On The Docket: Smiling Bob Meets Uncle Sam

Back on January 8, a jury was selected to hear the case of United States v. Berkeley Premium Netraceuticals (and several of its corporate officers). Earlier today, closing arguments were completed and the jury was given final instructions. Deliberations are set to commence tomorrow morning. (The Enquirer's most recent article on closing arguments, which began last week, is here.) I've never been involved in a trial of this length, and have often wondered how one finds a jury of twelve (plus a couple alternates) who can give up their employment for a month or longer.

Berkeley is the company that manufactures and markets Enzyte, a product which Berekeley claimed (often through ads featuring "Smiling Bob") could enhance a certain part of the male anatomy.

In 2004, the Enquirer reported that Berekeley was a $250 million per year company, employing 1,000 people locally.

Another Restaurant Closes; Let's Panic

Yet another downtown restaurant has closed. It's a clear sign that downtown is in trouble, and isn't drawing enough people to support the dining and entertainment venues there. So don't buy or rent living space there, and certainly don't think about going there to spend your money. In all likelihood, the restaurant closed because people are so afraid they'll become crime victims when they come to the area.

Oh, wait!!! I misread the linked article! It's not a downtown restaurant at all--it's Moe's Southwest Grill in Newport on the Levee. So everytime you see the word "downtown" in the previous paragraph, replace it with "Newport."

Sorry. Of course the closing of Moe's doesn't mean that Newport--or even the Levee--is in trouble. But that's how certain people would be spinning the story if it were a downtown restaurant. So next time a downtown establishment closes up, can we refrain from taking the "the sky is falling approach" to reporting news? (For "certain people," you can fill in the name of your favorite Enquirer reporter or City Beat blogger.)

I'm sorry, by the way, to see Moe's go, as I am anytime a business closes and employees inevitably lose jobs and have their lives disrupted. I don't mean to make light of a bad situation for those adversely affected.

But Where's The Big Hair?

Did anyone else feel like they were trapped in some strange time warp last night? NBC's primetime lineup consisted entirely of American Gladiators and Knight Rider. (Who agrees with me that if you put the women's winner, Monica, up on a joust platform with the men's winner, Evan, that Monica would win in about 6 seconds?)

Don't get me wrong--I watched every minute of both. (As a male of a certain age, watching a new installment of Knight Rider was some sort of preordained, primordial duty.) I'm just sayin'....

Detour Ahead

I'm sure that it's absolutely necessary, but the closing of the Eighth Street viaduct isn't going to make getting to the West Side (or back Downtown from the West Side) much fun at all.

Portman for McCain's VP?

On Meet the Press this morning, Rob Portman (former 2nd District Congressman from Ohio and Cincinnati Resident) was mentioned as a possible VP running mate for John McCain.

From a local angle, how much attention would that put on Cincinnati if a local person were on the national ticket? Would that be good for us, no matter what? We are looking to be a big stop on the campaign trail again, with the nation NAACP convention being a stop for the Presidential nominees. I don't look forward to those who seek to bash the city at all cost (say Chris Smitherman or Joe Deters for example) getting the opportunity to frame the discussion when ever Cincinnati is referenced.

Portman is not considered on the A list for the VP slot, but logically he has the economic background McCain lacks. From a GOP perspective, one

Would Portman, a fairly well liked former Ohio Congressman, give McCain Ohio?

Advantage Democrat?

I've been a little post-happy the last two days. I promise, this is the last one for the weekend (unless something really interesting comes up tomorrow).

The conventional wisdom is that the Democrats' prolonged primary season will benefit John McCain. Supposedly, McCain can now begin "uniting" the Republican Party behind him and begin a national general election campaign, while Barack and Hillary are left to squabble over who the nominee will be. I've begun to wonder if the opposite is true.

As you may recall, the Florida legislature moved the date of its primary to be ahead of Super Tuesday. The Democratic National Committee had told it not to do so, and threatened to refuse to seat Florida's delegates at the convention. Well, Florida stuck to its guns (and according to the current DNC rules, Florida will have no voice in choosing the Democratic nominee). The major Democratic candidates all agreed not to campaign in Florida before its primary.

The Republicans took a more laid-back approach, though, and just stripped Florida of half of its delegates to the Republican convention. The Florida Republican party was thrilled. It believes that as a result, the Republican candidate will have a head start in Florida for the general election, since he's already campaigned and built an organization there, whereas the Democrats didn't bother. (The DNC is still weighing whether to hold caucuses in Florida and Michigan, which also jumped the gun, and seat delegates based on those results.)

Does the same hold true for the Democrats? Three states that are sure to be pivotal in November--Wisconsin, Texas, and Ohio--are going to see a whole lot of love from Clinton and Obama. We already know about the intense organization-building taking place in Cincinnati, and I can only assume the same is happeneing in Madison, Milwaukee, Houston, Dallas, and so on. So this supposed disadvantage (that the Dems will actually elect a nominee rather than simply coronate one) might work out in the Democrats' favor. Well in advance of the conventions, the Democratic nominee will have GOTV organizations in place. The still-to-be-contested primary states will have a lot of opportunity to see the eventual nominee. And John McCain will have to start from scratch.

Any thoughts?

Cincinnati: More Progressive Than You Think?

I'm a little reluctant to post this for fear of starting a religious flame war in the comment thread. But as a born-and-raised Presbyterian (the son, in fact, of a Presbyterian pastor), I can't pass up this story.

Tuesday night, the Presbytery of Cincinnati (roughly the equivalent of a diocese, but governed democratically rather than by a bishop) voted to send an overture to the General Assembly (the Presbyterian Church's national governing body, which meets once every two years) to permit the ordination of openly gay and lesbian pastors, elders, and deacons. The Enquirer's coverage is here.

It's certainly not surprising that a presbytery is sending such an overture to the General Assembly. This is a battle that the Presbyterian Church (USA) has been fighting for years. Many believe the issue will ultimately force some sort of formal schism in the church. Some, in fact, are openly working towards such a schism. (It's not easy for a congregation to separate itself from the Presbyterian Church, though; each individual church's property is held in trust by the presbytery in which it sits, so any congregation that "left" would also leave behind its building. If there's a schism, expect lots of nasty battles in secular courts on this issue--the Methodists are already fighting them.)

Is is surprising, however, that the overture is coming from the Presbytery of Cincinnati. This is a city that hasn't always been gay-friendly (think about the now-repealed Article XII). Just a few years ago, the Presbytery of Cincinnati defrocked Steven Van Kuiken for performing same-sex wedding ceremonies. (You can read City Beat's article on the resulting aftermath at Mt. Auburn Presbyterian Church, where Rev. Van Kuiken had been pastor, here.)

I really like it when Cincinnati surprises me like this.