Here is an updated list of candidates. The GOP still only has two officially named candidates, 1 reported candidate and Smitherman, so they are far from even pretending to get a majority on council. If everyone on this list runs for office, that will make 25. That is not a record. It would be a record low for Republicans.
Incumbents:
P.G. Sittenfeld
David Mann
Chris Seelbach
Christopher Smitherman
Wendell Young
Amy Murray
Returning Candidates:
Laure Quinlivan
Greg Landsman
Michelle Dillingham
Brian Garry
Theo Barnes
New Candidates
Ozie Davis III
Kelli Prather
Tamaya Dennard
Tamie Sullivan
Cristina Burcica
Jeff Pastor
Derek Bauman
Cedrick Denson
Tonya Dumas
Henry Frondorf
Manual Foggie
Leslie Jones
Beverly Odoms
Orlando Welborn
If anyone has any other names please send them my way (cincyblog@aol.com) or if anyone named above wants to confirm they are not running, I'll remove them future postings of this list.
Thursday, January 26, 2017
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
Cranley Reportedly to Name His Campaign Treasurer to SORTA Board Seat
Helen "Heidi" Black is being reported by the Enquirer to be John Cranley's next pick for the SORTA Board.
Who is Helen "Heidi" Black, you may ask? Well in the Enquirer article you get a nice bio of a professional who they state is the wife of Cranley's campaign manager, Jay Kincaid. That makes this a controversial pick. It makes this appointment a political favor. It is political cronyism. If anyone else appointed the spouse of their campaign manager, this would have been a banner Enquirer headline with editorials on how ethics matter and the appearance of cronyism is horrible for our political system. More over the Enquirer would call for Cranley to appoint someone else.
Instead we get an article more puff piece than political story. It has a quote from Cranley in it as if someone in his campaign issued a press release on this. It's like Cranley is knowlingly picking a crony for a political appointment and does not care he is doing it. It's like he thinks his Trump or something.
What lacking in the article and to this whole story are two things. Firstly it names the appointee as Heidi Black instead of her legal name Helen Black. Secondly it fails to mention one MAJOR element as this screenshot illustrates:
In case you can't read the graphic it states "Paid for by John Cranley for Mayor, Helen Black Treasurer." This is from the bottom of the front page of John Cranley's campaign website.
Yes, Helen "Heidi" Black is the Treasurer for John Cranley's Mayoral campaign. He's about to appoint a member of his ACTIVE CAMPAIGN STAFF, to a board that governs the Streetcar operation and Metro. Cronyism run amok!
Oh and thanks to the Inquirer who didn't report this fact in their article. Thorough reporting there. Helen also ran for the 17-B seat on the Democratic Central Committee in March of last year, but lost. They didn't report that, either.
Finally, how do I know Helen is Heidi? A public records search is sufficient to confirm and it's not any type of secret, it was just omitted from this Enquirer article for some reason.
Who is Helen "Heidi" Black, you may ask? Well in the Enquirer article you get a nice bio of a professional who they state is the wife of Cranley's campaign manager, Jay Kincaid. That makes this a controversial pick. It makes this appointment a political favor. It is political cronyism. If anyone else appointed the spouse of their campaign manager, this would have been a banner Enquirer headline with editorials on how ethics matter and the appearance of cronyism is horrible for our political system. More over the Enquirer would call for Cranley to appoint someone else.
Instead we get an article more puff piece than political story. It has a quote from Cranley in it as if someone in his campaign issued a press release on this. It's like Cranley is knowlingly picking a crony for a political appointment and does not care he is doing it. It's like he thinks his Trump or something.
What lacking in the article and to this whole story are two things. Firstly it names the appointee as Heidi Black instead of her legal name Helen Black. Secondly it fails to mention one MAJOR element as this screenshot illustrates:
Yes, Helen "Heidi" Black is the Treasurer for John Cranley's Mayoral campaign. He's about to appoint a member of his ACTIVE CAMPAIGN STAFF, to a board that governs the Streetcar operation and Metro. Cronyism run amok!
Oh and thanks to the Inquirer who didn't report this fact in their article. Thorough reporting there. Helen also ran for the 17-B seat on the Democratic Central Committee in March of last year, but lost. They didn't report that, either.
Finally, how do I know Helen is Heidi? A public records search is sufficient to confirm and it's not any type of secret, it was just omitted from this Enquirer article for some reason.
Tuesday, January 24, 2017
John Cranley and Denise Driehaus Skip Cincinnati Women's March
The world took notice as millions of people across the globe came together Saturday to rally and march for women's rights, including but not limited too, reproductive rights. Here in Cincinnati 10,000 to 14,000 people rallied and marched. Many, many issues were discussed: religious freedom, the right to affordable healthcare, social justice, and the right of women to not be considered property of men, just to name a few. Many local elected politicians attended, including representatives from the State Legislature, Hamilton County and the City of Cincinnati. Both female and male elected officials were in attendance.
Many locally also took notice of who was missing. Two local politicians were no present for the Women's March: Cincinnati Mayor John Cranley and newly elected Hamilton County Commissioner Denise Driehaus.
Why were they not there? In the case of Cranley, Vice-Mayor David Mann claimed Cranley was going to a funeral. I think that funeral was at best a last minute add for Cranley, once it was announced that this was event was expressly a pro-choice and pro-Planned Parenthood event. John is anti-choice and needs the votes of the GOP in Cincinnati, and needs avoid the optics involved with openly linking himself to a very progressive movement. Also, he knew he wasn't going to get the option to control the event, so he stayed home instead.
Where was Denise Driehaus? We'll she's fresh off her December vote as outgoing Ohio member to ban abortions at 20 weeks, an unconstitutional bill, but one she still voted for. This is after she repeatedly told progressives after her alleged conversion to a pro-choice stance during the 2012 primary when she "moved" across town to the newly formed 31 District. She moved swiftly to hide her endorsement from Cincinnati Right to Life as well for nearly 4 years, but in the end did their bidding, even when she didn't need to for political cover.
At the event Saturday fellow Democrat, Todd Portune represented the County Commission. A Democratic woman who has claimed to be for women's rights skipped one of the biggest protests in Cincinnati history. Don't let her forgot that she stayed home when women came out in force to take on Trump.
Many locally also took notice of who was missing. Two local politicians were no present for the Women's March: Cincinnati Mayor John Cranley and newly elected Hamilton County Commissioner Denise Driehaus.
Why were they not there? In the case of Cranley, Vice-Mayor David Mann claimed Cranley was going to a funeral. I think that funeral was at best a last minute add for Cranley, once it was announced that this was event was expressly a pro-choice and pro-Planned Parenthood event. John is anti-choice and needs the votes of the GOP in Cincinnati, and needs avoid the optics involved with openly linking himself to a very progressive movement. Also, he knew he wasn't going to get the option to control the event, so he stayed home instead.
Where was Denise Driehaus? We'll she's fresh off her December vote as outgoing Ohio member to ban abortions at 20 weeks, an unconstitutional bill, but one she still voted for. This is after she repeatedly told progressives after her alleged conversion to a pro-choice stance during the 2012 primary when she "moved" across town to the newly formed 31 District. She moved swiftly to hide her endorsement from Cincinnati Right to Life as well for nearly 4 years, but in the end did their bidding, even when she didn't need to for political cover.
At the event Saturday fellow Democrat, Todd Portune represented the County Commission. A Democratic woman who has claimed to be for women's rights skipped one of the biggest protests in Cincinnati history. Don't let her forgot that she stayed home when women came out in force to take on Trump.
Monday, January 23, 2017
Cincinnati Women Marched Saturday For Rights and Against Trump Oppression
An estimated 10,000 to 12,000 people rallied and marched through Over-the-Rhine and Downtown Cincinnati Saturday joining Millions of other people standing up for women and a wide number of issues relating to freedom and liberty but focused on reproductive rights, healthcare for all, social justice for all, religious freedom for all, and the right for women not to be treated as the property of sexual predators like Donald Trump.
The crowd was massive, far greater than expected. Speakers consisted of local activists and politicians who voiced issues that will be be made worse under Trump and his crew of fascists who took over the White House last week.
This was a totally peaceful march and showed that women clearly know best how to get people to come out to protest. The world wide count was around 5 Million people turned out to oppose Trump's plans to turn the clock back to a time in American when women's rights were a distant dream.
The clearest sign that Trump does not have deep support lies in the numbers he tried to dispute. Experts stated that three times as many people went to Saturday's Women's March than when to Trump's Inauguration the day before. That demonstrates the reality that Trump and Republicans seem to ignore, they are only in power due to gerrymandering, voter suppression, and interference of the FBI and Russia in the election process. They don't have a mandate, they are seizing control as a minority party and will likely do as much damage as they can while the country wakes up and pushes them out of power.
Hopefully this turnout will translate to the 2017 location elections and then next year for the midterms. Logically, those who cared enough to come out to protest at an event like this care enough without question to come out and vote. That is how we can counter the right wing fascist power grab. We can't rely on sensible Republicans to protect the county, we must get people to wake up and get control of the election process back.
Saturday, January 21, 2017
In Case You Are Wondering What Fascism Means and Why You Should Know It
Google Defines it as:
For a more in-depth reading, Wikipedia has very good entry.
I want this here so people know what it means when the word is used. I am using this word more now. Many decry it's use. George Orwell long ago criticized its use. With the current Administration of the United States it has meaning that must be applied.
If you have read or listened to Trump's Inaugural Address, here if you haven't, and that speech strongly connected with or appealed to you, then you are most likely a fascist. If you know someone else who strongly connected with it, they are most likely a fascist.
I am being serious. I am not just trying to lob rhetorical grenades. I am trying to get people to listen to the whole speech and it's themes and see it as a Trump style fascist manifesto. People will point to certain minor phrases or sections that they think over-ride these main themes, but they are wrong. It is a just a ruse, meant to give cover.
I am not saying Trump is going to start creating Concentration Camps. Seriously not saying that (yet). That is mostly because I am not calling this a Nazi speech, even though you see that word in the synonyms above. By using the term "America First" Trump and his speech writers know the history of that term. They know who used it in the past and they know the meaning it has. The spokesperson for the America First movement was Charles Lindbergh and his history and sympathies are well known. This is a part of American history that one would usually want to avoid embracing. This phrase is the only sense of history that Trump included in his speech. It is not an accident. His handlers are not fools. They are authoritarian and nationalistic ring-wingers who are seeking to lift their brand of white social class back to a place of total dominance. That is Trump's message put simply and his policy stances and position are pushing that forward
People can pretend otherwise. They can champion the scraps that Trump throws at them. They can point to window dressing efforts of Trump to appear different than this fascist stance he has outlined. None of that will make up for the massive shift he is attempting. I hope he fails, but hope left the White House yesterday and fear, anger, and hate moved in, so count me as a cynic on the subject.
fas·cism
ˈfaSHˌizəm/
noun
- an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
synonyms: authoritarianism, totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, autocracy;
- (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.
For a more in-depth reading, Wikipedia has very good entry.
I want this here so people know what it means when the word is used. I am using this word more now. Many decry it's use. George Orwell long ago criticized its use. With the current Administration of the United States it has meaning that must be applied.
If you have read or listened to Trump's Inaugural Address, here if you haven't, and that speech strongly connected with or appealed to you, then you are most likely a fascist. If you know someone else who strongly connected with it, they are most likely a fascist.
I am being serious. I am not just trying to lob rhetorical grenades. I am trying to get people to listen to the whole speech and it's themes and see it as a Trump style fascist manifesto. People will point to certain minor phrases or sections that they think over-ride these main themes, but they are wrong. It is a just a ruse, meant to give cover.
I am not saying Trump is going to start creating Concentration Camps. Seriously not saying that (yet). That is mostly because I am not calling this a Nazi speech, even though you see that word in the synonyms above. By using the term "America First" Trump and his speech writers know the history of that term. They know who used it in the past and they know the meaning it has. The spokesperson for the America First movement was Charles Lindbergh and his history and sympathies are well known. This is a part of American history that one would usually want to avoid embracing. This phrase is the only sense of history that Trump included in his speech. It is not an accident. His handlers are not fools. They are authoritarian and nationalistic ring-wingers who are seeking to lift their brand of white social class back to a place of total dominance. That is Trump's message put simply and his policy stances and position are pushing that forward
People can pretend otherwise. They can champion the scraps that Trump throws at them. They can point to window dressing efforts of Trump to appear different than this fascist stance he has outlined. None of that will make up for the massive shift he is attempting. I hope he fails, but hope left the White House yesterday and fear, anger, and hate moved in, so count me as a cynic on the subject.
Friday, January 20, 2017
Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night
With just a couple hours left before the United States collectively is pushed off a cliff by the arcane Electoral College, I'm not going to make things all happy and go lucky. This is about to be a dark time. Are we all going to die? I'm don't know.
I am not trying to be flippant, I am giving analysis here, not just a practical reassuring answer. In January of 2001 I was not concerned about the country being drawn into a nuclear war or falling into a fascist authoritarian state during the next four years. I was pissed off at the way the 2000 election went, but I was not worried that the people taking control of the government had no understanding of how our Government and Military work. I did not worry that George W. Bush understood how the base concepts of honor, dignity, rule of law, and honesty work. Today I do worry about that, so I don't know if we are all going to die in horrible Trump created Apocalypse.
What those of us not part of Trump's new political army must do, especially those who on the surface won't be the target of revenge or oppression, must not be silent. We must let our voices be heard at EVERY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT or we will end up in a real fascist state were people like Butler County Sheriff Richard Jones can gain and abuse power over our neighbors and friends and fellow human beings.
Keep your voices smart, honorable, but stand up and meet those who oppose American Democracy with more strength and passion that those out to force fascism, racism, sexism, and hate on you or others.
I am not trying to be flippant, I am giving analysis here, not just a practical reassuring answer. In January of 2001 I was not concerned about the country being drawn into a nuclear war or falling into a fascist authoritarian state during the next four years. I was pissed off at the way the 2000 election went, but I was not worried that the people taking control of the government had no understanding of how our Government and Military work. I did not worry that George W. Bush understood how the base concepts of honor, dignity, rule of law, and honesty work. Today I do worry about that, so I don't know if we are all going to die in horrible Trump created Apocalypse.
What those of us not part of Trump's new political army must do, especially those who on the surface won't be the target of revenge or oppression, must not be silent. We must let our voices be heard at EVERY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT or we will end up in a real fascist state were people like Butler County Sheriff Richard Jones can gain and abuse power over our neighbors and friends and fellow human beings.
Keep your voices smart, honorable, but stand up and meet those who oppose American Democracy with more strength and passion that those out to force fascism, racism, sexism, and hate on you or others.
Wednesday, January 18, 2017
A Case of Bad Journalism From WCPO
The bad journalism from WCPO has two parts. On WCPO's site they have a story about an alleged act of vandalism where "anti-religious" graffiti was painted on two church buildings. So, what's the problem with that? Well, the first part of the problem is in the video portion of the story. That video report does not provide any specifics of what the graffiti stated, only the reporters claim from the Minister who the reporter stated would not tell them what the graffiti said, because the words were so "harsh". No pictures were provided of the graffiti and clean up had occurred on at least one of the structures shown on video. W therefore don't know that is was "anti-religious." We have on claim of something we don't have proof actually happened. The motivation for the vandalism may have been more directed at the actions or beliefs of this church, not against religious in general. Most crimes are not randomly chosen. It is portrayed as "anti-religious" but this could have been a religious person who just didn't share this church's beliefs.
That does not mean it didn't happen, it just means there could be more to the story and the motivation for why someone targeted this church could have backstory that would give context. Reading their website, this would not be considered a mainline Christian church, it is what I would classify as Pentecostal, so there are possible conflicts with this Church that could be a motive for the vandalism that would not be "anti-religious." The minister went on to claim that he "sensed" this came from a random person. Why does it matter that it was a random person who he senses has no connection to his church? We don't have enough information to judge what the graffiti words stated to know if there could be a connection or reasons this church was targeted. The Church stated they did file a police report, but would not press charges if they get an apology. I sense they may have an idea who the vandal may be, so if that is the case I hope they passed that on to the police and are not using this as a means to gain attention with the media.
So, the second problem is with the online story. In the link above after the video section, there is an article that mostly rehashes the video story. There is a big addition, however, that links this action to the hate crime that occurred at Hebrew Union College where a Swastika was painted on the school's sign. If we don't know what the graffiti on West Chester church stated, how can anyone link these stories by saying both are instances of "religiously targeted graffiti?" We know one was a hate crime, we don't know if they other was, so why link them? It is a bad journalism and WCPO needs to remove that linkage from the story. They also should have reported what the police report stated, assuming it included detail of the graffiti or pictures. If they didn't get the police report prior to running the story, then they failed a third time for this story, not even confirming basic facts.
That does not mean it didn't happen, it just means there could be more to the story and the motivation for why someone targeted this church could have backstory that would give context. Reading their website, this would not be considered a mainline Christian church, it is what I would classify as Pentecostal, so there are possible conflicts with this Church that could be a motive for the vandalism that would not be "anti-religious." The minister went on to claim that he "sensed" this came from a random person. Why does it matter that it was a random person who he senses has no connection to his church? We don't have enough information to judge what the graffiti words stated to know if there could be a connection or reasons this church was targeted. The Church stated they did file a police report, but would not press charges if they get an apology. I sense they may have an idea who the vandal may be, so if that is the case I hope they passed that on to the police and are not using this as a means to gain attention with the media.
So, the second problem is with the online story. In the link above after the video section, there is an article that mostly rehashes the video story. There is a big addition, however, that links this action to the hate crime that occurred at Hebrew Union College where a Swastika was painted on the school's sign. If we don't know what the graffiti on West Chester church stated, how can anyone link these stories by saying both are instances of "religiously targeted graffiti?" We know one was a hate crime, we don't know if they other was, so why link them? It is a bad journalism and WCPO needs to remove that linkage from the story. They also should have reported what the police report stated, assuming it included detail of the graffiti or pictures. If they didn't get the police report prior to running the story, then they failed a third time for this story, not even confirming basic facts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)