In Case You Forgot, Phil Burress is Still a Bigot

Bill Sloat at The Daily Bellwether has an important article detailing the latest bigoted action by the hateful Phil Burress, one of the leading anti-gay bigots in the state of Ohio.

A man who does not even live in the City of Cincinnati is threatening to file a lawsuit because the City Council voted in favor of Domestic Partner insurance coverage. This is clear evidence, as if we need any more, that Burress's anti-gay marriage crusade was never about 'protecting' marriage, but it was all about oppressing gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals, and transgendered people. The city isn't marrying anyone, they are trying to provide equal benefits to all of its employees. I wish they were allowing gay marriage, but far too many ignorant bigots voted to oppress people when they baned gay marriage in Ohio, making that against the law. Treating gays and lesbians with equal rights is what Burress is fighting against. Equal rights should be for all, not just the Phil Burress clan.

I feel like a broken record on this subject and I feel that most of readers of this blog think Burress is horrible, but he has an audience. I hope everyone who opposes the bigotry of Burress takes every opportunity to speak out against his type of bigotry. The people who could speak most directly to this are those of you who participate in the large number of religious institutions across the region. Many (not all) of those institutions have terrible stances on gay rights. I encourge those of you who face that bigoty to speak out against it and at least question the faux rationalizations used to justify the type of bigotry Burress pushes.

Preaching to the choir only goes so far, sometimes you have to stand up and speak out, even if you risk your reputation. That's how all civil rights issues should be addressed. It is a shame that religion, in the case of gay rights, is far too often the hurddle to make many silently let that bigotry exist in the places based on the philosphies of peace.

New CityBeat Print Edition Hit This Week

CityBeat has revamped it's print copy with this week's edition and editor Danny Cross has a column decscribing the changes and some background on himself as the new editor of the Alt-Weekly.

The changes are three fold. First the paper has a fresh new design that I like a lot. The page headings and titles are much appealing and pleasing to the eye. The second element is the order of sections, which move the music to the back and the arts & culture (art,theatre, film, dining) all together. The third element is the most striking: more relevant content. The inclusion of a focused stand along cover story has returned, which is not just a highlight of one section's story. Also the inclusion of a media and sports column along with more than one news story (in addition to Porkopolis)add more meat to the publication.

I like this week's edition and look forward to more. I hope the structure continues.

More Wussy, in an RV and Acoustic

Brilliant.

Lack of Ethics Starts With Smitherman

Why couldn't COAST pay for an ethics lesson for Chris Smitherman himself? That would do hopefully do the most good, as long as COAST is not conducting the ethics lesson, since they don't have any. This would be a great alternative to Smitherman's motion he submitted to council requiring training sessions for council members and their staff, something the City already does. Smitherman needs a lesson in ethics. Some of things he should learn:

• Don't threaten to have your non-city-employee lawyer sue the city because council didn't vote your way.
• Don't even consider frivolous lawsuits that are more about getting legal work for your anti-city lawyer than a valid legal issue.
• Don't go on the Radio and falsely claim a member city council works for the CIA.
• Don't claim that a reason to vote for a position on the waterworks ballot issue would be to prevent the government from lacing the water of black residents with drugs.
• Don't make up numbers about how much the Streetcar plan will cost.
• Don't lie to the public when you claim Streetcar funds could be used to avoid police or fire layoffs.

Those are just the start of the many thinks Smitherman could learn. They are mostly just common sense, but a bright examples of what not to do. I really hope Smitherman can learn from these examples.

Hat Tip to Quimbob

Differences in District 31 Statehouse Race Clearly Shown on Women's Rights

Bill Sloat of the Daily Bellwether has an interesting article that outlines the Differences among the candidates running for the Democratic nomination for the newly redrawn District 31 Ohio House seat.  Women's rights comes forward as the most striking difference where only one candidate, Luke Brockmeier, is in sync with the district's overwhelming belief in protecting a woman's right to choose. Sloat describes at length the record of Denise Driehaus and exposes her support for a GOP sponsored anti-abortion bill.  Tranter, the third candidate, was endorsed by Ohio Right to Life, something previously held by Denise Driehaus when she ran on the west side of town.  The new 31st District is not a Westside haven for Conservative Dems. The issue of choice matters in progressive neighborhoods. I'm guessing Driehaus and Tranter don't know much about the district or just hope no one notices their anti-women's rights beliefs.

Monzel's Failures Exposed

Quimbob at Blogging Isn't Cool brings up the campaign Mantra of Hamilton County Commissioner Chris Monzel and points out that Monzel failed to balance the county's budget through "efficiencies." Yeah, Monzel actually claimed he could do that.  The Suburban Republican Monzel has not appeared to learn much while in office, other than how to screw over tax-payers.

Tranter Loses Challenge to Driehaus Residency Move

The Hamilton County Board of a elections has rejected the challenge to the residency of Denise Driehaus who moved into the new district 31 district after leaving her old district after the Republican made her old area more difficult for her to win.  Tranter, another candidate was challenging her residentcy via proxy because, as this quote from Tranter in the article from WVXU puts it

"It was perfect for me to run in. She decided to move over into it even though she has no familiarity with the district or it's constituents."

Yes, Tranter has a political point to make. Driehaus is not from this district. She's lived on the Westside her entire life and fits in with the Westside Conservatives, not this progressive district. That is a reason not to vote for her. It is not grounds for a  legal case. The challenges Tranter made via his neighbor were frivolous and a waste of tax payer's money.

The even bigger waste was in the challenge to the ballot signatures for Driehaus and candidate Luke Brockmeier. 50 signatures is the low requirement and both candidates had more than enough valid signatures.  There was no evidence of any problem and other than getting some media attention, served no purpose.  Tranter is making a huge mistake. He should not focus on being bitter that he has to face off against two other candidates. He should face the fact that along with Denise Driehaus, he's not living in a conservative Democratic district. He's living in a really progressive House district. He might want to ponder how to climb that Mt. Everest before playing political games.