Ohio 2nd Congressional District Democratic Candidate Surya Yalamanchili has picked up the endorsements of former nominees Dr. Victoria Wulsin and Attorney/Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett. Last month Yalamanchili go the endorsement of Cincinnati Mayor Mark Mallory.
Yalamanchili will face off against David Krikorian in the Democratic Primary.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
Keep Council Night Meetings
Cole and Monzel are are both on the correct side of an issue. Cincinnati City Council should keep meeting at night, once a month. Additionally, the starting time should be 7 or 7:30, allowing people time to get there. I don't have the trite lifestyle Monzel points out, with the sit down dinner made by the wife waiting at 6PM, but I too can't make it to a meeting that starts at 6 PM without leaving work early.
A little bit of promotion by the city would go along way to get people to come to these meetings. Hell, make it a Facebook event, that may not get 1,000 people there, but 5 more is a start.
These night meetings surely eats into the life of the council members and the city workers who staff the meetings, but this is their job.
This effort does not have to be expensive or overly time consuming. City Council meetings need to be accessible to the general public. I hope Cole and Monzel can convince the rest of the Council to go along.
A little bit of promotion by the city would go along way to get people to come to these meetings. Hell, make it a Facebook event, that may not get 1,000 people there, but 5 more is a start.
These night meetings surely eats into the life of the council members and the city workers who staff the meetings, but this is their job.
This effort does not have to be expensive or overly time consuming. City Council meetings need to be accessible to the general public. I hope Cole and Monzel can convince the rest of the Council to go along.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Shoulder to the Wheel, Nose to the Grindstone, Eye on the Ball......
Last week was a strange week. And as the new week begins, I find that I'm reminding myself to put my head back down and focus on the things that really matter to me. I also find myself wondering why certain things get beyond our standard echo chambers, and others cannot.
Most of you know that Wednesday, the local blogosphere erupted over a Vanity Fair article that made a gratuitous, cheap shot at Cincinnati. As far as I knew, the hubbub began with this post from Kate the Great. (Apparently, other bloggers had seen and posted on this days earlier.) I did what I often do when I see an interesting blog item: I linked back to it and provided my own commentary. Within hours, Tom Callinan of the Enquirer did the same thing, linking back to KRM and here. Then Griff called me on the phone, telling me Fox 19 News was looking for me for comment. I got in touch, they asked if I'd speak on camera, and I agreed. So I ended up on TV for a few seconds. (Sadly, Kate the Great was apparently unavailable to defend the honor of the Queen City that afternoon, so I got pulled off the bench and into the lineup. I kind of wish I'd had 6 months to lose about a hundred pounds before the interview. Or that the camera man had taken a wider shot. We all should have been spared that close-up on my multiple chins. :-) )
But what (I suspect) only a few of you realize is that my commentary on VF was only the second time that week I was quoted in the traditional media. The first was last Sunday, when a front-page article in the Enquirer discussed recent changes in the practices of the HamCo clerk of courts in handling complaints filed by private citizens (i.e., criminal cases that are initiated by an affidavit that is not signed by a police officer). Deep in that article, which was written by Dan Horn, I'm quoted.
This weekend, I'm left reflecting on the two very different responses to the two articles. When Horn's article came out, I was pleased to read it and proud to be quoted. The private complaint issue is one that I'd spent time on in my day job. Horn didn't find me because of the blog or simply because I'm a criminal defense attorney; instead, this was something I'd worked on. I thought the article would foment some discussion. While I believe the law requires the change the clerk's office has now made, I also recognize there's another side to the issue: private complaint referrals were a way to preserve police resources. Eliminating them may make it more difficult--or impossible--for some victims of minor crimes to seek redress in the criminal justice system, as the gatekeeping function of a police officer's job will become even larger than it has been.
My post on VF, on the other hand, was a knee jerk response. It was meant to be a brief diversion on a day I hadn't had time to grab lunch. There's nothing particularly controversial or even worthy of an extensive discussion in that post. Of course we all (or most of us) like or love Cincinnati. And is it really news to any of us that lots of people who live on one of the coasts or overseas don't view midwestern cities as desirable places to vacation? Shocking!
So what interest was generated by each? Last time I checked, the Enquirer article on the citizen complaint issue had about 45 comments. Callinan's piece on VF? 200.
No one outside the blogosphere cared much about my post on difficulty finding emergency shelter for a client. Personally, I think that's a much more important story than our mutual love (or lack thereof) for the Queen City. Jack is involved in an important lawsuit about how we help former inmates re-enter society after they've "paid their debt." While the media has covered it, the post here generated a total of zero comments. (Perhaps the post was poorly written. I'll certainly admit that's possible.) And the Enquirer's article (a well-written one by Dan Horn) garnered fewer than half the comments than Callinan's VF piece did.
What's my point? I'm not sure. It was nice, of course, to email my parents and tell them I was on TV, or to tell my friends over dinner Wednesday to watch the news that night. But nothing that happened that day or the next accomplished anything. No one's life was made better. No cause was advanced.
The past week reminds me of why I originally accepted Griff's invitation to blog: to write about things that matter. It's the same reason I became a lawyer: to do things that matter. This doesn't mean I'm not going to continue to post on some great place I had lunch or cheer on the Bearcats. But I want to make sure I'm spending the bulk of my time here and--more importantly--in my practice on things that really shape people's lives. I want to make a difference, not to simply be a cheerleader. Both my job and this blog leave me in a unique position to do that. I just need to make sure I focus on the important stuff.
Most of you know that Wednesday, the local blogosphere erupted over a Vanity Fair article that made a gratuitous, cheap shot at Cincinnati. As far as I knew, the hubbub began with this post from Kate the Great. (Apparently, other bloggers had seen and posted on this days earlier.) I did what I often do when I see an interesting blog item: I linked back to it and provided my own commentary. Within hours, Tom Callinan of the Enquirer did the same thing, linking back to KRM and here. Then Griff called me on the phone, telling me Fox 19 News was looking for me for comment. I got in touch, they asked if I'd speak on camera, and I agreed. So I ended up on TV for a few seconds. (Sadly, Kate the Great was apparently unavailable to defend the honor of the Queen City that afternoon, so I got pulled off the bench and into the lineup. I kind of wish I'd had 6 months to lose about a hundred pounds before the interview. Or that the camera man had taken a wider shot. We all should have been spared that close-up on my multiple chins. :-) )
But what (I suspect) only a few of you realize is that my commentary on VF was only the second time that week I was quoted in the traditional media. The first was last Sunday, when a front-page article in the Enquirer discussed recent changes in the practices of the HamCo clerk of courts in handling complaints filed by private citizens (i.e., criminal cases that are initiated by an affidavit that is not signed by a police officer). Deep in that article, which was written by Dan Horn, I'm quoted.
This weekend, I'm left reflecting on the two very different responses to the two articles. When Horn's article came out, I was pleased to read it and proud to be quoted. The private complaint issue is one that I'd spent time on in my day job. Horn didn't find me because of the blog or simply because I'm a criminal defense attorney; instead, this was something I'd worked on. I thought the article would foment some discussion. While I believe the law requires the change the clerk's office has now made, I also recognize there's another side to the issue: private complaint referrals were a way to preserve police resources. Eliminating them may make it more difficult--or impossible--for some victims of minor crimes to seek redress in the criminal justice system, as the gatekeeping function of a police officer's job will become even larger than it has been.
My post on VF, on the other hand, was a knee jerk response. It was meant to be a brief diversion on a day I hadn't had time to grab lunch. There's nothing particularly controversial or even worthy of an extensive discussion in that post. Of course we all (or most of us) like or love Cincinnati. And is it really news to any of us that lots of people who live on one of the coasts or overseas don't view midwestern cities as desirable places to vacation? Shocking!
So what interest was generated by each? Last time I checked, the Enquirer article on the citizen complaint issue had about 45 comments. Callinan's piece on VF? 200.
No one outside the blogosphere cared much about my post on difficulty finding emergency shelter for a client. Personally, I think that's a much more important story than our mutual love (or lack thereof) for the Queen City. Jack is involved in an important lawsuit about how we help former inmates re-enter society after they've "paid their debt." While the media has covered it, the post here generated a total of zero comments. (Perhaps the post was poorly written. I'll certainly admit that's possible.) And the Enquirer's article (a well-written one by Dan Horn) garnered fewer than half the comments than Callinan's VF piece did.
What's my point? I'm not sure. It was nice, of course, to email my parents and tell them I was on TV, or to tell my friends over dinner Wednesday to watch the news that night. But nothing that happened that day or the next accomplished anything. No one's life was made better. No cause was advanced.
The past week reminds me of why I originally accepted Griff's invitation to blog: to write about things that matter. It's the same reason I became a lawyer: to do things that matter. This doesn't mean I'm not going to continue to post on some great place I had lunch or cheer on the Bearcats. But I want to make sure I'm spending the bulk of my time here and--more importantly--in my practice on things that really shape people's lives. I want to make a difference, not to simply be a cheerleader. Both my job and this blog leave me in a unique position to do that. I just need to make sure I focus on the important stuff.
Reports from Cincinnati Casino Charrette
Kareem Simpson at Ante-Up Cincinnati has a report from Cincinnati Casino Charrette held yesterday at the Art Academy.
It is excellent to see the community taking an interest in the direction of this project. For those of us living in OTR and the Downtown area, the Casino will have a large impact on our quality of life. Depending on how this project is designed, completed, and operated, that impact may be net-negative. Citizens obtain more information about the plan for the Casino will at least give us a chance to prepare for problems and may make Civic leaders aware of issues that may arise before they get out of hand.
Greg Korte of the Enquirer also has an article on this event.
For those not familiar with the term: Charrette.
It is excellent to see the community taking an interest in the direction of this project. For those of us living in OTR and the Downtown area, the Casino will have a large impact on our quality of life. Depending on how this project is designed, completed, and operated, that impact may be net-negative. Citizens obtain more information about the plan for the Casino will at least give us a chance to prepare for problems and may make Civic leaders aware of issues that may arise before they get out of hand.
Greg Korte of the Enquirer also has an article on this event.
For those not familiar with the term: Charrette.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Four Fewer Council Members?
I wish it were possible that all four Cincinnati City Council Members running for higher office could win. It's not that I want any of them to go on to arguably more important positions, its that them winning would guarantee better members of council. Yes, guarantee. Sure we could end up with four Charlie Winburn types, but I am happy to say only one exists, and no one is remotely similar in the current crop of possible replacements.
In the end, there are fair odds that one of the four could win in November. It all depends on the primary battles and the various November match-ups, which are very interesting. If Monzel wins, I think both Thomas and Tarbell could beat him. Ghiz likely would beat Thomas, but Tarbell vs Ghiz would be more of a barn burner. (Yes, at this point, Huber E. Brown is an also ran.)
Cole vs. Reece is really a fascinating primary. This will be a hardcore retail political effort where each candidate will have make the face to face personal connections to primary voters, in order to get the numbers to win. Advertisements and signs are not going to be as effective.
The only strategy out there could be for Cole/Reece to save some money and work with Thomas. There could be joint events, but otherwise the messages will be different. Reece/Thomas would logically be a better fit, based on overall ideology, but who knows. Each campaign may not have time to even bother working together, since the clock is ticking so fast.
In the end, there are fair odds that one of the four could win in November. It all depends on the primary battles and the various November match-ups, which are very interesting. If Monzel wins, I think both Thomas and Tarbell could beat him. Ghiz likely would beat Thomas, but Tarbell vs Ghiz would be more of a barn burner. (Yes, at this point, Huber E. Brown is an also ran.)
Cole vs. Reece is really a fascinating primary. This will be a hardcore retail political effort where each candidate will have make the face to face personal connections to primary voters, in order to get the numbers to win. Advertisements and signs are not going to be as effective.
The only strategy out there could be for Cole/Reece to save some money and work with Thomas. There could be joint events, but otherwise the messages will be different. Reece/Thomas would logically be a better fit, based on overall ideology, but who knows. Each campaign may not have time to even bother working together, since the clock is ticking so fast.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Shepard Fairey's Work at Arnold's
Check out artist Shepard Fairey and his team hard at work installing a mural on the East wall of Arnold's in Downtown.
Shepard and his team even stayed at Arnold's for lunch out in the courtyard. That's how you experience this city.
Don't forget to hit the CAC this Friday for the Free Opening starting at 8 PM. Shepard Fairey will be DJing. Do not miss this event, it will be memorable. Blogger(s) may be dancing.
Shepard and his team even stayed at Arnold's for lunch out in the courtyard. That's how you experience this city.
Don't forget to hit the CAC this Friday for the Free Opening starting at 8 PM. Shepard Fairey will be DJing. Do not miss this event, it will be memorable. Blogger(s) may be dancing.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Vanity Fair Trashes Cincinnati
The February 2010 issue of Vanity Fair contains an article belittling the Creation Museum. I'm all for being scornful of the strict creationist approach to history, as I believe carbon-dating is a much better method of determining the age of the earth than is the "begat method." So if someone wants to ridicule the Creation Museum, I'll not get in the way; I've done it myself.
But for some reason, a funny thing happened on the way to the museum: the article's author, A.A. Gill, developed (and now expresses) an intense dislike of Cincinnati. I was prepared to do a thorough fisking of Gill's little screed, but Kate the Great has done it better than I would have.
I thought, though, that maybe we could all debunk Gill's swipe at Cincinnati--that the city has "meager pickings to boast about." (He goes on to suggest that if cities had highlight reels, ours would be dominated by the Creation Museum.) So, dear, readers, what do you think Cincinnati has to brag about?
Kate got us started with a list (of course, she's brewing for a fight when she picks Cincinnati's "best" restaurant). To her suggestions, I'd add:
- a top-rate symphony orchestra that just took Carnegie Hall by storm
- a thriving arts community, ranging from the Tony Award-winning Playhouse in
the Park to the Cincinnati Art Museum; - the MidPoint Music Fest, which now features bands from across the country;
- the nation's oldest professional baseball team;
- two top-rate academic institutions in Xavier and the University of Cincinnati, both of which also provide the region with high-caliber collegiate athletics; and
- the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center.
That's just a quick list I compiled in about 30 seconds. Gill should come back: I'll show him around, if he's not too busy looking down his nose at me.
Feel free to suggest your own places for Gill to visit on his return trip in the comments, or in a letter to the editor, which can be sent to letters@vf.com or via facsimile transmission to 212-286-4324.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)