My boyfriend, who is not from Cincinnati, but who works in Western Hills, is constantly amused when I run into people who grew up on the West Side, and we engage in a game of West Side Bingo:
"Oh, you went to Seton? I went to Seton!"
"Did you know so-and-so?"
"Well, I knew her second cousin twice removed, she..."
You get the idea. At a recent dinner party, one of my guests and I went about three degrees of separation, down to "lived across the street from my best friend" level. Pretty impressive.
Say what you will about the West Side, and I often make fun of it (I grew up in Delhi, I'm allowed), but it is a very tightly knit, middle class community. You can generally rely on your neighbors in times of trouble, and the community never fails to lend a helping hand to those in need. West Siders, as a whole, are fiercely loyal and incredibly respectful of those in law enforcement, fire fighting, EMS and the military.
Watching the WLWT aerial feed of the procession, seeing neighborhoods that are incredibly familiar to me lined with people pausing in respect of Robin Broxterman and Brian Schira, I can't help but be incredibly moved. These were born and bred West Siders-- one an Oak Hills grad, the other a La Salle grad-- who were motivated to help out the communities that raised them. That's admirable and heroic.
On Monday night, I had to call the CFD because of some smoke near my apartment. I couldn't help but think about their roles as firefighters-- sure, they're told it's just a smell of smoke, but every run could be so much more-- and I made sure to thank them and tell them to be safe. In the same, selfless manner of every firefighter I ever met, one said, "No, you be safe. We know what kind of crime goes on around here. Don't ever hesitate to call us."
I won't dwell on the cause of the fire-- rumors abound of the homeowners delaying because of some illegal activities in the basement, plus the construction issues many new homes have-- but instead think about the selflessness of firefighters, who go to every run, no matter where it is or who called or what the circumstances are, with the sole purpose of helping someone, and with little regard to their own safety.
And thank you to the citizens of Colerain, Green Township, Delhi for being so stereotypically close knit. It's times like these that this is appreciated.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Monday, April 07, 2008
Downtown Movie Discussion
Many folks on various different blog posts and comments have named a Movie Theater as one of the top businesses they would like to see added to Downtown Cincinnati. I love the idea of it, but I am unsure of what people are thinking about when they say movie theater. Do they want a 20 screen megaplex or do they want an art house like the Esquire. The effort and resources it takes to run the Esquire and the Mariemont are not something easily found in a entrepreneur. Finding a big corporation to put in the megaplex would be much more feasible, but would it be what is desired? Would it also work? From a supply stand point, is the supply and capacity of the AMC theaters in Newport enough to feed the demand from Downtown and OTR? How big of an increase in population would it take to justify a new megaplex atop of Macy's? Is that a factor?
Dealing with businesses that are not unique and don't draw from the entire Metro area is the bane of Downtown. Too much of society is focused on the corporate one size fits all big-box business model. How do we get companies who can sustain a business like a movie theater to accept the new Urban business model?
Dealing with businesses that are not unique and don't draw from the entire Metro area is the bane of Downtown. Too much of society is focused on the corporate one size fits all big-box business model. How do we get companies who can sustain a business like a movie theater to accept the new Urban business model?
Saturday, April 05, 2008
NewsFlash: Smitherman Still a Loon
The Enquirer's political blog reports on a statement issued by local NAACP Chapter President Chris Smitherman yesterday on the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. On a day that the vast majority of people in the country remembered the horrible tragedy that day and remembered the courage and leadership MLK's life entailed, we instead get a statement from a local "leader" that had only one intention: get attention for Chris Smitherman by attempting to increase racial tensions. To make a statement that the U.S. Government "had a great deal to do with the assassination" is a clear sign that Smitherman cares nothing but building up his own power by trying to get people to hate white people and the US government, no matter how much that harms society. I won't even discuss the fact that he has the foolishness to reference a conspiracy theory as fact. I'm waiting for him to start his own new line of tinfoil hats and accessories.
I saw this post yesterday and I wanted to post on it right away, but I wasn't going to do that on anniversary. I waited a day, let myself cool off a bit and have posted on it this morning. Smitherman is a total embarrassment to the NAACP, to MLK's family, to Cincinnati, to the entire country.
I saw this post yesterday and I wanted to post on it right away, but I wasn't going to do that on anniversary. I waited a day, let myself cool off a bit and have posted on it this morning. Smitherman is a total embarrassment to the NAACP, to MLK's family, to Cincinnati, to the entire country.
Friday, April 04, 2008
Tracking Judges' Bond Decisions: Another Bad Idea
It really annoys me when an elected Democrat publicly floats an idea so dumb that it forces me to agree with the HamCo Republican Party. But that's what Todd Portune has managed to do this week.
By this time, we all know about the judge who "set" a million-dollar bond in a theft case late last week. Of course, he didn't really "set" the bond; he just refused to reduce a bond set by now-retired Judge Rosen. Most who practice criminal law understood immediately why the judge made that decision, regardless of whether they agreed with it. I suspect that HamCo Republican Party Chair Alex Triantafilou correctly captured the judge's rationale in his blog post on the topic. (The judge himself has chosen not to comment to the media. His decision not to do so is one that I respect immensely, and is a model that should likely be followed by more of our judges.)
Nonetheless, in rides Todd Portune to rescue us from million-dollar bonds, with a proposal to "track" the bonds set by our municipal court judges. Triantafilou doesn't like it because it's a new "government program." (Whatever.) The real reason that it's a bad idea is because it trashes the notion of separation of powers and an independent judiciary. Our judges need to be free to make decisions free of political pressure from the executive or legislative branches of our government. And Portune is smart enough to know that.
Portune is also smart enough to know (or at least he ought to be) that "tracking" judges' bond decisions would inevitably be a double-edged sword. If it turns out that any of the four Democratic municipal court judges set lower bonds than any any of their counterparts, is there any doubt that this fact would be plastered on every campaign ad run by a Republican challenger the next time that judge's seat is up for election? Judges who set "low" bonds would be accused of not protecting the community from dangerous criminals. And when a judge is sitting in Courtroom A of the Justice Center trying to decide what bond will satisfy a defendant's constitutional right to be free of excessive bail, s/he shouldn't be thinking about his or her next campaign.
And even though this post was initially written to criticize Portune for pandering on this issue, I can't help but point out the utter hypocrisy of Republicans when it comes to "government programs" to "track" judges' decisions in criminal cases. As you may recall, a few years ago it was the Republicans who drafted, passed, and signed into law the Feeney Amendment to the PROTECT Act. That law, which has since been found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, required federal judges' sentencing decisions to be monitored and reported to Congress, with the aim of eliminating "below-Guidelines" (i.e., "shorter") sentences. So Republicans are all-too-eager to embrace big, new "government programs" if they think it will help them score political points (in the case of the Feeney amendment, by making them look "tough on crime").
Alex Triantafilou was a judge, and a pretty good one. He shouldn't rely on transparently silly rhetoric about the evil of government, but should simply tell it like it is: a good judge isn't a politician who decides cases based on public sentiment, and elected officials from other branches of government shouldn't pressure them to do so.
By this time, we all know about the judge who "set" a million-dollar bond in a theft case late last week. Of course, he didn't really "set" the bond; he just refused to reduce a bond set by now-retired Judge Rosen. Most who practice criminal law understood immediately why the judge made that decision, regardless of whether they agreed with it. I suspect that HamCo Republican Party Chair Alex Triantafilou correctly captured the judge's rationale in his blog post on the topic. (The judge himself has chosen not to comment to the media. His decision not to do so is one that I respect immensely, and is a model that should likely be followed by more of our judges.)
Nonetheless, in rides Todd Portune to rescue us from million-dollar bonds, with a proposal to "track" the bonds set by our municipal court judges. Triantafilou doesn't like it because it's a new "government program." (Whatever.) The real reason that it's a bad idea is because it trashes the notion of separation of powers and an independent judiciary. Our judges need to be free to make decisions free of political pressure from the executive or legislative branches of our government. And Portune is smart enough to know that.
Portune is also smart enough to know (or at least he ought to be) that "tracking" judges' bond decisions would inevitably be a double-edged sword. If it turns out that any of the four Democratic municipal court judges set lower bonds than any any of their counterparts, is there any doubt that this fact would be plastered on every campaign ad run by a Republican challenger the next time that judge's seat is up for election? Judges who set "low" bonds would be accused of not protecting the community from dangerous criminals. And when a judge is sitting in Courtroom A of the Justice Center trying to decide what bond will satisfy a defendant's constitutional right to be free of excessive bail, s/he shouldn't be thinking about his or her next campaign.
And even though this post was initially written to criticize Portune for pandering on this issue, I can't help but point out the utter hypocrisy of Republicans when it comes to "government programs" to "track" judges' decisions in criminal cases. As you may recall, a few years ago it was the Republicans who drafted, passed, and signed into law the Feeney Amendment to the PROTECT Act. That law, which has since been found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, required federal judges' sentencing decisions to be monitored and reported to Congress, with the aim of eliminating "below-Guidelines" (i.e., "shorter") sentences. So Republicans are all-too-eager to embrace big, new "government programs" if they think it will help them score political points (in the case of the Feeney amendment, by making them look "tough on crime").
Alex Triantafilou was a judge, and a pretty good one. He shouldn't rely on transparently silly rhetoric about the evil of government, but should simply tell it like it is: a good judge isn't a politician who decides cases based on public sentiment, and elected officials from other branches of government shouldn't pressure them to do so.
Sometimes Fastest Isn't Best
Today is a sad day in Colerain Township and the rest of Hamilton County. For me, firefighters have always been the epitome of heroes (in a world and at a time when we use that word far too freely): their job is to keep us safe from situations that most of us would run screaming from. Losing two of our local heroes is tragic.
But I was furious this morning as I watched the local news media cover the story. As I was getting ready to leave, between 7 and 9 this morning, reports started coming in that two firefighters were "missing" at a fire in Colerain. Then word came that the firefighters had perished. This was before any confirmation from Colerain's Public Information Officer; Channel 5 and Channel 9 (I don't know about Channel 12) freely admitted that they were reporting information based on radio communications they heard over their scanners.
Why does a story like this warrant breaking news coverage? From the moment the local media recounted reports of missing firefighters, every family-member of every on-duty Colerain firefighter had to have been a wreck. There was no public need-to-know involved. The burning house was at the end of a dead-end street, so there were no traffic issues. The fire didn't pose any apparent threat to surrounding houses, and the smoke didn't even come close to giving rise to the need to evacuate anyone.
There's a good possibility that the families of the two firefighters who passed away this morning first learned that their loved one might be in peril on the morning news. Is that really the decent thing to do? When there's no public emergency, wouldn't it be better to let family notifications take place in the most dignified manner possible?
Several years ago, I met a woman whose teenage grandson had died in a fire. Her grandson was living with her at the time of the fire. She learned of the fire and rushed back to her house. The police wouldn't let her down the street, and instead had her wait with a friendly neighbor. As they waited for the police to come and give them some information, they had the television on. Imagine the woman's horror when a news chopper showed a live shot of what was obviously a body covered by a tarp in the front lawn of her smouldering home.
CNN and its progeny have conditioned us to expect to learn of "events" as they unfold. But at some point, producers have to start making responsible decisions about which stories warrant immediate coverage and which can wait until a decent interval has passed. Was our community better-served by the nearly live coverage of firefighters hugging each other in grief and sorrow, or were these truly private moments that could have stayed private? Was there some compelling reason to immediately report the death of two firefighters before their identities were confirmed and their families notified, or could we have waited until the noon news for that information?
Anyone who has experienced the sudden, unexpected loss of a family member knows that there is no "easy" way to learn of a loved one's passing. But I can't imagine how much more difficult it must be for it to be disclosed via a crawling ticker during Good Morning America. At some point in the last couple decades, "news" has become synonymous with voyeurism. Maybe it's time to for the media to address that.
But I was furious this morning as I watched the local news media cover the story. As I was getting ready to leave, between 7 and 9 this morning, reports started coming in that two firefighters were "missing" at a fire in Colerain. Then word came that the firefighters had perished. This was before any confirmation from Colerain's Public Information Officer; Channel 5 and Channel 9 (I don't know about Channel 12) freely admitted that they were reporting information based on radio communications they heard over their scanners.
Why does a story like this warrant breaking news coverage? From the moment the local media recounted reports of missing firefighters, every family-member of every on-duty Colerain firefighter had to have been a wreck. There was no public need-to-know involved. The burning house was at the end of a dead-end street, so there were no traffic issues. The fire didn't pose any apparent threat to surrounding houses, and the smoke didn't even come close to giving rise to the need to evacuate anyone.
There's a good possibility that the families of the two firefighters who passed away this morning first learned that their loved one might be in peril on the morning news. Is that really the decent thing to do? When there's no public emergency, wouldn't it be better to let family notifications take place in the most dignified manner possible?
Several years ago, I met a woman whose teenage grandson had died in a fire. Her grandson was living with her at the time of the fire. She learned of the fire and rushed back to her house. The police wouldn't let her down the street, and instead had her wait with a friendly neighbor. As they waited for the police to come and give them some information, they had the television on. Imagine the woman's horror when a news chopper showed a live shot of what was obviously a body covered by a tarp in the front lawn of her smouldering home.
CNN and its progeny have conditioned us to expect to learn of "events" as they unfold. But at some point, producers have to start making responsible decisions about which stories warrant immediate coverage and which can wait until a decent interval has passed. Was our community better-served by the nearly live coverage of firefighters hugging each other in grief and sorrow, or were these truly private moments that could have stayed private? Was there some compelling reason to immediately report the death of two firefighters before their identities were confirmed and their families notified, or could we have waited until the noon news for that information?
Anyone who has experienced the sudden, unexpected loss of a family member knows that there is no "easy" way to learn of a loved one's passing. But I can't imagine how much more difficult it must be for it to be disclosed via a crawling ticker during Good Morning America. At some point in the last couple decades, "news" has become synonymous with voyeurism. Maybe it's time to for the media to address that.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Birrrrrrrd Maaaan!
Rick Bird has a great feature in this week's Soapbox Cincinnati on the hard core truth that Cincinnati has a lot of cutting edge events in this town. Rick listed:
Now, who says we don't have ground breaking events in this town? Who says there is nothing to do? Oh, yea, the people who aren't doing anything because they are either too afraid or are just too stupid to tell the difference between original ideas and those you see on TV.
Let me also say I like seeing Rick Bird in print again!
Now, who says we don't have ground breaking events in this town? Who says there is nothing to do? Oh, yea, the people who aren't doing anything because they are either too afraid or are just too stupid to tell the difference between original ideas and those you see on TV.
Let me also say I like seeing Rick Bird in print again!
MusicNow
MusicNow starts tomorrow.
What is MusicNow, you ask? Here's a summary of this year's event:
MusicNOW is a contemporary music event that brings artists that take risks and do not fit neatly into categories. Performances have included festival-only collaborations, world premieres and sold out audiences. Music now is curated by Cincinnati native Bryce Dessner, of the indie-rock band THE NATIONAL.
The MusicNOW concert series was created as a way for Bryce to pay back Cincinnati for helping hone his musical talents. By bringing together some of the best artists in the world in an intimate, beautiful venue (Memorial Hall), Bryce hopes to help establish his home-town as a nationally significant musical city, without the anonymity of a larger metropolis.
Before heading out to tour with REM this summer, Bryce has once again assembled some of the greatest musicians alive for MusicNOW, who will collaborate with other supremely talented musicians, introduce world-premiere material, and of course, sell-out audiences!
Here’s a list of the world-famous artists that you will never see perform together except for here in CINCINNATI:
· Richard Reed Parry- Arcade Fire
· Bryce Dessner- The National
· Glenn Kotche- WILCO
· Andrew Bird
· Aaron Dessner- The National
· Bang on a Can All-Stars
· Bill Frisell
· Grizzly Bear
· Ben Verdery
· The Dirty Projectors
· Padma Newsome- accompanies The National
· Thomas Bartlett- accompanies The National
· Nico Muhly
Tickets are still available as of right now (Tuesday morning) for Wednesday through Friday. Head online to purchase them. Get them now! Saturday's show is already sold out, so you can't count on walking up and getting tickets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)