Congrats Wes!!!

A big congratulations go out to Wes Flinn on his new job starting this fall. We all shall miss you.

Pettus-Brown vows to rebuild theater

LaShawn Pettus-Brown almost pulls an OJ.

The Social Leagues

Something I do all the time is constantly consider if women are in or "out of my league." It is almost an instinctive response to meeting someone new. Admitting I am at least partially shallow is not going to be a popular opinion, especially to women. I think my understanding that I myself am nothing to drool over gives me a little cover coupled with my honestly. Since I have come out and spilled the beans on the leagues, I have to ask, are these leagues all in my head, or do they have something of a non-formal and certainly flexible definition that none-the-less holds true?

Now, when I say "out of my league" most people are likely going to focus on appearance. I consider that a significant portion of what I mean, but most certainly not all the factors. Is that fair? Well, from my point of view it is not so much fair, it is something of a reality. Usually it is not what I think of others, it is what I assume they would think of me. That is the interesting part, does our opinion of others really only depend on how we judge ourselves?

No matter how much people want to avoid it, appearance matters. That sucks. It is horrible, but it is reality. It is a human reaction that is not going to change. In my own biased opinion of myself, I rank kinda-sorta average, maybe a little below on some factors and little above a couple of others. What is funny, I think, is that if polled, 2/3rds of people would view themself as average, whether they are or not. If polled secretly they may have a completely different view. Appearance is very subjective and often based on comparison and sample size. Just because it varies though, does not mean it is not valued.

Beyond appearance there are other factors to consider which are really what in the end matters: intelligence, wealth or class, maturity, age, personality, interests, cultural background, and temperament. There are other categories and other variations, but these are what come to my mind most often. Does anyone ever think that people are out of their league when it comes to personality or interests? Sometimes people might say that a smart person is out of their league, but not necessarily in the sense that they are better, just different. Difference is not always valued, unless it creates an identity people can relate to.

Beyond the normal comparison of supermodels and movie stars, are there really people out of your league? Do you walk down the street and say people who might share your same interests, intelligence, temperament are beneath you in social status?

What makes up social status? How much of it is based on appearance and how much is based on other factors? Is appearance ever not a factor?

What I think plays into this is the mystery surrounding what causes two people to be attracted to one another. There are common factors and conventional wisdom that seem to hold true, but then you see a couple together and can’t fathom how they are in anyway compatible. That seems not to matter much when you notice how happy they are together. As a single guy, I can't seem to fathom that kind of happiness.

What I will laugh at now is anyone who claims to be happy, but can't put into words that which makes him/her happy.

Dems Offically Endorse Lynch and Berding

The recommendations were accepted by City Democrats for 6 additional candidates beyond the three incumbents: Jeff Berding, Damon Lynch, Eve Bolton, Samantha Herd, Cecil Thomas and Wendell Young.

Berding is causing grief among some, but to me Lynch is still a disappointment. At this point I would not even consider voting for the man. Could I change my mind? It would take a lot, but it would be possible. If Lynch publicly retracts his past statements on calling police rapists, if he retracts a call for an "afro-centric" curriculum in CPS, and if he says he does not support what was a boycott and declare once and for all that one does not exist. He does that AND his positions are reasonable AND he makes the effort to represent the entire city, then I may vote for him.

I expect some of this is part of his plan and is why the Dems are now supporting him, or at least enough Dems to get a deal to get the endorsement. What I do not expect is Lynch to meet the requirements needed for to vote for him. Because of that I think he is a big mistake to endorse, and gives a lot of fuel to the GOP and by default to Charter. The GOP will just be running against Lynch. Malone against Lynch will I think be how the TV commercials may go, subtly of course. This will pull away liberals like me into the Charter camp. Roxanne Qualls would be a great Charterite right about now, in my book.

Nate as more from the meeting. How much of it is true? Well, that depends on how much Nate spun it. It is worth a read if for nothing else than to see Nate defend Damon Lynch. I though Nate and Lynch were bitter enemies, have they made nice or is Nate just circling the race-based wagons?

Learning

How do you learn something? How long does it take you? Do you have learn by doing or can you translate instruction into action? What about observation?

Back in school I learned little or no information from the classroom, other than what the teacher was going to ask on the test had a direct relationship to the topics he or she covered in class.

I learn best by either following written directions, yes I actually read them when I buy a new bookcase at Target, or I learn by observation and then using imitation along with trial and error.

I do not learn well in teams. I personally don't function at my best in teams on most levels, unless I have no clue what is going on, or when I have people who know how to manage, which is often lacking. When I learn something new with a team it ends up that I get it, and then teach the rest by example or by a step-by-step walk through.

I would hate having someone over my shoulder telling what to type or which button to push. The funny part is that what I do for people all the time in my job.

Can anyone learn to do anything? Could I learn to perform surgery? Are there tasks that people just don't have the ability to grasp? It seems to me that if there are people who are able to document any process correctly, then I should be able to complete that process. It doesn't work that way, but conceptually if we had the directions, could we just make a nuclear bomb?

Questions for Summit Country Day School

If you are going to only allow "Catholics in public life" speak at your who school "whose positions run contrary to the church," then I guess you are going to not allow anyone gay, anyone divorced, anyone who has lied, anyone who has killed someone, anyone who supports the death penalty, or anyone who is not Roman Catholic to speak or for that matter work for your school. Those are the teachings of the Catholic Church, so then you are going to screen out everyone who has not broken those rules?

When will Summit Country Day issue a political test to its staff to determine where they stand on these issues? If they don't, are they simply going to ask who they voted for and then judge based on that? That would be an odd split. Which is more important, being anti-abortion or anti-death penalty?

Thin Skinned Cole

Laketa Cole needs to look past minor pranks. She now will be tagged as the person responsible for removing the barricade on 13th Street, all because she raise a ruckus over a flier. That pushed Enquirer reporter Greg Korte to write a news story and then make her the focus of what some view as opening back up the door to drug dealers.

She should win back her seat anyway, but she might loose a few moderate votes. This would not have been known if she would have just taken it and moved on, don't arm your opponents with your own anger.

Blue Collar, White Collar, & the Future

When I was in college I was trained a what I believe was and is one of the best public university undergraduate business programs in the country. We were taught how to be corporate soldiers. Whether it was accounting, management, marketing, or Finance, all of us learned the tools needed to run any corporation. What we didn't learn were the operations of what that corporation might do. We didn't learn how to build anything. We didn't learn to design much, beyond a few spreadsheets. Some of us can sell, but we didn't learn about what we are selling.

20 years ago it would take about 25 people to do what it takes 5 to do, in about half the time. The ratio in the future will likely increase in its efficiency. Where will that leave our workforce?

What plans are in the minds of our corporate leaders and political office holders? Are they thinking it will all just work out? Do some think that in 50 years we will not build or make anything and only provide services to the world? It appears that is the model we are heading towards. China, India, and South America will make everything, and we will sell it and buy it. The job skill sets in America are shrinking. There are fewer companies that doing fewer things. Will there be enough jobs to support our economy? How long can we make money when we are just trading sticks of butter, taking a cut in each transaction? Would it not be better to not only sell the butter, but make it too? Do we not in the long run make more money when we don't out source everything? At some point the market for outsourcing will crash, and companies will scramble to find people to answer the telephone, let alone find people to service their Servers or make their toothbrushes. What companies are looking beyond stock price? What are we going to do when consolidate everything as far as we can? Will CEO's ever care about anything other than share price?

One for 'Us,' and None For 'Them'

Abraham at Political Influentials brings up an interesting column about how Evangelical Christians are not Monolithic. This is a true statement, technically. When it comes to social issues I think it wrong. That is the point of the whole theocratic movement, to impose a social order on the society based on conservative Christian religious dogma. It will be "open" to variation, but only those where Christians can swallow it, so to speak. The reactionaries are not going to make everyone be Baptists or even be born-again, but what they don't seem to understand is that not everyone is Christian, and because they (me) are not, that should not be a reason to discriminate against them, nor should it a be license to use the government to try and either force or even just encourage religion or more likely a particular brand of religion on anyone.

I think history is missed on people. In the past the evangelical Christians oppressed Catholics in this country. The Catholics gave some back too, but catholic discrimination was not just common, it was the norm.

Today we have something relatively similar. The Evangelicals have evolved. They are tolerant of most other Christian variable, and to some degree to Jews and Muslims. Inside the evangelicals you still will get plenty of blood loss over whether you are a KJV fan or you push forward with NIV or some other heathen text. The tolerance level is far dicier and has we have seen lately in the new outright oppressive against other non-monotheists. Admitting this reality is a big debating point though.

I fully agree that the 'born-again' Christians are not going to view the same issues the same way. They do however have a slew of issues that they move in crisp step with far and above all other Christians. There is no middle ground on abortion or homosexuality or other social issues. Do they disagree on taxes? Sure they do. The political spectrum of view points in many churches though I think is shrinking.

In the column though one thing was really missing: debate on anti-gay stances. It is quite clear that evangelicals most often either out-right anti-homosexuals, or they compartmentalize the issues. Think of being against gay marriage, but not being anti-gay. I don't see a difference, they often nuance it. It is the same as the cliché: "hate the sin, not the sinner." Well, when you are not religious, you don't sin, it is not applicable as a concept, so again, it is failure to grasp that people live outside your frame of reference.

Abraham had a funny, which I don't think was intentional in his post:

Evangelicals Are Not A Monolith

I've seen quite a few references to theocracy lately. If you're interested in another point of view read this opinion article from an evangelical. He offers some insight on what they stand for.

The bold is mine. It is subtly funny. A better choice would have been "some of them” instead of "they," but I got the overall point of post.

Loss of Cinergy?

What will the effects be on the loss of Cinergy's HQ? The back office will surely lose jobs, but how much of the operation can be handled from NC?

The Soundtrack to Life

Is the intense love of music and the emotional and social connection it instills, as well as the cultural identity it can provide, a modern phenomenon? Is it something that only infects some of us? Is there a gene for music appreciation?

Music is one of the most unifying and yet deviding elements of American Culture today. We are divided by class and race. Music is an element of the identity we profess, whether we are a headbanger, a gangsta, a cowboy, or a wine and cheese taster. Yet within out subcultures we can share songs that fill you full of memory and sense of time or tone that can take you out of your current reality.

What makes music so vital to some, yet just background noise to others? To me, music is like a vital element to living. I need it as much as I need sleep. I don't need just sounds, I need music. What I think of music and of sound or of noise is what someone else might find enlightening. That variation is part of the mysticism of music that defies logic. How can people not at least like some of the Beatles? I know it is hard to fathom but it is true.

Then there are those who just like background noise, just a monotone movie soundtrack that adds a little foundation to their existence, but nothing they will remember the next time they hear the same song. Think of a Ritz cracker to the cheese. Bland on bland. Are those who like easy listening looking to just numb their brains to the pain? Do those who instead embrace as wide view of music reach out to it the variations that contain, dear I say it, soul? I think it is really more like emotion, depth, or something more than just contentment.

I like music that has power, emotion, beauty, complication, and is vibrant. I listen to it for the emotion it can cause me to emote. Music is not like the drapes or a seat cushion. It is art. Art is what I think separates the wheat from the chaff, and the music from the mind numbing drivel. How we tell the difference is what I think is the rub. That is where the conflict and division comes in.

Why though are more of those under say age 50 more into music, than those over it? My parents for example love music, but they don't just turn on the stereo and listen to it, while they do something else. I do that constantly. Is that just us or is it another element of just growing older?

City Cards

CNN had a side story last week on pooling of regional attractions into a discount plan in the form of a car or pass that allows users to get discounts to several places in the area.

The idea is brilliant, but they need to take it one step further, even if it has a certain Disney quality to it. What a better way to market and to steer tourists to the entertainment areas of the city than to have admission bundling. This allows places like the Museum Center, the CAC, and Newport Aquarium to allow users to buy one ticket to all three places for one price, which ends up being a discount over three individual tickets, but it means all three can be a reason for tourist to stay over night in the city, not just an afternoon. This could bring a family from Dayton or even Cleveland to downtown for a couple of days. The tickets could include transportation between each attraction, making it easy for those fearful of city street driving. Throw in a deal somehow with a sporting event, and you really could have a nice little mini-vacation. This type of trip is the only type of tourism that makes sense for areas like Cincinnati.

I would through in Kings Island, but just don't know if the tie in would work. It might work as well as the sporting event, but its location, so far out of town, takes away some of the ease added with downtown transportation. A family could park their car and be shuttled cheaply around the urban core area. Adding a trip out to Mason adds cost that may not work.

[Via SoC]

Sidenote on SoC; Publius has added a second blogger to his blog: Hayek.

Identity

Who am I? Or is the question really who are you? In society today, identity is taking on a new shape. In the past you were identified by your family, your nation, your ethnicity, or your race. Maybe sometimes by your profession, but that often overlapped with one or more of the prior classification types.

Today we have Red and Blue States, Christian Businesses, Gay Friendly Bars. We put 'ribbons' on our cars to show support for something. We don't usually do much to support that something beyond showing we support it, but we want everyone to know we support it. We are on ‘that’ team. We are one of ‘us’ not ‘them’

We are a member of the VFW or Mason's, or went to college somewhere. Why do people really have to let everyone know they are a Christian by putting the fish on the back of their car? Is it advertising? Has anyone ever really 'converted' to Christianity because of a small metal figure shaped vaguely like a fish, which people who know nothing about Christianity would logically think was the symbol or Anglers Society of America?

When did it become more important to tell others who you want them to think you are, instead of trying to figure out who you really are?

Conversation Week

In the hopes of giving people something else beyond my usual bombastic commentary, I thought I might try offering a more mental exercise. Call it philosophizin' or just plain old noggin wrestlin’. I am going to have a post each day, starting today, for a whole week that covers a topic that is philosophical in nature. It might stray into politics or religion (lack there of), but I will be off the direct current events for those posts. Don't worry, I will still have a post or two with the usual foul mouth revelry and vitriol, the red meat that keeps the blood boiling.

As an introductionary tool, I thought I might lament a bit on the current status of what we as human, or maybe just the American, society view as "conversation."

I have three basic conversation modes: philosophical (deep or at least in depth), the nice-ites (small-talk), and cold silence. What I lack is the level of conversation that is what I guess I consider pointless and mundane, the how-was-your-day-dear type conversation. Now, I added the "dear" to the end which might answer why I lack this, I am a single guy. If I was married or had a steady girlfriend I might have those types of conversations, but I don't, at least not that very often. That may also be a "guy thing," where men don't talk that much about such things to other men, while woman might do so more often. Now, lets not get all Griff-hating her for being sexist. Men and women have different conversation styles. Why? Well culture and society has fashioned it over time.

Does my lacking much ability to have meaningless, yet maybe charming conversation about nothing much at all make me a dull boring guy? Well, yes, yes it does. I fear I have been known to glass over more than a few pairs of eyes in my time. I am one to blather on for hours on the meaning of something, rather than lamenting on tone of voice my boss used on me during a meeting at work.

What is the fascination with the normal, the usual, the insignificant? Is it the ease of the conversation? You don't have to think about it and that's what makes people gravitate towards it? If true is this a natural tendency or a cultural creation?

Another area of conversation I wanted to address is subject matter, and what is and what is off limits. This goes into cultural variations and generational differences. People have always talked about everything on some level, baring your dark hidden secrets. It just has varied over time who you talk with about certain topics, at least publicly. Politics, Religion, and Sex are the top three that usually are met with the most conflict and thus don't fit as often into "polite conversation."

What does that leave? Movies, TV, music, sports, and weather. If you are married, life seems to be about your children (or when you will have them) or your house (or when will you buy one), so talking about your kids tends to fit the norm. If you are with coworkers you generally go to either the shitty copy machine or the boss from hell. The only time conversation become something bizarre and usually forbidding beyond the control of known human understand is when you have mundane conversation with your parents. It matters not your age nor your married status, but you will find it difficult and uncomfortable to talk with your parents about most things, other than trips to grandma’s house, Mom’s baked mac & cheese, and dad’s efforts to wake you up on Saturday morning to go trim the hedges..

The most important question is what do you say about yourself when engaged in a conversation, especially with a potential romantic interest or someone you have met for the first time? Is it always rude to talk about yourself? I have been either on dates or just in conversations with people and I am asking them questions and it is like pulling teeth for them to talk about themself. I guess they are fearful of being thought of as narcissistic, but then when I open up and talk about myself in hopes they will be OK with doing it too, and then they still don't talk about themself, I then look like the narcissist.

What do we want out of conversation? Are we just killing time or are we out to share ideas and gain a level of intimacy with other human beings? Yea, both would be the goal, depending on whom we are having the conversation with, but do we always shoot from the hip or do we actually know what we are going to say before we say it? The kid selling me the digital camera at the electronics store is not someone I will talk with about my stress at work. Should that be the case?

Is it about trust and fear? Yes, good old fashioned fear, that which makes humans tick. Does the level of fear drive the conversation? Comfort and fear in this case are one in the same. If you are comfortable talking with someone about a topic, you don't fear, or at least have only a little fear, saying what you say.

Ok, all of this then leads to having "The Conversation." Now, there is not just one conversation, but there are times and places where you have to tell people things and are hesitant to because it affects you or you fear having to be the one break the news. That could range from breaking up a romance to proposing marriage. It could be a job offer or being fired, or from a birth of a child to the death of a parent. It is a point of conflict put into a semi-orderly form that tends to situate some level of knots into the stomachs of the participants. Why do we fear these conversations? I sure as hell know I do. What motivates human beings into fear of exchanging information? Beyond either looking stupid, failing to impress a potential love interest, or failing to impress a potential business interest, what makes us act, well, so damn human?

Slippery Slope to Landslide

First they went after gays, and got their pound of flesh. Now the theocrats are out impose more religion on Ohio by trying to restrict divorce. I wonder if those who relished the support of the religious conservatives in the last election are at all fearful of letting the Genie out of the bottle. I mean if Newt Gingrich wants to run for President in 2008, will anyone on the right mention that he has been divorced twice? One might surmise he cheated on one or both of his first wives, so would that get anyone’s panties in a bunch?

Is breaking a commandment worse than being gay? I mean, weren’t those the top 10 for a reason? Shouldn't liars and adulterers be more of a concern then those involved in a homosexual relationship? Neither should be anyone else’s business anyway, let alone the State of Ohio. That doesn't really matter to those pushing to change divorce laws. Those religious theocrats are out to push their religion on the citizens of Ohio and are getting nearly unhindered assistance from the Republican Party.

Eve Bolton Is In

One step away from a Democratic endorsement is a great place to announce your candidacy for Cincinnati City Council. Eve ran against Pat DeWine last year for County Commissioner and put forth a good effort against a well financed candidate who is now already moving on to something else, or at least trying to.

What is most interesting is that her official announcement to run for City Council was actually her announcement. She previously had not been on the radar as a likely candidate. She I think may be moving to the City to actually run. She has been living in Mt. Healthy in the past. She is a great pick for the Dems. She has name recognition and experience running for office. She stands a good chance of getting on council.

UPDATE: Eve has been living in the city for a couple of years, but previous was living in Mt. Healthy.

How many shopping centers does one Metro-area need?

Are we going to have freeway to freeway shopping centers by the year 2010? Is demand up or are there just so few places to shop any more that these big companies can put up a Megamart and then just swat the people away like it’s a Fourth of July picnic?

Oh Sweet Pastry

Fred Pastry over at the Cincy Dealer sends up Jeff Berding and his connections with Mike Brown and the Bengals deal with the County for the Stadium. Pastry's piece of satire levels frosting on those greasing the wheels of government for their own profit. Mike Brown and Bob Bedinghaus may have done this, would Brown and Berding do it too?

Know Theatre's Good Boys

Photo by James Czar

Get out there and see Good Boys. Reviews are good and those I talked with last night enjoyed it. Tonight is a pay-what-you-can night, so those short on cash could pay 10 bucks instead of the normal 15.

The play explores what happens after a school shooting to the families of the shooter and his victim. It is a riveting play that explores all levels of humanity.

Once More Into the Breach

Kevin Drum is forced again to do the job of the media:

According to the memo, the bottom line is this: By the summer of 2002 George Bush had already decided on war regardless of Saddam Hussein's actions; democracy promotion was not even mentioned in passing as a reason for the war; postwar reconstruction was an issue of no concern; and the "marketing campaign" for the war was deliberately timed to coincide with midterm elections.

Just for the record.

As Kevin says few will care about this, because truth is fleeting, and memories hold scant more than a thimble.