I'm still lukewarm (at best) about the notion of a streetcar. Lots of smart people who I respect say it will spur investment and development. So maybe my doubts aren't reasonable. (But please, folks, quit telling me about Portland. I don't have any reason to believe that city is analogous to Cincinnati. I'm much more interested in the streetcar experiences of places like Kenosha.)
But if our policymakers are going to move forward with the streetcar, I think they've done so in a responsible, measured way. Today, Council approved the issuance of $64 million in bonds, but removed the "emergency" clause from the authorizing legislation. That means the ordinance isn't effective for 90 days, by which time the City will almost certainly know whether federal help is coming our way. If not, Council can rescind the ordinance before the bonds issue.
One other question: the price that's been quoted is a few years old now. Given increases in steel prices, is it still any good? Isn't this project's cost going up by the minute?
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Arnold's Is Going Topless
A new local Brewery, Rivertown Brewery, is joining the celebration by making Arnold's the first Downtown bar to carry their beers. Blues artist John Redell will play from 8PM to 10PM, but the party goes on until closing with all Rivertown beers only $3.
Sorry if you wanted more, but it just ain't happening.
A Heartwarming and Stomach Filling Story
Sean Rhiney from Soapbox has a very touching story about a new OTR business, ForkHeartKnife Kitchen.
They are on Twitter now too! @forkheartknife
They are on Twitter now too! @forkheartknife
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Why Is This a News Story?
Why is the Enquirer spend the time on this article about a shoplifting case, valued at $185, that happened way back on April 27th?
Am I missing the importance?
They even have a photo of the suspects.
Since the thieves allegedly stole FIVE containers of KY lubricant, I can only assume the couple has been too busy since April 27th to be caught.
UPDATE: I just say a TV commercial for that exact brand of KY. Why would they name the product in the first place? Is this really a paid advertisement disguised a news story?
Am I missing the importance?
They even have a photo of the suspects.
Since the thieves allegedly stole FIVE containers of KY lubricant, I can only assume the couple has been too busy since April 27th to be caught.
UPDATE: I just say a TV commercial for that exact brand of KY. Why would they name the product in the first place? Is this really a paid advertisement disguised a news story?
Is the Enquirer Biased or Looking for Controversy?
I know, most are going to answer the title's question "Is Enquirer Biased or Looking for Controversy?" with a "Both" answer. The Provost at of The Phony Coney questions the timing of the Enquirer's coverage of the Bortz-Streecar Voting "controversy" as being, shall we say, ill-timed.
Yes, it is rather obvious that someone has been pushing the story to the Enquirer and the rest of the media around town. I don't know if I believe there is a full borne effort to disrupt the Streetcar project in the newsroom of the Enquirer. There may be individuals who oppose it, but the reporters are getting marching orders.
I do believe without a doubt that there is a desire for scandal, something media outlets nearly universally are guilty of doing, and doing without care in appearances or importance. I believe that desire isn't just in the editors' minds, it in this case is in the reporter's mind.
The only scandal with Bortz is in appearance. He made a public relations error in how he responded to the ethics letter. He didn't tell everything. That's his sin. The local media feels like he lied to them. They are pissed. Furthermore, where there's a lie, there's a scandal, so no matter the circumstances. Bortz and the Streetcar in association are going to get punched by the Enquirer. They will punch with same sin Bortz committed, the sin of omission.
So, the Enquirer is trying to sell newspapers and isn't doing or at least isn't publishing that is has done it's homework. That is bad journalism. It is good business. It brings more eyes to paper.
More evidence that I think sums up the problem comes in their editorial:
When other issues are pushed by Enquirer, I rarely see opponents getting the same credibility as Luken and Smitherman are getting. Those other opponents never drive the story. Anti-war protesters didn't get the credibility. People commenting on the death of a Notre Dame football recruit are cut off, not allowed to do anything to drive the story. These groups have limited voice and limited chance to influence the story, but Luken and Smitherman get quoted at will and on topics they know nothing about.
We don't need a manufactured controversy. The Enquirer has been the primary maker of that controversy surrounding Bortz and it is a bias they have, a bias for profit.
Yes, it is rather obvious that someone has been pushing the story to the Enquirer and the rest of the media around town. I don't know if I believe there is a full borne effort to disrupt the Streetcar project in the newsroom of the Enquirer. There may be individuals who oppose it, but the reporters are getting marching orders.
I do believe without a doubt that there is a desire for scandal, something media outlets nearly universally are guilty of doing, and doing without care in appearances or importance. I believe that desire isn't just in the editors' minds, it in this case is in the reporter's mind.
The only scandal with Bortz is in appearance. He made a public relations error in how he responded to the ethics letter. He didn't tell everything. That's his sin. The local media feels like he lied to them. They are pissed. Furthermore, where there's a lie, there's a scandal, so no matter the circumstances. Bortz and the Streetcar in association are going to get punched by the Enquirer. They will punch with same sin Bortz committed, the sin of omission.
So, the Enquirer is trying to sell newspapers and isn't doing or at least isn't publishing that is has done it's homework. That is bad journalism. It is good business. It brings more eyes to paper.
More evidence that I think sums up the problem comes in their editorial:
The streetcar may be a real step forward for Cincinnati. We don't oppose it. But we object to the way it has - or hasn't - been planned, explained and justified. So far, city leaders have been asking Cincinnatians to support a pig in a poke.Saying you don't oppose something you do nothing to support is as much dancing on the head of a pin one editorial can offer. If the Enquirer supports the Streetcar, then why are they giving people like Tom Luken and Chris Smitherman credibility when they oppose it with no fact or substitute plan for the development it would spawn? Neither person has any credibility, yet they are driving the Story. They are the opposition to the project, so they get the same level, and often a much, much bigger level, of a voice in the debate than the supports of the Streetcar.
Again: Where's the plan?
When other issues are pushed by Enquirer, I rarely see opponents getting the same credibility as Luken and Smitherman are getting. Those other opponents never drive the story. Anti-war protesters didn't get the credibility. People commenting on the death of a Notre Dame football recruit are cut off, not allowed to do anything to drive the story. These groups have limited voice and limited chance to influence the story, but Luken and Smitherman get quoted at will and on topics they know nothing about.
We don't need a manufactured controversy. The Enquirer has been the primary maker of that controversy surrounding Bortz and it is a bias they have, a bias for profit.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Casablanca and a Burger
A late Spring Sunday evening is a great night to get out of the condo and join your community in watching one of the best movies ever made. The details:
WHO: Venue 222Sounds like the perfect date night too. Any ladies want to go?
WHAT: There’s nothing better than a neighborhood party at Venue 222, Cincinnati’s premier urban event space. Join us with a showing of ‘Casablanca’ one of the most popular romantic dramas of all time. Food for purchase available from Café de Wheels, Cincinnati’s first mobile food truck. BYOBB – Bring Your Own Blanket & Booze.
Casablanca was premiered in 1942, with such stars as Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman – the film has been lauded for its inclusion of all types of stereotypes in popular culture.
This event is free and open to the public.
WHEN: Sunday May 16, 2010 from 6:30 p.m. – 10 p.m..
WHERE: 222 E. 14th Street, Cincinnati OH 45202.
First They Came for the Mexicans . . .
It's time to get concerned about the very visible anti-Mexican (and probably anti-Hispanic) bigotry taking hold in certain parts of the country.
First, we have the "papers, please" law recently passed in Arizona. Defenders of the law tell us that the only burden will be on illegal immigrants. They ignore the new power police are given to ask anyone who "looks illegal" for proof of citizenship. Everything in the statute is based on the state criminalizing the status of an illegal immigrant. Under the Constitution (which applies both to citizens and non-citizens), a law enforcement officer has to have "reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot" to detain someone and ask questions. (Google "Terry stop" for more on this.)
How can an officer tell the difference between a Mexican-American citizen and an undocumented Mexican national? He can't, of course. So in Arizona, just being Hispanic (or probably non-white) gives an officer reason to detain someone long enough to ask questions. Terrific.
Next, we have the California kids sent home for wearing American flags on Cinco de Mayo. Many are treating this as an incident that is only about the free speech rights of the white students involved. (And I agree, their rights were violated; they should not have been sent home.) But what's being glossed over is the intent behind their "patriotic" display that day. Those students weren't just being patriotic. They were telling their Mexican-American classmates that the celebration of their heritage wasn't acceptable. They were making the Mexican-Americans aware of their otherness, showing them that they weren't quite Americans in the same way the flag-wearers are.
How do I know what the students intended, you ask? Simple. Because I never hear of students wearing American flags or "patriotic" colors on St. Patrick's Day. It's acceptable for people to wear green, display shamrocks, and celebrate their Irish heritage on that day. (I've also never seen any negative reaction to all of the black, red, and gold downtown during Oktoberfest.) Irish-Americans are OK. Mexican-Americans? Not so much. Ironic, given the history of discrimination against Irish-Americans.
The Butler County sheriff wants to bring a "papers, please" law to Ohio. In my criminal defense practice over the past six to twelve months, I've seen a growing hostility towards Hispanics. I hope that Ohioans prove that they're better than this.
In times of economic crisis, people often turn to scapegoating. That seems to be happening now in the U.S. Let's recognize it for what it is and end it. Now.
First, we have the "papers, please" law recently passed in Arizona. Defenders of the law tell us that the only burden will be on illegal immigrants. They ignore the new power police are given to ask anyone who "looks illegal" for proof of citizenship. Everything in the statute is based on the state criminalizing the status of an illegal immigrant. Under the Constitution (which applies both to citizens and non-citizens), a law enforcement officer has to have "reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot" to detain someone and ask questions. (Google "Terry stop" for more on this.)
How can an officer tell the difference between a Mexican-American citizen and an undocumented Mexican national? He can't, of course. So in Arizona, just being Hispanic (or probably non-white) gives an officer reason to detain someone long enough to ask questions. Terrific.
Next, we have the California kids sent home for wearing American flags on Cinco de Mayo. Many are treating this as an incident that is only about the free speech rights of the white students involved. (And I agree, their rights were violated; they should not have been sent home.) But what's being glossed over is the intent behind their "patriotic" display that day. Those students weren't just being patriotic. They were telling their Mexican-American classmates that the celebration of their heritage wasn't acceptable. They were making the Mexican-Americans aware of their otherness, showing them that they weren't quite Americans in the same way the flag-wearers are.
How do I know what the students intended, you ask? Simple. Because I never hear of students wearing American flags or "patriotic" colors on St. Patrick's Day. It's acceptable for people to wear green, display shamrocks, and celebrate their Irish heritage on that day. (I've also never seen any negative reaction to all of the black, red, and gold downtown during Oktoberfest.) Irish-Americans are OK. Mexican-Americans? Not so much. Ironic, given the history of discrimination against Irish-Americans.
The Butler County sheriff wants to bring a "papers, please" law to Ohio. In my criminal defense practice over the past six to twelve months, I've seen a growing hostility towards Hispanics. I hope that Ohioans prove that they're better than this.
In times of economic crisis, people often turn to scapegoating. That seems to be happening now in the U.S. Let's recognize it for what it is and end it. Now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)