A few days ago, City Beat's Larry Gross announced that he's moved back to Cincinnati, taking up residence in an undisclosed location in Westwood. First, welcome back, Larry! Second, the post caused me to ponder one of Cincinnati's best--and sometimes its worst--feature.
Cincinnati is, more than anything else, a city of neighborhoods. No doubt this blog focuses too much on Downtown and Over-the-Rhine. That's to be expected: three of us (Julie, Griff, and I) live downtown or in OTR, and the fourth works downtown (I've no idea where Jack lives--perhaps up in Indian Hill down the street from Stan C.? :-) ). But Cincinnati has dozens of terrific neighborhoods. In all of these neighborhoods, many residents identify strongly with their neighborhood. It tends to create a real sense of community and feeling of familiarity. Years after "natives" have moved from their neighborhood, they can return to have conversations with people who have gone to the same schools and know the same people as they do. Julie described the phenomenon in a recent post.
That strength, though, can also be a weakness. With so many neighborhoods, there are lots of groups fighting for pieces of a limited pie. When City Council spends substantial time talking about downtown and OTR development, folks in other neighborhoods (often rightly) wonder when their neighborhood's "turn" will be.
Sometimes, though, "community" and "familiarity" can turn into provincialism and xenophobia. We all need to be on guard--whether we live in the "urban core," where we're more likely to get the attention of our political leaders, or in areas that aren't presently on a majority of Council's radar screens--that a healthy sense of community and feeling of belonging doesn't turn into unhealthy division that rends our city.
I think we all should make an effort to get out of our own neighborhoods regularly to see what's going on elsewhere. I can't remember, for instance, the last time I've been up to Northside, and I should remedy that promptly. What's on your list of places to get to soon (and what should be on mine)?
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Good Eats: Tom's Pot Pies
I know that culinary critique is Julie's bailiwick, but I'm hoping she won't mind an intrusion today.
I have no idea how many times I've passed (and ignored) Tom's Chicken Pot Pies, on Vine Street between Ninth and Court, on my way from the courthouse to my office. But yesterday, it was just chilly enough that upon seeing the sign out front, I thought, "Hmm, a pot pie might hit the spot today."
It was the best pot pie I've ever had. It was perfect. Really tasty. Big, tender chunks of chicken. Just a few veggies in the mix (the requisite peas and corn--anything more just gets in the way). A really good sauce (see the website for the list of ingredients; my palate isn't sophisticated enough to guess at them without help). And the crust was delicious. And best of all? $5.50.
Usually when I pick up lunch on my way to the office, I call ahead and see if I can get anything for my office-mates. I was in a hurry this time, so I didn't. (Besides, I didn't know if the pot pies would be any good, and didn't want to be responsible for my colleagues having a bad lunch.) Imagine my guilt when, as I dined on my scrumptious pie from Tom's, my friend microwaved his sad, store-bought, frozen pot pie.
It may be the best "comfort food" in Cincinnati.
I have no idea how many times I've passed (and ignored) Tom's Chicken Pot Pies, on Vine Street between Ninth and Court, on my way from the courthouse to my office. But yesterday, it was just chilly enough that upon seeing the sign out front, I thought, "Hmm, a pot pie might hit the spot today."
It was the best pot pie I've ever had. It was perfect. Really tasty. Big, tender chunks of chicken. Just a few veggies in the mix (the requisite peas and corn--anything more just gets in the way). A really good sauce (see the website for the list of ingredients; my palate isn't sophisticated enough to guess at them without help). And the crust was delicious. And best of all? $5.50.
Usually when I pick up lunch on my way to the office, I call ahead and see if I can get anything for my office-mates. I was in a hurry this time, so I didn't. (Besides, I didn't know if the pot pies would be any good, and didn't want to be responsible for my colleagues having a bad lunch.) Imagine my guilt when, as I dined on my scrumptious pie from Tom's, my friend microwaved his sad, store-bought, frozen pot pie.
It may be the best "comfort food" in Cincinnati.
From The "I Am Not A Racist" Category Or What Does This Say About Our Region?
Sometimes no comment is even necessary:
"I'm going to tell you something: That boy's finger does not need to be on the button. He could not make a decision in that simulation that related to a nuclear threat to this country."
Northern Kentucky's own Republican Representative Geoff Davis discussing Democratic Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama. Since Davis is only three years older than Obama, one can only assume that the "that boy" comment was not a reference to age.
"I'm going to tell you something: That boy's finger does not need to be on the button. He could not make a decision in that simulation that related to a nuclear threat to this country."
Northern Kentucky's own Republican Representative Geoff Davis discussing Democratic Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama. Since Davis is only three years older than Obama, one can only assume that the "that boy" comment was not a reference to age.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Does It Matter?
By now, you've all read or heard about the possibility that the HamCo Democratic Party may endorse Chris Dole in his bid for the Dewine seat on the HamCo Commission (the Republican candidate and presumptive winner of the "contest" is Greg Hartman). Of course, that would break a deal made between HamCo Democratic Party Chairman Tim Burke and then-Republican Chair George Vincent. So current Republican Chair Alex Triantafilou is indicating the likely Republican response would be to endorse Ed Rothenberg, who is running against Todd Portune.
First, my own belief: the Dems should not endorse Dole. Whatever people think of the deal, it was made by the party chairman. If people think Burke was out of line for doing that, then there's a remedy: replace him. Of course, so far as I know, there's no one willing to step up to the plate to lead the HamCo Democratic Party other than Tim Burke. But so long as Burke is our chair, we should abide by the decisions he makes.
Second, I'm not sure how likely it is that Dole will, in fact, be endorsed. I'm not sure that there's really a huge portion of the Central Committee that would favor the endorsement. And I suspect the possibility is only getting the hype that it is because some members of our local media can't resist the urge to reprint anything that Tom Luken says as though it's a proclamation handed down from God to Moses on Mt. Sinai.
Finally, though: how much does the endorsement matter? Even if Dole is an endorsed candidate, he still won't be on the ballot as a "Democrat" (although I suppose he could at least then use the label in his campaign ads). Rothenberg, on the other hand, regardless of the endorsement, will appear on the ballot as a Republican. Does the no-endorsement deal preclude the parties from funneling money or support to the candidates? If not, then does any voter really care about the endorsement? I suspect that many will go to the polls not even knowing that Rothenberg wasn't "endorsed" by his party, even though he's its candidate. Those who pay enough attention to know the difference will also know that neither Dole nor Rothenberg would have been on the ballot had the deal not been struck (in all likelihood, the Dem would have been Greg Harris, and the GOP would have gone with Tracy Winkler).
So other than the negative publicity the Dems would generate by backtracking on the deal, is there any real benefit to an endorsement? And will anyone pay attention to the Commission race, or will it get lost amongst the hoopla that accompanies a presidential election?
First, my own belief: the Dems should not endorse Dole. Whatever people think of the deal, it was made by the party chairman. If people think Burke was out of line for doing that, then there's a remedy: replace him. Of course, so far as I know, there's no one willing to step up to the plate to lead the HamCo Democratic Party other than Tim Burke. But so long as Burke is our chair, we should abide by the decisions he makes.
Second, I'm not sure how likely it is that Dole will, in fact, be endorsed. I'm not sure that there's really a huge portion of the Central Committee that would favor the endorsement. And I suspect the possibility is only getting the hype that it is because some members of our local media can't resist the urge to reprint anything that Tom Luken says as though it's a proclamation handed down from God to Moses on Mt. Sinai.
Finally, though: how much does the endorsement matter? Even if Dole is an endorsed candidate, he still won't be on the ballot as a "Democrat" (although I suppose he could at least then use the label in his campaign ads). Rothenberg, on the other hand, regardless of the endorsement, will appear on the ballot as a Republican. Does the no-endorsement deal preclude the parties from funneling money or support to the candidates? If not, then does any voter really care about the endorsement? I suspect that many will go to the polls not even knowing that Rothenberg wasn't "endorsed" by his party, even though he's its candidate. Those who pay enough attention to know the difference will also know that neither Dole nor Rothenberg would have been on the ballot had the deal not been struck (in all likelihood, the Dem would have been Greg Harris, and the GOP would have gone with Tracy Winkler).
So other than the negative publicity the Dems would generate by backtracking on the deal, is there any real benefit to an endorsement? And will anyone pay attention to the Commission race, or will it get lost amongst the hoopla that accompanies a presidential election?
Friday, April 11, 2008
Economics for the Simple Minded
Let's see, we are in the midst of one of the great economic meltdowns in recent history, and what do John McCain and dear irrelevant President Bush think about all this.
Well, as you may recall, a week or so ago, John McCain rolled out to great fanfare, his assessment of the mortgage crisis and how it should be fixed:
"A sustained period of rising home prices made many home lenders complacent, giving them a false sense of security and causing them to lower their lending standards. They stopped asking basic questions of their borrowers like "can you afford this home? Can you put a reasonable amount of money down?" Lenders ended up violating the basic rule of banking: don't lend people money who can't pay it back. Some Americans bought homes they couldn't afford, betting that rising prices would make it easier to refinance later at more affordable rates. There are 80 million family homes in America and those homeowners are now facing the reality that the bubble has burst and prices go down as well as up.
Of those 80 million homeowners, only 55 million have a mortgage at all, and 51 million are doing what is necessary -- working a second job, skipping a vacation, and managing their budgets -- to make their payments on time. That leaves us with a puzzling situation: how could 4 million mortgages cause this much trouble for us all?"
So the problem was simply that overall Americans had been irresponsible in buying homes they could not afford and that we needed to do something about these pesky 4 million mortgages that were in trouble because the people holding them were out on vacation and not working hard enough. As McCain said, "Let’s start with some straight talk: it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers."
Having now decided a week later that his "straight talk" was just idiotic, naive, and more bamboozlement, McCain is running far away from his speech and proposals. Mr. Straight Talk has apparently decided that perhaps Americans who are losing their homes do not like to be told it is because they are not working hard enough and are lazy. Perhaps those who are in danger of losing their homes should follow Mr. Straight Talk and just marry an heiress.
Speaking of straight talk, our increasingly irrelevant President tried to explain yesterday how being the first president ever to cut taxes in a time of war made economic sense. As Salon points out: "Lincoln raised taxes to pay for the Civil War. McKinley raised taxes to finance the Spanish-American War. Wilson raised the top income tax rate to 77 percent to afford WWI. Taxes were raised, multiple times, to help the nation pay for WWII, Korea and Vietnam. Even the first President Bush raised taxes after the first war with Iraq to, you guessed it, keep the deficit from spiraling out of control."
President Bush yesterday defended this insane financing of an unpopular war by trying to place it in historical context. Basically he argued that his idiocy and irresponsibility are not as bad as those that came before him in spending on defense and war. Yet, speaking of straight talk, "today's defense spending is 14% above the height of the Korean War, 33% above the height of the Vietnam War, 25% above the height of the 'Reagan Era' buildup and is 76% above the Cold War average. In fact, since the September 11, 2001 attacks, the annual defense budget -- not including the costs of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan -- has gone up 34%. Including war costs, defense spending has gone up 86% since 2001."
So John McCain says you are on your own if you are losing your house and doesn't care if we have troops in Iraq for a hundred years, while President Bush keeps passing the cost of this war on to those generations to come.
Seems like a winning formula for the fall election, don't you think?
Well, as you may recall, a week or so ago, John McCain rolled out to great fanfare, his assessment of the mortgage crisis and how it should be fixed:
"A sustained period of rising home prices made many home lenders complacent, giving them a false sense of security and causing them to lower their lending standards. They stopped asking basic questions of their borrowers like "can you afford this home? Can you put a reasonable amount of money down?" Lenders ended up violating the basic rule of banking: don't lend people money who can't pay it back. Some Americans bought homes they couldn't afford, betting that rising prices would make it easier to refinance later at more affordable rates. There are 80 million family homes in America and those homeowners are now facing the reality that the bubble has burst and prices go down as well as up.
Of those 80 million homeowners, only 55 million have a mortgage at all, and 51 million are doing what is necessary -- working a second job, skipping a vacation, and managing their budgets -- to make their payments on time. That leaves us with a puzzling situation: how could 4 million mortgages cause this much trouble for us all?"
So the problem was simply that overall Americans had been irresponsible in buying homes they could not afford and that we needed to do something about these pesky 4 million mortgages that were in trouble because the people holding them were out on vacation and not working hard enough. As McCain said, "Let’s start with some straight talk: it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers."
Having now decided a week later that his "straight talk" was just idiotic, naive, and more bamboozlement, McCain is running far away from his speech and proposals. Mr. Straight Talk has apparently decided that perhaps Americans who are losing their homes do not like to be told it is because they are not working hard enough and are lazy. Perhaps those who are in danger of losing their homes should follow Mr. Straight Talk and just marry an heiress.
Speaking of straight talk, our increasingly irrelevant President tried to explain yesterday how being the first president ever to cut taxes in a time of war made economic sense. As Salon points out: "Lincoln raised taxes to pay for the Civil War. McKinley raised taxes to finance the Spanish-American War. Wilson raised the top income tax rate to 77 percent to afford WWI. Taxes were raised, multiple times, to help the nation pay for WWII, Korea and Vietnam. Even the first President Bush raised taxes after the first war with Iraq to, you guessed it, keep the deficit from spiraling out of control."
President Bush yesterday defended this insane financing of an unpopular war by trying to place it in historical context. Basically he argued that his idiocy and irresponsibility are not as bad as those that came before him in spending on defense and war. Yet, speaking of straight talk, "today's defense spending is 14% above the height of the Korean War, 33% above the height of the Vietnam War, 25% above the height of the 'Reagan Era' buildup and is 76% above the Cold War average. In fact, since the September 11, 2001 attacks, the annual defense budget -- not including the costs of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan -- has gone up 34%. Including war costs, defense spending has gone up 86% since 2001."
So John McCain says you are on your own if you are losing your house and doesn't care if we have troops in Iraq for a hundred years, while President Bush keeps passing the cost of this war on to those generations to come.
Seems like a winning formula for the fall election, don't you think?
CityBeat Announced MidPoint Changes
John Fox, CityBeat editor published an update on the changes for the 2008 Midpoint. Included as a venue this year is the Southgate House, which will house three stages for the event. The rest of venues were not annoucned, but organizers plan on stretching the festival from OTR through Downtown to Newport. I am going to put my thinking cap to figure the possibilities and figure how transportation will work. That sounds like a bit of a challenge. The history of walking to all of the venues is clearly not being carried forward this year.
The other big change will be to include signed acts, like opening party headliner Cursive. Where these acts will perform was not announced, but Southgate's Ballroom would be one logical choice. Additionally, there will be a themed showcase each year highlighting part of Cincinnati's musical history. This year it will be the Shake It Records Soul Spectacular Review. The venue for this was not announced. Classic local artists will perform with Pearlene as the backing band. An interesting mix.
This year's sponsors include Scion, Dewey's Pizza, and Bud Select.
The other big change will be to include signed acts, like opening party headliner Cursive. Where these acts will perform was not announced, but Southgate's Ballroom would be one logical choice. Additionally, there will be a themed showcase each year highlighting part of Cincinnati's musical history. This year it will be the Shake It Records Soul Spectacular Review. The venue for this was not announced. Classic local artists will perform with Pearlene as the backing band. An interesting mix.
This year's sponsors include Scion, Dewey's Pizza, and Bud Select.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
MidPoint Changes Hint
John Fox hints at changes being announced tonight for Midpoint 2008. Changes hinted include new sponsorship, an expansion outside of OTR/Downtown, and away from the only unsigned bands philosophy.
Head down to Below Zero tonight at 5 PM to hear the announcement for yourself.
Head down to Below Zero tonight at 5 PM to hear the announcement for yourself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)