I really wanted to write a post making fun of the HamCo Republican Party for inviting Michele Bachmann to be the keynote speaker at its annual Lincoln-Reagan dinner tomorrow night.
I was particularly appalled by the choice because for the last couple years, every now and then I think about whether I should be a Republican instead of a Democrat. But then the GOP puts someone like Bachmann front-and-center and I realize that's not a real option. (Or I am reminded that the party's extreme right wing controls its stance on social issues.)
But there's a problem with writing that post. The HamCo Democratic Party--the party to which, for the time being, I belong--is having its own event tomorrow night. Its "guest of honor" is Jerry Springer.* I'm not thrilled that Democratic-endorsed judges are appearing at an event headlined by the king of trash TV.
So the question is: what's worse? That the HamCo Republicans can't find a better keynote speaker than the Jerry Springer of Congress, or that the HamCo Dems can't find a more suitable guest of honor than the real Jerry Springer?
* In 2003, when Springer was considering running for the Senate, I met him. He was at a Mt. Adams bar (much more sober than I was). He sat for hours talking to people about his ideas and plans and why he was considering getting into the race. He's a very intelligent, thoughtful man. I wish he hadn't spent the last quarter-century using his television show to pollute our culture and, frankly, to exploit people who aren't as smart or as rich as he is. But he has, and we shouldn't pretend that he's a serious individual when his actions are to the contrary.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Where's the "No Bunt" Pledge?
When ever I read about politicians signing pledges "not to raise taxes" I find myself thinking about Baseball. Why doesn't COAST or the Tea Baggers, as the good baseball fans they surely are, demand that Dusty Baker sign a "No Bunt" pledge?
They might even require an oath: "I,, do solemnly pledge never to use the bunt during a regular or post season game, including suicide squeezes, where the man on third has the speed of Jackie Robinson and we are down by 10 or more runs. If I should break this pledge, I promise to forfeit the game and never, ever, play baseball or any other sport, again, so long as I live. Amen"
Yes, that is ridiculous. It is meant to be ridiculous.
Sometimes you have to bunt. Everyone in baseball knows this. Sometimes, you have to bunt to get the runner into scoring position. When you get the sign, you, the batter, don't shake it off or point to the fans and say: "But they demand efficiency! They expect me to hit a home run every time I am at bat. Home Runs are the only way you win ball games!"
Sacrificing an at bat is part of the game. You don't bunt every time a man is at bat, but you should never rule it out because some insane sports fans obsessed with statistics hate how it ruins someone's batting average.
If I were a Republican thinking about appeasing the Tea Baggers or COASTers, I would think about Baseball and at least try and maintain some intellectual honesty, and not sign a pledge "to not raise taxes." Not all Republicans are void of intellectual honesty, but they don't seem to show often enough, for my taste.
Sometimes you have to bunt and sometimes you have to at least have the option to raise taxes.
They might even require an oath: "I,
Yes, that is ridiculous. It is meant to be ridiculous.
Sometimes you have to bunt. Everyone in baseball knows this. Sometimes, you have to bunt to get the runner into scoring position. When you get the sign, you, the batter, don't shake it off or point to the fans and say: "But they demand efficiency! They expect me to hit a home run every time I am at bat. Home Runs are the only way you win ball games!"
Sacrificing an at bat is part of the game. You don't bunt every time a man is at bat, but you should never rule it out because some insane sports fans obsessed with statistics hate how it ruins someone's batting average.
If I were a Republican thinking about appeasing the Tea Baggers or COASTers, I would think about Baseball and at least try and maintain some intellectual honesty, and not sign a pledge "to not raise taxes." Not all Republicans are void of intellectual honesty, but they don't seem to show often enough, for my taste.
Sometimes you have to bunt and sometimes you have to at least have the option to raise taxes.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Respect Is Earned, Disdain is Free
I was wondering what happened to all of the crazy people who would disrupt City Council meetings. It appears they have shifted to the school board.
Why would any parent think that exhibiting this type of behavior is acceptable? When you act boorishly, you are going to be ignored. When you continue to act like jerks, you are going to be disdained. Quite a few parents deserve detention.
Why would any parent think that exhibiting this type of behavior is acceptable? When you act boorishly, you are going to be ignored. When you continue to act like jerks, you are going to be disdained. Quite a few parents deserve detention.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Why Did Cecil Thomas Abstain?
It was good news for Downtown yesterday after the Finance Committee overwhelmingly approved a loan for the 21C Hotel project. It should pass in Council with ease. What made no sense to me was the voting:
Does Thomas have some type of connection or interest in 21C Hotels company, the Metropole, or the residents being displaced?
"Supporting the request were councilmembers Berding, Leslie Ghiz, Chris Monzel, Roxanne Qualls, Charlie Winburn and Laketa Cole.When you abstain from a vote it is usually because you have a personal interest or connection to the project or the parties involved.
Cecil Thomas abstained."
Does Thomas have some type of connection or interest in 21C Hotels company, the Metropole, or the residents being displaced?
Yalamanchili Picks Ups Endorsements of Past Candidates
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.
Yalamanchili will face off against David Krikorian in the Democratic Primary.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)