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.
Thursday, March 06, 2003
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 05, 2003
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?
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)