Churches target Cincinnati in campaign to help blacks
We get to be the whipping boy for a political campaign. This is not about civil rights, this is about politics. This about extreme-capitalists vs. socialists (or even some communists).

Church leaders called for a national campaign to promote social justice and economic programs to help black people.

This is about reducing poverty in the "black community." That is a good thing to want to do, it would be nice to try and do that in all communities, instead of creating false sense of discrimination. Hold on before you jump to the wrong conclusion, I agree discrimination exists, but not on a macro or conspiratorial level, and mostly not based on race, but on culture. There are more poor white people, than black people. That is a fact. As a percentage of each race in this county, blacks have a much higher percentage in poverty than whites. That is a fact. There is not one answer to why that is the case. They are countless answers because most of the reasons are subjective to each individual person or family. To say it is all about race or racism is wrong, self-defeating, and unproductive. You don't get more unproductive and down right offensive when you refuse to let a City Councilman into your meeting.

Councilman David Pepper called it unfair to target Cincinnati-based corporations such as Procter & Gamble and Federated Department Stores Inc., that have "gone out of their way" to contribute to job and educational initiatives designed to improve the lives of African-Americans. Pepper tried to get into the meeting to explain to national leaders what actions city officials are taking toward progress, but boycott organizers turned him away at the door.

This particular group of boycotters also have revised the "demands" to end the boycott, but beyond the general description of the changes from the article, I can't find the new demands online. When Nate Livngston gets out of jail, I am not sure if he will be more vocal on the internal boycott split or jump on the bandwagon of this now apparent leading voice of the boycott movement. The new leadership has apparently deleted some of the prior demands, like the demand that the police chief be fired, but have add some, like a "community bank." How can you hold a city hostage until it creates a private business, especially a bank? Do they know how long it takes to start a bank? You can't just start a bank over night; the regulation process will take quite a lot of time. Additionally, it sounds like they just want free money. Why don't they try setting up a credit union? That might be faster to create, and it can be run on a collective basis. The oddest thing, and frankly the nuttiest thing, is that a new demand included an investigation of "outside forces" that are claimed to be responsible for the drug ring problems. I love this one most. I guess the CIA is responsible? If you can't accept the reality that the people who are the drug dealers in the black neighborhoods are black, then you will never be able to rid those neighborhoods of those criminals. If you shield criminals, you will just breed more criminals. The cycle of racial grandstanding will be a never ending story in this town until the boycotters get what I think is their unmentioned wish: a majority “black” city.

Student Arrested In University E-Mail Hoax
"Miami Senior Faces Several Charges"

I wonder who will not be graduating this May?

None Injured, Two Arrested After Local Gunbattle
Damn, sounds like a scene from the latest Quentin Tarantino movie.

Kevin Drum at CalPundit has brought up an idea for a new Constitutional Amendment to require the President to hold a weekly Press Conference. This is an excellent idea. Kevin's idea has I think real merit. There are a couple of issues that need to be addressed however:

1. Will foreign reporters be allowed to participate in the weekly press conferences?


2. The amendment needs to be adjusted to allow the President a vacation or the ability to call them off if National Security issues required it. With the technology today the President could hold the Press Conferences from remote locations if he was on an overseas trip.


3. The method to select which reporters are allowed to participate in the press conferences has the potential to be open to political favor, since congress would have total control of the rules used to make the selection of the press conference questioners. A more constitutionally based means to select the press conference participants might reduce the ability to abuse who gets to participate. Those rules might include a geographical element or media outlet size element. They need to keep out the nut cases with a fringe website, but not allow the mainstream beltway press to dominate. Local press outlets should not be shut out.

I will be looking for the level of attention Kevin gets on this idea and whether it gains any support. I really hope it does gain some support. It is a long shot by far, but the current President has demonstrated that it is clearly needed.

Police Search For Men Carrying Suspicious Package
I hope this is an over reaction or just some regular old fashioned crime.

Local Boycotters Get National Support
Yet, Jesse Jackson did not show up. Damon Lynch's quote

"Not enough progress has been made," Lynch said. "In fact, I think the city is going backwards."

seems to be a whole lotta nothing. Where are we supposed to be going? Are we just supposed to roll over an give in to your demands? Are we instantly going to cure all of our problems? No, we are not going to to just change, and that is because Damon Lynch thinks that the "we" is only the police and non-black community. The “we” is everyone. The "black community" must change just as much as the "non-black community." That change does not include more segregation or Black Nationalism. The change means integration. Integration is basically assimilation. That is the basic core sticking point that must be overcome if anything is ever going to "change."

Conservatives like Jeff Ruby's French Boycott
Robbernard and SpicedSass both are praising Jeff Ruby for refusing to sell any French products in his restaurants. Boycotts are good when you are on the side that is boycotting "them." If you put a picture of Jeff Ruby and Nate Livingston side by side and closed your eyes, could you really tell which was the bigger opportunist? No, no you could not.

Chris Anderson on Green Beer Day at Miami University. Mmmmmmmmm, Green Beer. [Insert Drooling sound here]

14th Amendment possibly snagged in Ohio House
Guess what Cincinnati, Rep. Bill Seitz R-Green Township is a fascist. Now before the conservatives get pissed with my "f" word, let's look at what the word means: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control. How does this apply to Mr. Seitz? Well, in this case Mr. Seitz is upset that the 14th Amendment has been used over the years to protect individual rights of people, namely our rights to life, liberty, property, and equal protection under the law. Bill prefers to control women's bodies by banning abortions, and he wants to dictate who can get married. I wonder if Bill remembers what the main argument was in Bush v. Gore back in 2000? Just to remind you, that was the SCOTUS ruling that gave Bush the presidency. The main basis for that rule, or at least one of the main basis, was the right of equal protection under the law guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. Bill likes the 14th amendment when it helps his side, but it is horrible when it helps others.

This issue has been a hot topic in the Blogosphere. Atrios, Cal Pundit, and Kevin Holtsberry all posted on it. No one brought up a big point. The amendment can't be changed by the State legislature. They can just ratify it, or not. Any other language in the bill calling for ratification would be pointless. Seitz’s language is meaningless and political posturing.

State Rep. Bill Seitz, R-Cincinnati, is proposing more strident language: "Resolved that the General Assembly rejects those judicial interpretations of the 14th Amendment that unreasonably restrict state governments from promoting the free exercise of religion, defending the sanctity of unborn life and ensuring the equitable distribution of education dollars to aid students enrolled in schools sponsored by religious institutions."

Seitz wants States to dictate to the people what religion to follow, how to use their bodies, and how to fund various religious sects. Fascist is to Bill Seitz as Bad actor is to Tom Arnold.

Second Marriott turns off adult movies
The bigots win again. I bet Peter Bronson is dancing a jig.

CityBeat: Jerry: The Once and Future Springer

Jerry Springer, the TV show, is trash; and it's because of that fact -- not in spite of it -- that Jerry Springer, the candidate, could be the political phenomenon of 2004.

Greg, Please no! NO NO NO!!!!!! Not the ringmaster! Greg unfortunately provides an example of the final thought in my Springer post in Polstate.com.

CityBeat: Your Negro Tour Guide 50/50: Being an Influential
Kathy was named one of the 50 Most Influential Blacks in Cincinnati in the Past 50 Years. Her column gives a report and her impressions from the event honoring her and 49 others. I think Kathy did a good job of reporting her impressions, but I feel that she should not have written the column. Kathy was very humble in what she wrote, but still writing about an event were you are one of the honored guests is still a bit of self aggrandizing no matter how humble one tries to be.

I still don't like this event at all. It's intent is generally ok, but it reeks of self-segregation and a blatant double standard. Why are they honoring 50 people based on race? Why would it be considered racist if there was an event with the 50 Most Influential Whites in Cincinnati in the Past 50 Years? I would not want such an event, but why is a black event ok, while a white event is not ok?

Chris Anderson brings up a letter in City Beat that covers the break up of the CJC. The letter writer brings up their websites, which Chris links to. The problem I have is that letter writer refers to the "old" website, but if you go it has not been updated much, if at all. It refers you to the "new" website for the CJC, but is has no new or revised information, which is what the letter led me to believe would be the case. I hope they update the "Black Fist's" name in their list of endorsers; they are no longer called the "Cincinnati Black Special Forces." The Special Forces are over in Iraq I guess.

Group: Uncle Milt's needs another chance
Nearly everyone I have heard talk about this bar and the area around the bar agree that has a real problem with crime. Drugs, theft, assault, and even murder go on with no check. The bar has been judged as a magnet or congregation point for these crimes. Now the Avondale Community Council now wants to give the bar another chance. So, this bar has contributed in attracting crime to their neighborhood, yet they want it to reopen under the same owners, who would likely attract the same crowd? Is this a case of the Stockholm Syndrome?

Local College Students Protest Possible War
They just don't carry any weight when they face no draft. I was in their boat in 1990 and 1991. Back then there was a slightly more realistic concern about creating a draft that would lead to an unknown long-term war. Now there might be a short-term war, lasting months, but there will not be a draft. If we end up needing troops, Bush will make a formal call for more volunteers and would get all needed. UC's News Record's account of the protests. CNN's Take.

WHAT THE HELL is this all about? I have nothing to do with this page or whoever posted a link to my blog.

Local Restauranteur Bans French Products
Ruby is an idiot, and this part of the article proves it:

In the past, Ruby has been critical of the boycott of downtown Cincinnati.

When asked if his efforts against French products are hypocritical, he said, "I don't think so, but I suppose you can stretch anything good into anything bad." He added, "This is not a boycott -- it's an embargo."

It is not an embargo, it is a boycott. If Ruby refused to sell France something, that would be an embargo. The hyper-patriotic fool knows nothing of what the issues are in this situation. He instead hopes he can capitalize on the knee-jerk conservatives happy to conform to the “cause celeb” of the talk radio jet set.

Pledge of Allegiance: Under God
Well, it is obvious to me that the editorial staff is monotheists at a minimum, but most likely Christian. This part is their legal basis for believing the 1954 Pledge is constitutional:Today, the words are part of America's colloquial usage, in the same way that "In God We Trust" is included on our currency.So if words are colloquial they lose their original meaning? I guess then the FCC will not fine people for saying "God Fucking Damn It?" If "God Damn It" is not offensive, then why is it beeped on TV so often? Why couldn’t I say that back when I was in school? Why can't a student ask their teacher for a fucking pencil? The word "fucking" is a colloquial term regularly used by a large portion of Americans. What is the problem with the word “fucking?”

There is a problem using the term. The word has a vulgar or obscene meaning to some people. The term "One Nation, Under God" means to me that that our nation is a theocratic state subject to the rule of "God". It also means that the government agreed with this statement in their 1954 law and the crass law passed last year reaffirms the 1954 law. The government or an agent of the government telling me in an official capacity that the country is subject to a “God” is extremely offensive and to me and anyone who does not share that belief.

If the term is meaningless, then why were so many Christians upset at the ruling? Why would they care what version of the Pledge was used? These are basic and honest questions that I cannot believe people would not ask and not understand. The more Christians fight to keep their "God" in the Pledge, the more valid the 9th Circuit Court's ruling becomes.

Nate Livingston back in Jail
Nate Livingston, CJC co-chair and local racist, is back in jail serving out the sentence he received as the result of a Fountain Square incident at the opening ceremonies of the year 2000 Oktoberfest. Nate has been fighting his case with multiple appeals, but the Judge in the case ruled against him and Nate was forced back into the lock-up. Nate will fight this more I am sure, but he will most likely not get out before he finishes most of the remaining sentence. Nate deserves his jail sentence, but I am sure it will do nothing but build up his hatred of people that don't look like him and think like him.

I am surprised that since Nate has been the constant media quote machine for the AP that they have not picked up the story. I have not even read it or heard in any local media outlet. The link above is from the CJC's website, where a member posted it wrapped around a huge log of propaganda that is the usual drivel their group puts out. Please take it with a large block of salt.

Enquirer Readers' Views: God should be optional in pledge
Thomas Amann writes in a letter:

Seems the easiest and most American way to resolve this issue over the Pledge of Allegiance would be to rule that reciting either way, with or without "under God," is acceptable. If someone doesn't want to say, "under God," that's fine with me. Just don't try to tell me that I can't say it.

Thomas Amann, Mount Washington

No one is telling you Mr. Amann that you can't say the Pledge any way you wish. What the lawsuit says is that 1) the law changing the Pledge in 1954 is unconstitutional, which it clearly is, and 2) that public school teachers/administrators (the State) can't lead children or anyone in this form of the Pledge. The original version is fully legal and actually pretty good.

The Pledge currently is optional. No student has to say it or any part of it. That is not the issue. They issue is that the law changing the pledge was a law that established a religion. That religion does not have to be an organized or an institutionalized religion, but belief in a "god" is by itself a religion. That is what most Christians, and other followers of major monotheistic religions, just don't grasp. I can worship a tree or a mountain. That is protected under the first amendment. If the government says that there is a "God," note the upper case "G" used, that would be a direct contradiction to my tree worshiping religion. I know many Christians like to think that other religions they don't know about are meaningless, but under the law they are no more meaningless than their own religion. That does not even begin to cover those of us, me included, without a religion. I honestly hope that this issue does not create the bigoted and theocratic fervor it did last year. I also hope that when it reaches the Supreme Court, that the Justices don't play politics or rely on their religious beliefs and rule in favor of establishing a state religion. I fear that monotheism will be the adopted de facto.