BoycottCincinnati.org Forum - Spike Lee Joins Cincinnati Boycott
Just in case Nate deletes my post or anyone questions it authenticity, here is what I posted on the website:

For the record, the "cincyblog" posting on this message board is not Brian Griffin from the Cincinnati Blog. Someone else, most likely Nate, has created that username for a purpose that can only be viewed as nefarious in nature. Please do not confuse the views of the username on this board called "cincyblog", with the views of Brian Griffin or Cincinnati Blog.

Additionally, the blog post credited to me is from my blog, but was not published with my permission. It would be both considerate and wise to at least include a link to said post to allow readers to see the original, allowing any potential editing or misquoting to be judged fairly. Thank You.

Brian Griffin

In case anyone is nitpicky, yes I did add a missing word to the above post, which was incorrectly left out because of my haste to post to the message board. May the grammar "gods" forgive me.

[Link via John Schlagetter]

Socialist organization meets despite interruption
And they loved every second of the attention they received.

Spike Lee cancels under pressure from boycott
UC's News Record reports on Spike Lee's cancellation and a letter sent by Nate Livingston to the News Record and Student Body President Darren Tolliver. This quote

"Your actions in attempting to convince artists and entertainers to break the boycott are disturbing to me," he continued.

could be construed as something more than a complaint. I wonder if the News Record will release the letter in full. Does the letter come across as blackmail? Does the letter imply or overtly state that unless the New Record and the UC Student Body President endorse the boycott and/or do the bidding of the boycotters, then the boycotters will then entice or intimidate those coming to perform, appear or work at UC. This would be the same spin and tactics allegedly used to put fear in the performers themselves, which is part of the reason they stayed away. Fear is not the tool of the honorable. Fear is the tool of thieves, scoundrels, and thugs.

Gangs of New York to Cincinnati?
What article on mobs and riots as they relate to the movie Gangs of New York could be complete without mentioning Cincinnati? It is only in passing, but the 2001 riots have, at least in this author's opinion, achieved an equal historical importance as the 1992 LA riots and the 1968 riots after MLK's assassination. It is far to soon to judge the importance of the 2001 riots, but that will not keep columnists from judging it prematurely, providing their opinion a more contemporary spin. Short-sheeting history is a common side effect of current-events writing, and I am as guilty as the next writer, but this article tries to connect some dots that are generations if not worlds apart.

Senate president took rural route to power
A puff piece if there ever was one. Did White's staff write this? This reeks of damage control and of weak rationalization. When does being from a rural county excuse boorish or bigoted behavior?

In case you don't remember Senator Doug White, review it here and here.

200 locals march against abortion
More evidence of the Enquirer's bias. How many stories can they run praising the efforts of anti-abortion protestors? If anyone wants to call the Enquirer "liberal" they might want to qualify that assessment. Just because the Enquirer does not proclaim the progressive income tax structure as a Stalinist plot does not mean they are not conservative. It just means they are not totally ignorant. The Enquirer caters to the large conservative base in this town. They know who their masters are and they, like FOXNews, tilt their coverage to what their readers want to read. This does not mean the Enquirer’s opinions are equivalent to the GOP or any other conservative movement, it just means they cover stories more often that conservatives want to hear.

BRONSON: Pushing life
Pushing Religious Propaganda is a better title for this trite fluff piece on the paleoconservative's 3rd rail of politics. That 3rd rail languishes only slightly behind the fear of taxes and a military spending fetish. Owning guns and being anti-homosexual rank 4th and 5th, but sometimes can create as much frothing at the mouth as number 3.

Pete's diatribe is nothing but the rantings of a closed minded religious chauvinist, bent on instilling his artificial religious dogma on the entire country. Bronson is a classic anti-gray person. He only sees things in a black and white, an affliction most conservatives and all extremists share. It would be nice if Pete could dance a little bit closer to the truth, instead of falling prey to his fear of rubbing up against her and panicking his preacher.