Courtesy of Joe Wessels, apparently some prospective council members and mayoral candidates aren't exactly falling over themselves to be courteous to reporters. You'd think that someone about to run for elected office would want to put their best foot forward for those that write about their campaigns (and eventually help to shape voter's perceptions of them). If reporters can't get a few minutes of their time, do we really expect them to pay attention to private citizens?
Adam
Reality Bytes
Monday, August 08, 2005
Brother, can you spare $9 million
I always get a bit nervous when people start discussing the funding of pensions. Now comes word that under-budgeting will force taxpayers to chip in $9 million to fully fund the city pension fund. Just from an amateur's perspective, it seems that a bit too much of the funding is dependent on investment gains. With the unpredictability of the stock market recently, perhaps there are better methods to funding that don't include reducing benefits.
Adam
Reality Bytes
Adam
Reality Bytes
Some humor for a Monday morning
Courtesy of Covington, click here if you want to send your support to Karl Rove. Whitehouse.org is also kind enough to copy the e-mail to other patriots like Novak, Hannity, Drudge, etc.
Adam
Reality Bytes
Adam
Reality Bytes
Sunday, August 07, 2005
Paul Daugherty article
A few weeks ago Maggie Downs wrote an article about her boyfriend's sky-diving crash and the difficulties of a long re-hab ahead. Today Paul Daugherty writes a spectacular piece on her boyfriend (Jason Yasuda), the death of his friend (Sean Crossman), and what draws people to skydiving. Daugherty is always worth reading, today more so than normal.
My turn to rip on Bronson
Ohh, how I would have loved to have found a column of Bronson's to agree with. But unfortunately that's not going to happen today, as he uses the deaths of five local soldiers to tell us that we should all blindly believe that the war in Iraq is just, and anyone that doesn't must hate America.
The crux of this article comes from the statement he got from Iraq veteran John Detling, who said that "people who say 'I suuport the troops but I don't support the war' can't have it both ways. Talk about demoralization.". This line has become typical of the Bush era black/white 'you're with us or against us' world attitude.
I really don't mean to disrespect Mr. Detling, but one of the capabilities we have is to be able to hold two opposed views in our minds and be able to confront both individually. I support the troops; I greatly admire the job that they perform every day for their country, and I'll gladly shake any of their hands and give them a pat on the back (I will also contribute money so that they can have the top-line Kevlar battle armor that this administration refuses to provide for them, but that's another story). I also can appreciate that the troops don't get to choose their assignments; that is done for them. I may not believe in the mission they're sent to, but I sure hope for their sakes that they accomplish it and get home as quickly as possible. But in the Bush world, I hate the troops, which must mean I hate America.
And can we please stop with the 'your protest of the war demoralizes the troops and gives aid and comfort to the enemy'. The enemy can't even get running water, I doubt they get Fox News out there. Bronson says that most soldiers believe we're winning; I've heard as many that would say otherwise.
Bronson then goes on to quote some 'private CIA' group that says that the recent attacks are signs that the enemy is desperate (the last throes argument). Again, considering the attacks are becoming more frequent and more powerful, I fail to see how this all works. I sincerely hope they're right, I'm just not holding my breath.
Adam
Reality Bytes
The crux of this article comes from the statement he got from Iraq veteran John Detling, who said that "people who say 'I suuport the troops but I don't support the war' can't have it both ways. Talk about demoralization.". This line has become typical of the Bush era black/white 'you're with us or against us' world attitude.
I really don't mean to disrespect Mr. Detling, but one of the capabilities we have is to be able to hold two opposed views in our minds and be able to confront both individually. I support the troops; I greatly admire the job that they perform every day for their country, and I'll gladly shake any of their hands and give them a pat on the back (I will also contribute money so that they can have the top-line Kevlar battle armor that this administration refuses to provide for them, but that's another story). I also can appreciate that the troops don't get to choose their assignments; that is done for them. I may not believe in the mission they're sent to, but I sure hope for their sakes that they accomplish it and get home as quickly as possible. But in the Bush world, I hate the troops, which must mean I hate America.
And can we please stop with the 'your protest of the war demoralizes the troops and gives aid and comfort to the enemy'. The enemy can't even get running water, I doubt they get Fox News out there. Bronson says that most soldiers believe we're winning; I've heard as many that would say otherwise.
Bronson then goes on to quote some 'private CIA' group that says that the recent attacks are signs that the enemy is desperate (the last throes argument). Again, considering the attacks are becoming more frequent and more powerful, I fail to see how this all works. I sincerely hope they're right, I'm just not holding my breath.
Adam
Reality Bytes
Saturday, August 06, 2005
Criminal checks for subsidized housing
This enquirer article explains the reasoning behind requiring criminal background checks for federally subsidized housing. Hamilton County has stopped accepting applications for the funding until they are able to implement a program to eliminate people with a criminal record.
Apparently Dewine would prefer to see criminals living on the street where they are more likely to continue committing crimes.
"The over-saturation of Section 8 housing already has had a detrimental impact on too many neighborhoods," DeWine said. "The least government can do is ensure those with criminal backgrounds are kept out of this program. If you go to neighborhoods like Westwood and Price Hill, folks there are certainly feeling the effects of Section 8 housing there. They don't need criminals living there."
Apparently Dewine would prefer to see criminals living on the street where they are more likely to continue committing crimes.
This year, Hamilton County will spend just over $18 million on rents for 2,738 subsidized housing units. Its program is separate from that operated by the Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority. The metropolitan housing agency will spend $41 million this year on about 7,200 subsidized rental units, spokeswoman Kelly Kramer said.
Debate? What debate?
In today's opinion section of the Enquirer, Kathleen Parker gives perhaps the worst argument I have heard so far on why intelligent design should be given a ticket to the curriculum ball in our public school systems.
She first quotes president Bush, who states the following: "...you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.". That is transcendental comedy from this guy. There has been no presidential administration in recent memory that has gone to greater lengths to ensure that all of its members have nearly exactly the same thoughts on every issue. Heck, on Iraq alone, anyone that has disagreed with the party line has been villified (Paul O'Neill), crucified (Richard Clarke), nudged out the door (Colin Powell), or had their wife's covert status with the CIA revealed in several periodicals (nuff said). So let's dispose of that idea right now.
Playing 'devil's advocate', she then makes the argument '...what if ID were taught in the interest of making education more interesting?'. In the words of Jon Stewart, whaaaaaaaa? I'm sorry, maybe I missed something, I thought that school was meant to teach subjects based in fact, not untested theory for the purpose of livening things up. Science experiments where mixing two chemicals makes them fizz over a Pyrex jar is interesting. Hearing a guest speaker explain how you use the skills you learn in school in the real world is interesting. Laerning about a theory that has all of the scientific basis of 2+2=6 is not interesting.
As a 14-year old freshman, however, I can tell you exactly what would have made school more interesting for me: hot teachers in bikinis (Women feel free to fill in your own idea there)! Seriously, if high school was 4 years of nothing but a Van Halen video, I would have found it far more interesting...whether I would have learned any more is up for debate.
That argument failing, Ms. Parker then pulls the new right-wing line that ID is not exactly creationism, but rather whether '...the apparent design in nature observed by biologists is genuine design (the product of an organizing intelligence) or is simply the product of chance and mechanical natural laws.'. So what exactly would an 'organizing intelligence' be if it were not God? And how exactly do you prove scientifically that there is an 'organizing intelligence'? Is George Burns going to come down in a golf cap and tan slacks and tell us he's God again? Further, if somehow the planets align and you were able to prove ID, whose God put it all together? Jesus? Allah? Buddah? Jobu from Major League?
(And let's not kid ourselves, Bush may be calling it ID now, but he's clearly got a track record of wanting creationism taught in the schools. See these quotes from 1999. And if you say that he changed his mind, well then he was for creationism before he was against it, and damnit that makes him a flip-flopper, and we know how bad that is.)
This is typical of the current conservative playbook. They throw out an idea that is completely out of left field, and when it is dismissed they demand that it should be part of the debate, because if it's not then the media is trying to silence them because they're just a bunch of liberals. It's like offering to buy a new Mustang for $2 and then demanding that the bid be considered, so you can compromise in the middle and get a $30K car for $15K.
Adam
Reality Bytes
She first quotes president Bush, who states the following: "...you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.". That is transcendental comedy from this guy. There has been no presidential administration in recent memory that has gone to greater lengths to ensure that all of its members have nearly exactly the same thoughts on every issue. Heck, on Iraq alone, anyone that has disagreed with the party line has been villified (Paul O'Neill), crucified (Richard Clarke), nudged out the door (Colin Powell), or had their wife's covert status with the CIA revealed in several periodicals (nuff said). So let's dispose of that idea right now.
Playing 'devil's advocate', she then makes the argument '...what if ID were taught in the interest of making education more interesting?'. In the words of Jon Stewart, whaaaaaaaa? I'm sorry, maybe I missed something, I thought that school was meant to teach subjects based in fact, not untested theory for the purpose of livening things up. Science experiments where mixing two chemicals makes them fizz over a Pyrex jar is interesting. Hearing a guest speaker explain how you use the skills you learn in school in the real world is interesting. Laerning about a theory that has all of the scientific basis of 2+2=6 is not interesting.
As a 14-year old freshman, however, I can tell you exactly what would have made school more interesting for me: hot teachers in bikinis (Women feel free to fill in your own idea there)! Seriously, if high school was 4 years of nothing but a Van Halen video, I would have found it far more interesting...whether I would have learned any more is up for debate.
That argument failing, Ms. Parker then pulls the new right-wing line that ID is not exactly creationism, but rather whether '...the apparent design in nature observed by biologists is genuine design (the product of an organizing intelligence) or is simply the product of chance and mechanical natural laws.'. So what exactly would an 'organizing intelligence' be if it were not God? And how exactly do you prove scientifically that there is an 'organizing intelligence'? Is George Burns going to come down in a golf cap and tan slacks and tell us he's God again? Further, if somehow the planets align and you were able to prove ID, whose God put it all together? Jesus? Allah? Buddah? Jobu from Major League?
(And let's not kid ourselves, Bush may be calling it ID now, but he's clearly got a track record of wanting creationism taught in the schools. See these quotes from 1999. And if you say that he changed his mind, well then he was for creationism before he was against it, and damnit that makes him a flip-flopper, and we know how bad that is.)
This is typical of the current conservative playbook. They throw out an idea that is completely out of left field, and when it is dismissed they demand that it should be part of the debate, because if it's not then the media is trying to silence them because they're just a bunch of liberals. It's like offering to buy a new Mustang for $2 and then demanding that the bid be considered, so you can compromise in the middle and get a $30K car for $15K.
Adam
Reality Bytes
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)