Enquirer's Concealed-Carry Coverage
The Editorial Page of the Cincinnati Enquirer has gone all out in coverage of the concealed-carry law that is slated to become law. Their editorial on it is a cheerleading call to action to try and reconcile the two bills passed in each in respective chamber. I will never know why people want this so much. Why do people feel the need to carry around a gun? How many people will ever have to draw their gun? I hope the number is small. If you never draw your pistol, why did you need it? I think the answer is that you are afraid. That is reasonable. We are all fearful of something, but most of us not to the point that we feel the need to carry around a deadly weapon.

The paper provides a good summary of the law passed by the senate, which has the governor's support. The Enquirer also provide two oddly opposing views on the subject. From Chuck Klein they get an extremist gun nut's point of view. Chuck is pissed that the Senate law tries to protect children. He wants an open shooting range so much that he is not even willing to compromise on the law and agree to a simple restriction involving children and guns in cars. Toby Hoover provides the safetly prospective in opposing the law all together. I agree with Mr. Hoover on his stance on the law and I think that carrying around guns on our streets does nothing but increase the ego of the gun carrier. If there is a reasonable need for an individual to carry a gun on their person, I am open to laws allowing people to carry a gun. Reason could be as part of the their job, like deliver persons who are targets of robbers or people who have been threatened with physical harm or have specific types of restraining orders issued for protection.

The Cleveland Suburban newspaper The Morning Journal had an interesting editorial on Friday. They raised this point in their title:

"State lawmakers in Columbus can't manage to help more Ohioans carry a college degree, but they're hard at work to help Ohioans carry concealed weapons. How stupid. "

Indeed.

Riot News Coverage
During the 2001 riots here in Cincinnati, with the exception of the on the spot coverage of 1230 the Buzz, local news media stayed well behind police lines, limiting coverage of the most intense periods of the actions. If you listened to first hand testimony or listened to the police scanners, you hear a war zone. The decriptions from a reporter for the Herald Palladium about the recent riots in Benton Harbor, Michigan confirms what the local press may have faced if they had ventured deep into the riots back in April of 2001. Some limited stories of bottles and bricks hitting news vans were reported, but nothing compared to what reporter Kim Strode went through just trying to report the story. As a side note the Herald Palladium, the local St. Joseph-Benton Harbor, Michigan newspaper, has an interesting editorial about the police officer involved in the chase that instigated the riots.

Last Gasp or New Future for the Post?
The Cincinnati Post reports on itself today indicated they are consolidating their news rooms into the downtown Cincinnati location. From a business perspective, I wonder why this was not done years ago. I understand that Northern Kentucky residents was local coverage, and the Kentucky Post does an ok job of providing that, but being just over the border is a superficial element, that was only a symbolic tradition. I hope this buys E. W. Scripps some time to stabilize the paper. Rumor has the Cincinnati Post closing down once the Joint printing agreement with the Enquirer expires, keeping the Kentucky Post alive, but focused almost exclusively on Kentucky. If the FCC rules on ownership of newspapers and local TV stations stays in place, could the Post be sold to someone like Clear Channel? A news room connecting WLW, WKRC-TV and a new Cincinnati Post would be a conservative's dream. Would it bring new competition against an Enquirer/WCPO-TV alliance or just homogenize 3 news organizations into one? It is nothing but speculation, but is it plausible?

HERE IS Stonewall-Cincinnati's take on the Van Kuiken Removal from the Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church for marrying gays and lesbians. Small critique: this document needs a date published listed.

Bush Says Iraqi Weapons Sites Were Looted
So let me get this straight. Bush is now admitting that we know the weapons were looted? WTF? So the oil fields were more important to protect, than the WMD? We sent special teams to secure the oil fields, but no special teams in to protect the WMD sites? Do people have barrels of VX in their basements right now? How secure is that? This sounds like the worst attempt at spinning I have ever head. Bush did not even have to the balls to say in a more covered speech, he choose the routinely meaningless weekly radio address. This did not even make the 11:00 AM CNN or MSNBC top stories. Mike Tyson's arrest made it, but not Bush on the alleged looting of WMD. Nice, folks, nice. I guess Harry Potter was just to "big" of story to cover last night, so all of the reporters are sleeping when Bush breaks news.

Yet Another Religious Zealot
A letter to the Editor (4th) in Today's Enquirer got my dander up:

"Humanist ethics are subjective"

The letter ("Ten Commandments defenders don't get it," June 12) is part of the reason the United States faces a moral dilemma today. When the letter writer rejects the biblical foundation of morality that was used by our founding fathers to frame much of our government, he instead lays the foundation of subjectivity. He is only partially right when he says that "...Similar values and morals (found in the Ten Commandments) can be praised and taught in the secular humanist arena."

People should realize some of the things that humanism is offering as a replacement to what had been taught in American schools for over 200 years: Institutions with authority, such as governments, the United Nations, and the American Humanist Association can pick and choose what values should be taught. If that doesn't sound a little arbitrary, they can also modify, discard or acquire new ones whenever they like. That is the nature of situational ethics.

To make this system of morality more acceptable to the man who doesn't happen to like the 10 suggestions that some authority has forced upon him, he is free to make up his own commandments to live by. One is perfectly within the letter writer's humanist rights to do this, especially if they break with old traditions. But, if they are recognizably religious or old-fashioned, then you'd best keep them to yourself.

Paul McDorman, Mason

I hate to break some news to Mr. McDorman but morality and morals are subjective. How do I know this? Simple, I do not share Mr. McDorman's morals. His morals or belief system includes conformity, blind obedience, and well just plain old ignorance. I fall back into those states, but I try like hell to get out of them. I prefer not to conform because my religion tells me to for no reason I find valid. I do not trust a 2000+ year old books as anything more than fiction akin to Aesop's Fables or Le Morte d'Arthur. I sure try to reduce my ignorance at nearly every chance I get. Mr. McDorman on the other hand is missing a few things. Christianity is not the basis of our government. There is no democracy in the Bible. There are monarchies, kingdoms, lords, and masters, but no democracies, unless you want to count the Romans, but in the Bible they are the bad guys. The United Nations was created not by secular humanists, but mostly by Christians (USA, UK, and France). Life is made up of situations. They all differ. How I look at them and how Mr. McDorman looks at them differ. I would guess Mr. McDorman would handle a robber in his house differently than I would. He might shoot him, where I would try and stop him without killing him or seriously injuring him, using deadly force only if attacked. If I differ from you Mr. McDorman, how can you deny that ethics are subjective? We have laws to try and keep order in this society. Not everyone agrees with every law. Does that mean we should not have laws? Of course not. Should we have religious laws? Of course not. If you want to practice your religion Mr. McDorman, go right ahead, no one will stop you, as long as you don't force it on others. Teaching religious morality in schools is forcing it. I also remember something else that was subjective. For over 200 years people in this county own slaves. Because that happened for a long time, and worked well (for the slave owners) should we bring it back? Of course not.

BUZZ Boycott?
The Cincinnati Business Courier is reporting that WIZF-FM (100.9) and WDBZ-AM (1230) will be moving their offices and presumably their studios to Centennial Plaza on Central Avenue, which is across from City Hall. The move is slated to take place in October. The problem this brings is that both radio stations will be in the boycott zone. Will the Boycott Groups (A and/or B) modify their moving target boycott and not call for a listening boycott of the BUZZ and the WIZ come October? Is this a plot by the "man" (I guess I am one of them) to break the boycott? Is the BUZZ merely a pawn in the white man's oppression of the black man? (cough, cough). It couldn't have anything to do with Lincoln Ware wanting to save gas money by not having to drive to City Council meetings, could it?