I'm starting to think about making the trek to visit my parents for Christmas. (The really nice thing about having parents who live in Florida is that when you visit them, well, you're in Florida. Awesome in December. Not so great in July.)
Since we all know that CVG is the most expensive airport in the United States, I've been thinking about flying on a lower-cost carrier from Dayton or Lexington. And that leads to my question: does anyone have any recent experience flying on AirTran they could share in the comments?
All I know about AirTran is that they're the successor company to ValuJet. Valujet, of course, went out of business in the mid-90's after one of their planes practically exploded. I had travelled on that airline--on the same route as the flight that went down--about a week before that tragedy, and vowed I'd never travel ValuJet again (my own experience had been horrific, involving a delayed flight and a broken cabin door), and have thus far imputed that pledge to AirTran. I'm wondering if it's time to rethink that, given the really low rates you can get from Dayton.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Cincinnati 26, West Virginia 23
O Cincinnati, magic name
I proudly to the world proclaim
No sweeter word e'er charmed my ear
None to my heart was e'er so dear;
A fountain of eternal youth,
A tower of strength, a rock of truth.
Varsity, dear Varsity
Thy loyal children we will be.
Thy loyal, loyal children we will be!
A big win for the Bearcats against a Big East, Top 25 opponent.
I understand the folks in Knoxville are already talking about hiring Brian Kelly to replace Phil Fulmer, who announced that he will resign at the conclusion of the season. Let's hope Coach Kelly can resist Tennessee's siren song. Coach Kelly: do you really want to listen to "Rocky Top" a million times each season? And no one looks good in orange. Remember this: black is slimming. Orange makes you look like the Great Pumpkin.
And to my Vol friends: Wyoming? Really? You don't deserve Brian Kelly.
I proudly to the world proclaim
No sweeter word e'er charmed my ear
None to my heart was e'er so dear;
A fountain of eternal youth,
A tower of strength, a rock of truth.
Varsity, dear Varsity
Thy loyal children we will be.
Thy loyal, loyal children we will be!
A big win for the Bearcats against a Big East, Top 25 opponent.
I understand the folks in Knoxville are already talking about hiring Brian Kelly to replace Phil Fulmer, who announced that he will resign at the conclusion of the season. Let's hope Coach Kelly can resist Tennessee's siren song. Coach Kelly: do you really want to listen to "Rocky Top" a million times each season? And no one looks good in orange. Remember this: black is slimming. Orange makes you look like the Great Pumpkin.
And to my Vol friends: Wyoming? Really? You don't deserve Brian Kelly.
The Last Acceptable Bigotry
People from all parts of the political spectrum joined in lauding the election of our first African-American president this week. But casting a pall over our celebration is America's ongoing blind-spot with regards to civil rights.
Three states--California, Arizona, and Florida--passed anti-gay-marriage ballot initiatives on Tuesday. Arkansas went one step further, banning unmarried couples (which would, of course, include committed gay couples) from becoming adoptive or foster parents.
Markos Moulitsas, an important voice for progressives (though sometimes not as important as he thinks he is), argues that this is "the flashpoint in the culture wars." But this is precisely the wrong way to frame the issue. Permitting gay couples the right to marry does not wage a culture war: it does not threaten to change, in any way, the lives of those who have no desire to participate in a gay marriage. Protection of gay marriage would not mean that one's local priest would have to perform a wedding mass for a gay couple. Instead, it simply means that gay Americans would enjoy the same rights as all other Americans.
Particularly disconcerting is the tension between the African-American and gay communities. (We saw that locally when Rev. Shuttlesworth took part in the "Equal Rights Not Special Rights" nonsense.) Several reports suggest that California's Proposition 8 passed largely due to its support among African Americans. (See this column, though, for a contrary viewpoint.) I've never understood why such a high propotion of African Americans harbor anti-gay sentiments.
So while we should celebrate how far we've come, we must not lose sight of how much farther we still must travel if we are to uphold the rights and dignity of all Americans.
Three states--California, Arizona, and Florida--passed anti-gay-marriage ballot initiatives on Tuesday. Arkansas went one step further, banning unmarried couples (which would, of course, include committed gay couples) from becoming adoptive or foster parents.
Markos Moulitsas, an important voice for progressives (though sometimes not as important as he thinks he is), argues that this is "the flashpoint in the culture wars." But this is precisely the wrong way to frame the issue. Permitting gay couples the right to marry does not wage a culture war: it does not threaten to change, in any way, the lives of those who have no desire to participate in a gay marriage. Protection of gay marriage would not mean that one's local priest would have to perform a wedding mass for a gay couple. Instead, it simply means that gay Americans would enjoy the same rights as all other Americans.
Particularly disconcerting is the tension between the African-American and gay communities. (We saw that locally when Rev. Shuttlesworth took part in the "Equal Rights Not Special Rights" nonsense.) Several reports suggest that California's Proposition 8 passed largely due to its support among African Americans. (See this column, though, for a contrary viewpoint.) I've never understood why such a high propotion of African Americans harbor anti-gay sentiments.
So while we should celebrate how far we've come, we must not lose sight of how much farther we still must travel if we are to uphold the rights and dignity of all Americans.
An Open Letter On Election Reform In Ohio
Dear Representative Mallory and Senator Kearney:
After the 2004 election, the Ohio legislature undertook significant reforms of its electoral process. While the 2008 election passed without the controversy of four years ago, there is still much fine-tuning to be done. With a Democratic majority in the State House and a Democratic governor, the time for further reform is sooner rather than later. Here are my respectful suggestions:
Sincerely,
Donald R. Caster
A constituent with too much time on his hands on a Saturday afternoon
After the 2004 election, the Ohio legislature undertook significant reforms of its electoral process. While the 2008 election passed without the controversy of four years ago, there is still much fine-tuning to be done. With a Democratic majority in the State House and a Democratic governor, the time for further reform is sooner rather than later. Here are my respectful suggestions:
- In implementing the requirements of the Help America Vote Act, remember that Congress's intent was that the statute be a shield to protect the right of citizens to vote. This year, the GOP sought to use it as a bludgeon to disenfranchise certain voters, and those efforts must be rebuffed.
- The new system of "no-fault" absentee voting was a step in the right direction. Now is the time to complete the tranformation, and adopt what others states refer to as "early voting." A true early-voting sytem should require that counties open additional polling places in the fortnight (or longer) prior to Election Day. Moreover, early voting would entail the same identification verification required on Election Day. It is incongruous and incomprehensible that a voter walking into a precinct on Election Day is required to produce valid ID, while a voter who goes to the Board of Elections one day earlier need not do so. Such a compromise (easier access to the ballot prior to Election Day, but with greater safeguards) would likely be met with bipartisan support.
- Eliminate Ohio's antiquated precinct-based voting system. In other states (Florida is one example), during the early-voting period, voters were permitted to visit any polling place throughout the state to cast a ballot. Once they reached the polling place, their driver's licenses were swiped through a magnetic card reader (our current licenses have this feature available should the legislature choose to make it useful), and their ballot was printed from laser printers in the polling place (since local issues would still vary even, in some cases, precinct-by-precinct). As you know, under current Ohio law, a voter could cast a ballot at the proper polling place but at the wrong precinct (in other words, the right building, but the wrong table), and his or her ballot would be discarded. In our technologically-driven era, there is no justification for such a requirement.
- Standardize Ohio's voting mechanism. Ohio made a mistake in permitting each county to determine whether to adopt optical-scan ballots or direct-recording electronic machines (DRE's). Instead, all counties should be required to use optical-scan ballots (paper ballots that are filled out by voters and then scanned into a computer in the polling place). The advantages of optical-scan ballots are two-fold. First, voters have more confidence in a paper ballot. Given Secretary Brunner's report on DRE's, this sentiment may have some justification. (Regardless of whether such confidence is justified, the importance of the public's confidence in a clean election cannot be overstated.) Second, voting by optical-scan ballots is more conducive to high-turnout elections. With paper ballots, the number of voters who can vote at once is limited only by the space and number of pens in a polling place. The old-fashioned stand-up "booths" are not even required, as tables with privacy screens can be set up, or clipboards can be handed to voters. Because of the cost of DRE equipment, most precincts will have just a few machines. While alternative paper ballots are available, they are brought out only if a particular voter asks for them or if poll workers decide, in their own judgment, to bring them out. And voters may be wary about casting a ballot in a different manner than the standard method for the precinct. Thus, optical-scan ballots provide the most secure, most time-efficient manner of voting and should be mandated state-wide.
Sincerely,
Donald R. Caster
A constituent with too much time on his hands on a Saturday afternoon
The New (Old) NAACP
This month's Streetvibes has an excellent article (written by Lew Moores) about the Cincinnati chapter of the NAACP (so give a buck to the next vendor you see and get a copy!). Moores argues that the NAACP has experienced a "renaissance" under the leadership of Chris Smitherman, much as it did under the leadership of Marian Spencer several years ago.
Certainly, Smitherman (with whom I sometimes disagree, but for whom I have a great deal of respect) has revitalized the local chapter of our nation's foremost civil rights organization. Its membership is up dramatically, and over the last couple years, it has helped to shape our local political discourse in ways that it did not during the first part of this decade.
For Smitherman and the NAACP to advance their agenda any further, however, they must develop and put into action a solid get-out-the-vote strategy. Yes, of the three ballot initiatives identified with the NAACP (the "jail tax" opposition, red-light camera opposition, and PR), two passed. But (without diminishing the effort it took to place these on the ballot), these were layups. It's not hard to convince people to vote against the increase of a fundamentally regressive tax or the onerous red-light cameras, which no one seems to like.
This year's election results bear out the NAACP's GOTV failures. In the City of Cincinnati, turnout was just 58%, lagging well behind county-wide turnout of 66%. What's more, of the 134,000 ballots cast, 20,000 (or 15%) recorded no vote (meaning no vote at all, not a "no" vote) on Issue 8, which would have brought a return to proportional representation in City Council elections. Local races and issues always receive a significant undervote, but Issue 8's undervote is extraordinarily high: Issue 7 had just under 13,000 undervotes (about 9 percent).
Of the two NAACP-backed initiatives on this year's ballot, certainly Issue 8 would have had a greater overall impact on Cincinnati than on Issue 7, making it the more important of the two. (In fairness: Issue 8's undervote is likely due in part to extremely poor ballot placement, as it was the only contest on the last page of a four-page ballot. Some voters may not have even realized it was there.) With Issue 8 failing by just 8,000 votes and 20,000 voters participating in the election but sitting out the Issue 8 contest, the NAACP failed to either a) educate the public about the issue, or b) get its supporters to the polls.
While the Cincinnati NAACP still has some work to do, it's terrific to see the re-emergence of this important voice in our community, and it will be exciting to see the continued growth of both the organization and its president.
(Current vote tallies available here.)
Certainly, Smitherman (with whom I sometimes disagree, but for whom I have a great deal of respect) has revitalized the local chapter of our nation's foremost civil rights organization. Its membership is up dramatically, and over the last couple years, it has helped to shape our local political discourse in ways that it did not during the first part of this decade.
For Smitherman and the NAACP to advance their agenda any further, however, they must develop and put into action a solid get-out-the-vote strategy. Yes, of the three ballot initiatives identified with the NAACP (the "jail tax" opposition, red-light camera opposition, and PR), two passed. But (without diminishing the effort it took to place these on the ballot), these were layups. It's not hard to convince people to vote against the increase of a fundamentally regressive tax or the onerous red-light cameras, which no one seems to like.
This year's election results bear out the NAACP's GOTV failures. In the City of Cincinnati, turnout was just 58%, lagging well behind county-wide turnout of 66%. What's more, of the 134,000 ballots cast, 20,000 (or 15%) recorded no vote (meaning no vote at all, not a "no" vote) on Issue 8, which would have brought a return to proportional representation in City Council elections. Local races and issues always receive a significant undervote, but Issue 8's undervote is extraordinarily high: Issue 7 had just under 13,000 undervotes (about 9 percent).
Of the two NAACP-backed initiatives on this year's ballot, certainly Issue 8 would have had a greater overall impact on Cincinnati than on Issue 7, making it the more important of the two. (In fairness: Issue 8's undervote is likely due in part to extremely poor ballot placement, as it was the only contest on the last page of a four-page ballot. Some voters may not have even realized it was there.) With Issue 8 failing by just 8,000 votes and 20,000 voters participating in the election but sitting out the Issue 8 contest, the NAACP failed to either a) educate the public about the issue, or b) get its supporters to the polls.
While the Cincinnati NAACP still has some work to do, it's terrific to see the re-emergence of this important voice in our community, and it will be exciting to see the continued growth of both the organization and its president.
(Current vote tallies available here.)
Setback for Downtown
While we were busy talking about the election and Halloween last weekend, the Terrace Hotel (on Sixth between Vine and Race) suddenly closed its doors. This is a pretty prominent spot right in the middle of the primary business and entertainment district, so its disheartening to know that the building will likely be vacant for some time.
Anyone have any inside scoop on plans for the building?
Anyone have any inside scoop on plans for the building?
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Peter Bronson, Constitutional Law Scholar
With the election over, we can turn our attention to this blog's favorite pastime: exposing the foolishness of Peter Bronson.
Yesterday, Mr. Bronson published an essay on his most recent trip to Gettysburg. I'm not sure what his point was (civil war is bad?). This little nugget, though, caught my attention (emphasis mine):
So, Peter Bronson believes that the Constitution gives states the right to secede? Wow. Maybe the Alaskan Independence Party will invite him to introduce Sarah Palin at its next convention.
I pulled open my Constitution, looking for a Secession Clause. I didn't find one. And guys like Bronson believe that the only rights guaranteed by the Constitution are those specifically enumerated therein. So why does he believe in such a right?
What's more, Bronson's position--that there is a right of secession--was squarely repudiated by the Supreme Court. In Texas v. White, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase (near and dear to the hearts of Cincinnatians) held that Texas--which was once a sovereign republic--had no right to secede. Chase wrote:
I'm not sure what prompted Bronson's miniature states' rights tirade. Perhaps he was thinking that if Obama won, he could lead Ohio to secede from the United States. But it'd be nice if someone at the Enquirer would "fact-check" Bronson once in a while before going to print.
Yesterday, Mr. Bronson published an essay on his most recent trip to Gettysburg. I'm not sure what his point was (civil war is bad?). This little nugget, though, caught my attention (emphasis mine):
The South's cause was tainted by the slavery they relied on to produce 60 percent of America's exports and 75 percent of the world's cotton. But their reading of the Constitution was correct: The states delegated powers to the federal government, and they had a right to file for divorce if the domestic abuse was intolerable.
So, Peter Bronson believes that the Constitution gives states the right to secede? Wow. Maybe the Alaskan Independence Party will invite him to introduce Sarah Palin at its next convention.
I pulled open my Constitution, looking for a Secession Clause. I didn't find one. And guys like Bronson believe that the only rights guaranteed by the Constitution are those specifically enumerated therein. So why does he believe in such a right?
What's more, Bronson's position--that there is a right of secession--was squarely repudiated by the Supreme Court. In Texas v. White, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase (near and dear to the hearts of Cincinnatians) held that Texas--which was once a sovereign republic--had no right to secede. Chase wrote:
The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?
I'm not sure what prompted Bronson's miniature states' rights tirade. Perhaps he was thinking that if Obama won, he could lead Ohio to secede from the United States. But it'd be nice if someone at the Enquirer would "fact-check" Bronson once in a while before going to print.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)