear Goldie Wells yammering on about it. I'm not accusing Tom of racism; I'm accusing him of incompetence. We elect these people to work out our problems not complain about their own. You don't like Goldie Wells? We don't care! She's the elected representative of her district and you diminish your effectiveness as a Councilperson by publicly ridiculing her and the interests of her constituency. Same goes for Diann Bellamy-Small and her tantrum. We don't care about your office! Work on our stuff. In the Wray matter, was it really inevitable that he would have to be locked out of his office? Could you even imagine a more creative way to make sure that the thing would turn into a circus? On the RMA report, instead of addressing the underlying issues we got a public spectacle of lie detector test of Council members. Again, could you possibly come up with a flashier way to highlight divisions on the Council -- and for what marginal benefit? To confirm what everyone knew? Put differently, let me ask you this: what would you say are the top initiatives or moments of leadership from this Council with respect to the city's racial divide? In the last couple of conflicts -- TRC, Wray, etc., what were your favorite examples of how the Council showed the way? Does anyone know if they work with this program at the UNC School of Government? They should.

Fred Gregory

Ed,

I would suggest you hold your assumptions regarding ommissions in check. You are getting ahead of the narrative and those facts I am sure will be told in due course.

If anyone is guilty of ommisions and doctoring facts to fit their purposes it is RMA ( which you quote ) and the City Attorney's staff. For example they pretend that Wray simply restarted the old investigation and ignore everything the new investigation entailed, They ( the City Attorneys ) furher focus soley on allegations of disparate discpliary discrimination against James and Alexander without placing it the setting of facts known to them and set forth this week in Bledsoe #22. ( Pettiford etc )

Your (and Rosenburg's) Swiss like neurality on this imbroglio is transparent and your loyalties clear.
It isn't fooling anyone

Ed Cone

There is no assumption about an omission, Fred. There was an omission. The story ran, and it ran without the context that would have made it whole.

One of the indicators of the situation Jim describes so well is the inability of people who are firmly in one camp or the other to believe that it's even possible that not everyone falls into one camp or the other, and that trying to stake out any such middle ground is posturing; thanks for the timely example of this sadly limited worldview.

Jim Rosenberg

Fred --

Am not.

There; I'll respond to your points at the same level as they were made.

sean coon

ed, jim, don't you know that the color wheel was reduced to red, blue, black and white some time ago? this is all par for course.

Jim Rosenberg

Coon? Lord, here come the hippies. Somebody toss me Fred's gun; I'm goin' Commie Hunting. Ouch, make sure the safety's on next time, I think you blew off my finger.

P.S. - I like the way Fred cites "Bledsoe #22." It's got a real Bible ring to it. "Turning now to Bledsoe #22, we see that David Wray assured the Thessalonians that ...."

sean coon

i am not a hippie. i just forgot to exhale.

Fred Gregory

Jimedbob,

Gang up on this old gray head if you must but at least deal with the facts instead. My last sentence was a throw away but what I said about RMA and the City Attorney's office is indisputable. You are just as adroit as JR in the art of dodging

"All men are fools. The only difference is that some admit it. I myself deny it. "

H.L Mencken

Jim Rosenberg

Fred: I wasn't involved at all in the debate you were having with Ed. I'm not up on those details. You made a ridiculous remark about me out of nowhere, and when I called you on it -- it's a throwaway, whatever that means. Don't make explicit accusations about me and say you know things about "my loyalties" without backing it up. I assumed you meant what you said.

Ed Cone

Fred, five yard penalty for whining.

You addressed a comment to me, I responded to it.

In the same comment you called me a liar, and included Jim in that statement. I responded, and he also responded.

Business as usual in the woods.

The CA

Funny how the people claiming neutrality are nearly always critical of the Bledsoe series and not critical of the N&R. I agree there is a middle somewhere in the truth about the Wray story. I doubt that it involves racism. I doubt that the claimed "third way" exists here or through Cone and Hoggard writing in the N&R. Why? Because both have taken a much more favorable slant towards the N&R and the city on this issue and both write in the N&R.

It might be convincing to believe that they represent neutrality on this issue, but in order to do so, one must dismiss The Rhino allegations pretty much outright. In other words, the "neutral" position means favoring the credibility and reporting of one of the other. Hardly neutral at all. Nice tactic, though.

I myself would be willing to give the N&R more credit despite my tough criticisms if they would just answer some questions and report on the new allegations that surface every week. They claimed they wanted Wray's side of the story. He has been giving it for weeks now, and they ignore it. The best they can muster is to attack The Rhino and Bledsoe rather than deal with what Wray is saying. Maybe they are mad because Wray won't talk to them, but if that is the case, then they are setting a different standard for reporting in this story then they are in others.

And Ed, I believe the Rhino did report on the outcome of the Hinson/prostitute/drug dealers link early on in the series. Further, if the crux of the RMA criticism regarding this aspect of the story is that Wray did not tell his top officers of the outcome, that may be a valid concern dependent upon what duty Wray had to report such information. But this doesn't even involve racism, so it is hardly exculpatory for those who take that angle.

This latest chapter involves NEW allegations not mentioned in the RMA. Powerful allegations that will not be reported or followed up on in the N&R. Why? If you take what JR has been saying on his blog, the answer is simply because they were printed in The Rhino.

The CA

Oh yeah, and Ed said about The Rhino: "The story ran, and it ran without the context that would have made it whole." That same statement applies even more so to the N&R who ran the Wray story without context from the beginning and continues to fail to put it in context as new information becomes available. The N&R threw up racism and the RMA and then went into silent mode. So much for context gleaned from new information.

boilerbutt

"Everyone one [on] team reads Bledsoe on Thursday to confirm their pre-existing notions. Everyone on the other team reads Ahearn for the same reasons. Ditto for other online and traditional media sources."

Jim: The two sides theory is false. It seems that one side has a strong need to assign to everyone else allegiances that are opposite theirs. (Witness Gregory's hypnotic recitation above.) I'm sure they hold these beliefs strongly; that doesn't make them true.

I know no one who reads Ahearn's words as gospel the way Bledsoe's followers do his. Certainly I don't think it would be accurate to say that the "black community" reads Ahearn the way that the "white community" reads Bledsoe. There are a group of people who are anxious to see Bledsoe successfully present another Death by Journalism; another white man done wrong by the awful, awful black opportunists and their white liberal allies. It's a story that resonates deeply with them, and the reasons for that are definitely worth examining -- which is something the TRC gave us a good start on with its examination of some historical facts about Greensboro.

There are a lot of us who digest all the information that comes in, from whatever source, and weigh a lot of factors in assessing its merit. I daresay this might be the majority. Therefore, I reject the small-minded and totally false framing of this by a small group of people, most of whom are represented in this thread, who steadfastly believe that anyone who is not "with them" in Bledsoe's camp is "against them" in the camp of the News & Record.

I'm not sure how you could engage with this worldview, especially in blog comments, in a way that would be constructive, as those who adhere to this belief seem to take pride in their obstinance and predictability, and don't seem remotely interested in anything that would suggest that they don't already know it all. In fact, they already know everything about you, your associations and allegiances before you even open your mouth -- because you're not one of them.

The majority of people in this 200,000+ person town are not in anyone's camp. Blogs do a disservice in making it look differently to intelligent people like you. Get out and have a cup of coffee and forget about this place for a while. This isn't Greensboro -- it's just Ed Cone's blog, where a lot of losers hang out and exercise some hostility. That's the long and short of it. Nobody's gonna change the world on this website anytime soon. We should all be talking to each other instead of hammering away on keyboards trying to make ourselves look smarter than everyone else.

Yeah. Self included.

Ed Cone

Sam, not having a stake in the game (beyond an interest in honest and full reporting, and in a well-run City and GPD) is not the same thing as accepting all reporting without filters for accuracy and bias. I've had plenty of good things to say about Jerry's series, and also posed questions about the N&R coverage. And I have no rooting interest between Wray and Mitch Johnson.

You say, "This latest chapter involves NEW allegations not mentioned in the RMA. Powerful allegations that will not be reported or followed up on in the N&R." What, precisely, are htose new and powerful allegations?

Jim Rosenberg

I'll take your word that there is a big group of people in the middle, but it still matters that the leadership is at the poles. Let me take a forward-looking issue instead of one from the past: the Civil Rights Museum. I think everyone agrees this would be a good thing for Greensboro, maybe even great. We're at a classic Greensboro impasse: moral outrage on both sides and slow or no progress. I see everyone's point -- Skip and Earl are agents of Satan here to take us down to hell, and also benevolent fathers of a colorblind future where love reigns o'er us. The establishment won't support it as long as those two are involved and they won't back off an inch. What I think is this: trade horses! Please, someone get these people in a smoke-filled room and get this done. I don't care who compromises -- I can live with Skip and Earl staying involved or being forced out, but move it along. I know that Joe Guarino will have a hissy-fit about "the machine," but I want my omelette and no one is willing to break any eggs!

Fred Gregory

Jimedbob,

Frist you Sun. Way back up this tread ( scroll ) you suggest that Bledsoe is nothing more than a scribe for Wray. I give this award winning journalist more credit than that.I am sure he has dozens of credible sources, But you don't care about this Wray matter.Right ? So why are you butting in early on and making disparaging remarks about the Rhino and Bledsoe.? Listen... You and every other citizen should care .....those who give a damn about effective public safety. Calumny is rife down on Washington St, Right now there is a cancer on the Police Dept and it has metastasized because of the unfortunate and calculated removal of Chief Wray. I am speaking to those of you who haven't pre-judged the actions of our city manager. That is not staking out a middle ground but I am afraid our City council , at least a majority, have accepted without question Mitch's bunkum and the woefully flawed RMA report.

Ed, where exactly did I call you a liar?That certainly was my not intent. I said stay tuned . What has yet to be written is not an ommision. You are nit picking.I trust you have not formed any opinions regarding Bledsoe's motives in writing this series. Have you ? Now RMA, Linda and Notola twisting the facts and puting in things out of context that is ommiting big time.You seem to look the otherway on that.

Sun you may have reputation as a humorist but I found your biblical slur inappropriate...not funny. I appreciate a clever line just athe right moment or a knee slapping joke but Jim that was beyond the pale and not in good taste. In the future please try to measure your barbs agaist standards of decency and respect for faiths of people who you are lamely trying to ridicule. You are welcome to borrow my gun,
on the condition that you learn to use it safely and lawfully.

Shalom

Jim Rosenberg

Wow, Fred. Persuasive. boilerbutt, you are right. I was shamed by some friends into thinking it would be a good idea to express here the centrist political views I do in conversations. I tried it full blast this weekend, and it's not any fun. It's a huge drag. It's a lot like self-gratification, only drier. For the record, if people are going to twist my words into a criticism of Jerry Bledsoe, I feel I need to say that he is a first-class writer. I have a modest e-mail relationship with Jerry, and I want him to know that my criticism is primarily with his "haircut." It looks like he was in a hair-pulling fight with some huge Amazon chick and she just tore out gigantic chunks of his mane. No, it looks more like he fell asleep on a huge stack of RMA reports, and then woke up like ten hours later and rushed out without combing it. That's not right, it's more like he's a sheep and he's being sheared like in The Thornbirds, but Rachel Ward stops in the middle to get it on with Richard Chamberlain and never comes back to finish him. Jerry? Can I still come down and see your farm?

sean coon

stay tuned for clips from tomorrow's episode of "as greensboro turns"...

Fred Gregory

Mr Sun(shine),

( BTW:That used to be the street name for a particularly potent form of LSD)

So you and Bledsoe are big buds even though you unmercifully trashed his work on the Wray matter as stenography. You did mean what you said, right Jimbo ? Or is the ha-ha haircut blasther just a humorous feint to retract what you said and were really feeling. Jus' askin' Jimbo.

The CA

Ed, the investigation into James and Alexander and the possibility that investigation may have been compromised (see Guarino) are new. A key factor in the initial N&R reporting about the Wray matter involved disparate treatment of black officers. Now we are learning more about the real reasons behind those investigations and who was doing the investigating and that it had nothing to do with race or disparate treatment. Still, the N&R is silent on this subject. The allegation of disparate treatment makes the headlines, the evidence refuting it gets nothing.

I may have been a bit hard on you (Ed) to some degree about the fairness aspect. Let's just assume we have a meter where on the left side is the N&R version and the other is the Rhino version. For some reason that is how the camps have been divided although I don't believe it is really that simple a question of "do you believe the Rhino or the N&R?". In any case, in the middle of this meter is neutrality. The needle for Ed Cone would measure to the left of center in favor of the N&R, but not all the way. Maybe 1/2 way in between. You are asking questions, you just seem to be quite defensive about the N&R and quite skeptical of the Rhino for reasons unstated. Are you not the least bit concerned about Bledsoe's allegations about Ahearn and the possibility (probability in my book) that she had an agenda from the beginning? Are you not concerned about the fact that they have done nothing to get out Wray's version of events while seemingly having no problem publishing stories and statements by other people giving a damning version of events? Do you question why they haven't addressed any of the questions raised by the Bledsoe series much less written a story about Wray's side of the story?

If they are only printing one side of the story, it is hard to argue they don't have an agenda. Wray is saying "this is what happened". You don't have to believe him, but his story is news in and of itself even if it's wrong. It turns out much of what they (the N&R) printed was wrong, but that didn't stop them from splashing it across the front pages.

Jim Rosenberg

I hoped it wouldn't come to this, but I got this note in my mailbox recently. I retract nothing, not one word or punctuation. Jerry can speak for himself.

PotatoStew

Sam,

According to the News and Record, Wray has declined interview requests. Don't you agree that it would be kind of hard for them to get out his side of the story if he won't talk to them?

Dale E. Sperling

Everyone one [on] team reads Bledsoe on Thursday to confirm their pre-existing notions. Everyone on the other team reads Ahearn for the same reasons.

I read both so where does that place me? I think one has made assumptions that arn't exactly true but there is another source of information and while the blogosphere either doesn;t know I exist or doesn't care for my opinion, Lorrain Ahrean and Jerry Bledsoe do and and I have been interviewed by both for both their columns and articles.
Whatever info I receive I share with both Jerry and Lorraine ( and if it is important enough, also with the city council and the police department)
Just where does my info come from? It comes from me for I existed on the streets of Greensboro, lurking in the darkest corners, just watching what was going on. I didn't take pictures or videos nor did I record dates, times, places or names as that was not the story I was interested in at the time but I saw things unfold that should not have been happening. But I do know who the dirty cop is in the little black book.
I think Jerry is a little hard on Lorraine because some of her info she received from me but i don't think we should be too critcal of Jerry for not telling both sides of the story since neither reporter nor editor from the N & R would answer jerry's questionhs in a sit down interview.
Truthfully I don't know any of you bloggers and whether you be Democrats, Republicans, or pink-ko commies, men, women or both and just because you type a first and last name on your blog is no guarentee that you are that person nor does it add validity to what you have to say. Whomever it was (and I know I can scroll up to see but it doesn't matter because other may have been in agreement) but poking fun of the name a man wants to call himself is simple childish. Just because you may think "Bubba" means uneducated redneck doesn't make it so and becuase one calls himslef Bubba doesn't mean his parents didn't name him that. Apologize and ask him very nicely and maybe he will just tell you his name.

The comments to this entry are closed.