Dick Cheney is coming to town on Monday. Will protest groups have undercover agents inside their rallies down here like they did up in Dayton? With the GOP pull in this town, I would be shocked if the stroomtroopers where not out in force, both undercover and with riot gear ready to pounce on a litterbug.
Will Nate Livingston be protesting the VP? That I think is the real question, not that Bronson and Nate are becoming anti-free speech chums.
Thursday, April 01, 2004
Sucker
So Peter Bronson fell for Nate Livingstone's email attacking the Know Theatre Tribe. Well folks, there you have your proof, both Livingston and Bronson seek to stamp out freedom and intellectual thought. Their form of life would be better had under their own distinct form of fascism. Nate wants a black run city where white people are oppressed, Peter wants a theocratic state, with a paper layer of tolerance easily torn.
Bronson should have seen Lips, the latest play put on by the Know Theatre. For the record I was a technical adviser on that production. In the play a fictional President (remember all of these plays are fictional) near the end of the play goes hand in hand with her Lesbian lover down the aisle of a Church, seeking acceptance, but instead gets attacked. That shows the realty of Bronson's brand of religion at its worst, but does not mock religion. Peter thinks his brand of Christianity and its fundamental/evangelical sects are tolerant of difference, but they really just seek to have those who don't conform to their religion slunk around in the shadows, neither seen nor heard.
Peter writes:
I hope Peter does not forget something: Churches are afforded non-tax status. Why is that done? It is does because of political correctness. What does not having to pay taxes do for churches? Well, they can use more funds to evangelize or run their religious activities. The taxpayers are then indirectly supporting religious activities. I don't like that. If I ran the world I would tax churches as any other Business, because that is what I seem them as. Guess what, that is not going to happen. Bronson should look at what I do, learn to live with the reality that everyone will not think like I do and let groups like the Know keep up their work of keeping live theater going in this town and making a stand for new and diverse art.
UPDATE: The Post has a story on the Funding, and they too fell pray to Nate's charms by mentioning his email. I guess if on a slow news day I send out a mass email, then I would get my name in all of the papers too?
UPDATE#2: Wes Flinn also comments.
Bronson should have seen Lips, the latest play put on by the Know Theatre. For the record I was a technical adviser on that production. In the play a fictional President (remember all of these plays are fictional) near the end of the play goes hand in hand with her Lesbian lover down the aisle of a Church, seeking acceptance, but instead gets attacked. That shows the realty of Bronson's brand of religion at its worst, but does not mock religion. Peter thinks his brand of Christianity and its fundamental/evangelical sects are tolerant of difference, but they really just seek to have those who don't conform to their religion slunk around in the shadows, neither seen nor heard.
Peter writes:
Council should encourage free expression and help the arts downtown. But if it gives cash to the Know Theatre Tribe, even indirectly, arts groups will never find the integrity to respect religion the same way they curtsey to more politically correct "sensitivities."What Bronson forgets, oh so intentionally, that religious groups where pushing "politically correct" ideas for hundreds of years before the conservatives starting whining about being chastised for saying "redskin." I point to Blue laws as the ultimate in religious PC efforts, getting the sale of alcohol ban or limited on Sundays. What motivated the laws???? Yep, Political correctness.
I hope Peter does not forget something: Churches are afforded non-tax status. Why is that done? It is does because of political correctness. What does not having to pay taxes do for churches? Well, they can use more funds to evangelize or run their religious activities. The taxpayers are then indirectly supporting religious activities. I don't like that. If I ran the world I would tax churches as any other Business, because that is what I seem them as. Guess what, that is not going to happen. Bronson should look at what I do, learn to live with the reality that everyone will not think like I do and let groups like the Know keep up their work of keeping live theater going in this town and making a stand for new and diverse art.
UPDATE: The Post has a story on the Funding, and they too fell pray to Nate's charms by mentioning his email. I guess if on a slow news day I send out a mass email, then I would get my name in all of the papers too?
UPDATE#2: Wes Flinn also comments.
Wednesday, March 31, 2004
More Bad ReportingBlogging
Matt Leingang has written an article about binge drinking in Cincinnati. That is fine. I have no problem with the article, except no where in the article does he define what was considered binge drinking by the study. I looked in a sister article on the topic and found nothing.
Matt might have looked for something like this note on the Rutgers Journal of Studies on Alcohol's website.
Binge drinking has been defined by some temperance movement activists as 5 drinks in a night for men and 4 for women. That has become a common definition by many in the media who are often too lazy to a little research on the internet. I found the above page in a 10 second search using Google.com. Don't you think Matt might have spent that time? Better yet, do you think Matt did spend that time and his editors stupidly cut that part out? That is possible. The bias and/or stupidity of editors often outweighs that of the reporter.
UPDATE: Yes, I missed it. Yes, I was careless. Yes, I apologize to Matt.
Now, one critique that I honestly think threw me for a loop. Matt switched between using numbers in like "20" and 8.8" to using the word "five." Is that an excuse? Well, not much of one. I do still hold my opinion that the story should have held some critical opinion that disputes the study, which frankly is not worth the paper it is printed on, mostly because it defines "binge" drinking on such a narrow view that it holds no meaning.
Matt might have looked for something like this note on the Rutgers Journal of Studies on Alcohol's website.
Binge drinking has been defined by some temperance movement activists as 5 drinks in a night for men and 4 for women. That has become a common definition by many in the media who are often too lazy to a little research on the internet. I found the above page in a 10 second search using Google.com. Don't you think Matt might have spent that time? Better yet, do you think Matt did spend that time and his editors stupidly cut that part out? That is possible. The bias and/or stupidity of editors often outweighs that of the reporter.
UPDATE: Yes, I missed it. Yes, I was careless. Yes, I apologize to Matt.
Now, one critique that I honestly think threw me for a loop. Matt switched between using numbers in like "20" and 8.8" to using the word "five." Is that an excuse? Well, not much of one. I do still hold my opinion that the story should have held some critical opinion that disputes the study, which frankly is not worth the paper it is printed on, mostly because it defines "binge" drinking on such a narrow view that it holds no meaning.
Personal Jesus
The shot of the week goes to Greg Korte who wrote about theCincinnati Human Relations Commission:
"Councilman Sam Malone is performing his personal audit of the organization."Nice to see Councilman Malone has found way to express himself to someone who really cares. If he would only do this more often and just keep his findings to his personal committee, we all might sleep better at night.
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
Monday, March 29, 2004
Kentucky Theocracy
Kentucky's Brand of Theocracy is on the march in Lexington. I really don't get why people cheer when people try to ban Gay Marriage. Why are the so gleeful? I guess doing their "religious duty" is what drives them into emotional fits. The only thing missing in this article is the fact that most of the Democrats in Kentucky's Statehouse would not favor Gay Marriage; just don't want to ban it outright in their Constitution. A technical difference that is political fodder, but not a substantive variation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)