CPS improves ratings

On the surface it looks great for Cincinnati Public Schools Superintendent Rosa Blackwell that its schools' ratings have improved from academic emergency to continuous improvement in just two years. However, given the population shifts to the suburbs, I don't think it's going to have quite the effect on enrollment that the Enquirer thinks it will. It's a great thing, but there's still a perception that the suburban schools are better, one that will likely take several years of consistent high performance for CPS to overcome. And there is a certain percentage of the population that would just rather live in the suburbs. But this is a good start.

Adam

Reality Bytes

Bigg's supports local health-food company

Bigg's Hyper-market, a tri-state native company, is stepping up to support another Cincinnati based business, Bright Future Foods. Specializing in an "on-the-go snack" version of edamame called "Ma-Me!", Bright Future is hoping to claim it's stake in the booming health food market. Bright Future is not your typical health-food company. According to the Cincinnati Business Courier

Bright Future plans to donate 10 percent of its net profit to the Bright Future Adoption Foundation, which is dedicated to helping bring children and prospective parents together through adoption.

In addition, the company

awarded the production contract for the brand to a food manufacturing facility in Southeastern Ohio launched by The Appalachian Center for Economic Networks, of Athens, which is working to revitalize a depressed economy in that part of the state.

According to a Bigg's press release, "Following the introductory phase, we expect Ma-Me! will be offered in all 14 of our stores."

Anne Chambers, CEO of Bright Future Foods, explains that the company's dual mission is

to create healthier futures for people by introducing them to the health benefits of soy, and to call attention to adopting as a wonderful way to create a family.

Bright Future is hoping to follow the Biggs offering with a national roll-out.

It is nice to see socially responsible local business supporting each other and taking actions to revitalize the region.

Taft won't comment on resignation

Governor Taft has finally taken responsibility for the "errors and omissions" in his ethics statements.

"I'm responsible for them, absolutely. It's my responsibility to file a correct report,"

This admission is well past due.

When asked whether the investigation regarding 60 unreported golf outings would lead to his resignation, Taft responded by saying

We are not going to talk about [that]. This process is still not complete; it's not finished. It wouldn't be proper to answer a number of those questions until the Ethics Commission provides its reports, and we provide the information to the public.

It looks to me like Taft will be resigning.

Columbus resident Mike Short labeled this admission by Taft "the tip of the iceberg."

Short continued by saying

I think he's betrayed the state. If his mission is to take care of the people, and generate business and income for the state, he's gone about it the wrong way.

Short indicated that if Taft refuses to step down, the legislature should remove him from office.


In related news, Ohio's probe into the coingate scandal is now expected to cost $6.5 million.

This post was made by Josh Nelson of Cincinnati News.

I WANT ANSWERS!!

Since it's a slow news day, and since the media has allowed itself to become distracted by the new shiny object known as John Roberts, I think it's time to put the Valerie Plame situation back in the spotlight. So in a perfect world, here is a list of questions that I would like to have answered by this administration:

1. What exactly did Karl Rove say to Matt Cooper of Time magazine, and what did Scooter Libby discuss with New York Times reporter Judith Miller during early July 2003?
2. If Rove specifically referred Valerie Plame or Joe Wilson’s wife, why did he need to identify her, instead of just saying some mid-level staffer from the CIA sent him? And why did Rove not confirm with the CIA whether her identity was classified or not?
3. Who saw the classified state department memo issued on July 7, 2003, that specifically named Plame, and whom did they inform about the contents of this memo?
4. How did journalist Robert Novak learn of her identity, and what communication did he have with other members of the government?
5. If Plame’s identification was not classified as some claim, why did Bush’s own Justice Department and the special prosecutor determine that the criminal referral from the CIA had merit? Why did 11 former CIA agents feel compelled to send a letter to Congress denouncing this claim? Further, why has former CIA agent Larry Johnson, a Republican, ripped this administration over its handling of the situation?
6. Even if we assume that Joe Wilson is a hack and was sent to Niger by his wife (neither of which are true, but for argument’s sake we’ll say so), how does that justify the leak of her name to the press?
7. Explain how this administration has cooperated with the investigation.
8. Why did President Bush’s standards for dismissing anyone that leaked her name change? If the president’s standard now is that no one convicted of a felony can work in his administration, does that only apply to this case, or do previous convictions (Iran-Contragate for example) apply as well? Or do they receive grandfathered protection?
9. Help us understand why White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan issued blanket denials that Rove and Scooter Libby were not involved in the leak. Did he know that they were involved and decide on his own to deny? Was McClellan told to deny that Rove and Libby were involved? Or was McClellan informed by the administration that Rove and Libby were not involved?
10. Scott McClellan has refused to answer any queries on Rove or Libby’s involvement recently, citing that he cannot comment on an ongoing investigation. Then how was Attorney General Alberto Gonzales able to comment just two weeks ago that he did not have any knowledge of Ms. Plame and her role at the CIA? What is the administration’s exact position on commenting on this matter, and which one conflicted with its policy?
11. Why did the CIA have to notify the Justice department four times that a criminal act may have been committed before launching an investigation? Why was former Attorney General John Ashcroft so reluctant to assign a special prosecutor to the case? Would it have anything to do with his close working relationship with Rove over the previous 20 years?
12. Why, when the DOJ informed (at the time White House counsel) Gonzales was informed on the evening of Monday, September 29, 2003, to save all documents relating to the Plame situation, did they then tell him it was ok to wait until the next morning to inform the White House staff? Why did he then tell Andrew Card about this on that Monday evening before informing the staff? Whom did Card discuss this with during the 12 hour time period? And why should we believe that this 12 hour window is not in fact the ‘Plamegate’ version of the 18 minute gap in the Nixon tapes?
13. Why did the Intelligence Committee not have time to investigate this issue, but yet it has time now to hold hearings on whether the CIA protects the cover of its agents strongly enough and the validity of the Fitzgerald investigation? Is Pat Roberts (Kansas senator, co-chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee) being ordered to convene these hearings by the administration?

Adam

Reality Bytes

The power of religion?

Enquirer editor Byron McCauley pens an interesting piece today on the topic of religion in politics. I actually don't disagree with some of his piece; I don't expect politicians to leave their religion at the door. If someone conducts themselves by the tenets of their religion in their private life, I have no problem with them being the same way in public office. Having said that, I would hope that behaving that way includes keeping it to themselves; there's a difference between following a religion intensely and preaching the gospel and using the word God every third word).

My problem lately has been that candidates, especially on the national level, have felt this need to 'out-religion' each other. Every candidate has felt the need to be shown going to worship every Sunday, and discuss the depth of their faith. And I don't think it's because of their deep belief in religion so much as they're afraid that they'll lose votes if they don't. And that part bothers me. Why should it matter? It doesn't make a difference to me whether someone is deeply religious, somewhat religious, or doesn't worship much at all; that has no direct effect on their ability to govern.

Beyond that, does this mean that atheists/agnostics cannot run for public office now? Is Griffin screwed because he thinks of God as a sky fairy?

Adam

Reality Bytes

Iceberg! Right Ahead!

A little scene from my cruise. I am now in Anchorage and will traveling on a land tour for a few more days. I may post a few more pictures from my journey.

This picture is of a Glacier, the Hubbard Glacier to be precise.

ATP Tennis Masters starts today

For those of you that have never checked out the Tennis Masters tournament at the Lindner Center, I highly recommend it. It starts today and runs through the 21st. Other than the four grand slams, this is the tennis tournament in the world. Every major player comes here. Even if you're not a huge tennis fan, the atmosphere is almost carnival like. There's shops and activities everywhere, and ample alcohol for your desire. It's worth a day or evening just to check it out.

Adam

Reality Bytes

Alicia Reece's Residency Questioned

Something very interesting is brewing for the Reece Family. Now, if it only wasn't Nate bringing this up, it might have a lot more credibility and respectability behind it. I am not going to let a good scandal go un-noticed though, so I shall be watching how this turns out. If people remember, Damon Lynch went though something similar in 2003 when he ran the first time for City Council.

Philosophical/legal question

Over the past week the Enquirer has published two stories about males found guilty of attempted murder: Jesse Gandy and Benjamin White (I can't find the Enquirer link on the White case so I pulled the Post's). I realize they're both juveniles, but I'm not really focusing on the particulars of the case.

The greater question I've always had is, why do people get lighter sentences for attempted murder than for murder? The intent is the same; you're trying to end another person's life. That's why they call it attempted murder. Why should you get a lighter sentence because you didn't 'succeed' at it? Is there a belief that you have less of a chance of committing another crime if you didn't actually kill the person? Maybe the argument is facetious or naive, but I would really like to understand from a legal or other perspective why this is.

I'm sure some people will say, 'that's like comparing shoplifting with robbing a bank of millions'. I would say that the analogy above is more comparable to a singular murder to multiple murders. In the end the intent is still the same, you're just comparing volumes.

UPDATE: Whoops, forgot to sign the post. That happens when you blog with 4 hours sleep.

Adam

Reality Bytes

Bengals start preseason tonight

Hear that Bengal growlin'
Mean and angaree
Here he comes a prowlin'
Lean and hungaree
An offensive brute
Run pass or boot
And defensively he's rough, tough
Cincinnati Bengals
That's the team we're gonna cheer to victory
Touchdown Bengals
Get some points up on that board
And win a game for Cincinnati

Update: see above

Adam

Reality Bytes

Catastrophic CAFTA bamboozle

It looks like Bob Taft has some competition for biggest buffoon politician in Ohio. Check out this story from the Cleveland Plain-Dealer on 14th district Rep. Steve LaTourette. It's paginated, but trust me, it's worth reading. The rep changed his vote from no to yes on CAFTA, under rationale that basically either makes him look like an idiot or a liar. They report, you decide.

Adam

Reality Bytes

For those of you that don't like Bronson commentaries...

I don't have much time to comment on the Bronson column today, but I'll go out on a limb and say that if it was a Democrat governor that was embroiled in the free golf controversy, I think he would take a much harder stance on the situation than he does with Taft. Instead he plays it off like it's no big deal, and talks about something called Goofus and Gallant, which I've never heard of. Perhaps it's some 1950's cartoon, which again shows how out of touch he is with the present day. Personally I would have preferred a Heckle and Jeckle reference instead.

Adam

Reality Bytes

I can't hear you, la la la la la!

Three months ago the city of Mason passed a 9.94 mil (if someone could define a mil for me I would appreciate it) school levy by a 53-47% margin. Well now some group called the Citizens for Accountability and Results in Education (CARE) has gathered signatures to challenge the levy. They're looking to get a referendum on the Nov. 8 ballot to render the levy null and void. They might as well just call their group SCREW YOU.

Apparently this is the new right strategy to battling election results they don't like; act like it didn't happen in the first place. Notice that nowhere in the article do they challenge the validity of the results of the election. They just didn't like the outcome, so now they want to get their own measure on the ballot to see how that goes. CARE president John Meyer stated the following: "It's in bad character by school officials in trying to stop the will of the people to vote on a tax issue". Funny how he doesn't have quite the concern of stopping the will of the people when it came to the tax levy, but trying to stop the will of the people who want to stop the will of the people is in bad character. (I know people will try to compare this to the Bush/Gore election. Gore asked for a recount; that's tremendously different from this situation.)

I also wonder if this proposed referendum gets on the ballot and passes, will CARE object if Mason puts the levy back on the ballot in May? I'd say that's at least fair, it'd be a tiebreaker, best two out of three vote. That sounds silly I know, but this whole situation is as well.

Adam

Reality Bytes

Write not, lest people think ye meant what ye wrote

In yesterday's Enquirer, Charlie Winburn reacts to the controversy surrounding comments he made in his 1989 book "Ruling and Reigning in the 90's". Unfortunately for him, he then tries to re-write history by saying what he really meant by some of his statements (in the block 'if I had to rewrite that section of it). Let's check out how he trips over himself:

Selection 1
What he wrote in 1989: he decries separation of church and state, then comments how Satan wants to keep Christians out of everyday life so he can control their destiny, then finishes with a biblical quote that Satan wants control of the people and God.
What he would write in 2005: claims that separation was used to tell Christians to stay out of government, but then says all religions should participate in government.
My take: Ummm...no...separation was put in to keep religion out of government, it has nothing to do with keeping people out of government. And I don't see how the comment about Satan somehow meant that all religions should get in the game.

Selection 2
1989: the infamous passage that said Christians should clean up politics by only elect born-agains, and those who were not should be unseated.
2005: now he believes in loving kindness, and that he's tolerant of everyone, and he would rephrase that everyone should respect the laws of the land and respect each other.
My take: in the words of Chandler Bing, that is so not the same thing. His first quote had nothing to do with national law, it was about religious fanaticism. There's no love in that statement, it's practically a call to arms. Don't try and distract by changing the subject.

Selection 3
1989 old school: the pastor and his church are under commandment to teach more than itself, and if politicians are not Christians they should be taught the ways and acts of God. They should go to them aggressively, but with love.
2005 remix: It's all about the love. People in authority should be respected and people should not use religion to discriminate.
My take: wha whaa whaaat? The first passage is evangelical zealotry, but suddenly he doesn't want religion to enter into the equation. Again, distraction is the key; change the subject and all is forgiven.

So you'd think the crapfest is done? Noooooo, not even close. Charlie then whines that 'Tim Burke created this religious war' by making the book quotes public. Chuck (can I call you Chuck), the only religious war is in your mind. Tim was only revealing quotes from a book that you wrote! Don't expect to make comments like that and then not have them come back to bite you in the ass, and then try to paint yourself as the victim of a religious attack.

Adam

Reality Bytes

Open thread

Talk amongst yourselves...I'll give you a topic...an open thread is neither open nor a thread...discuss!

The worst of both worlds

Over at Naughty Pundit, Ron links to the Right Wing News (a page I think it's safe to say I wouldn't frequent regularly), which polled 47 right-wing bloggers to select their least favorite member of the right. I think it's at least good to show that the right does not view all of their members with 100% favoritism.

So on that note, I ask the lefties, who on that side of the aisle would be your least favorite. I'll toss out four:

• Howard Dean - I just feel like he's got his own personal agenda, rather than the good of the party, and he's not a good consensus builder.
• Joe Lieberman - Too damned wishy-washy, almost does a lot of things but never goes all the way.
• Jay Rockefeller - Has just gotten brutalized by Pat Roberts as co-chair of the Intelligence Committee; terribly under-skilled for the position.
• Terry McAuliffe - Head of the DNC for some of the most horrid election results in recent memory.

Fire away.

Adam

Reality Bytes

I am Alive

Just in case someone cares, I am alive and well on my vacation. Alaska is freakin' sweet! It is warm as Hell here so far, and the weatherman says things are going to continue as it has been. Once my cruise ends, I will have more to post. It is now about 1:10 AM here, and I have been drinking (shocking!) and have lost money at the casino (Also shocking!). I am having a great time and hope life in Cincinnati only sucks through next week. Hope everyone is well!

Portune won't seek state office

The Enquirer has the story:

Ending months of speculation, Hamilton County Commissioner Todd Portune has decided he won’t run for Ohio attorney general.

Now in his second four-year term as commissioner, Portune had mulled running for Ohio attorney general or possibly U.S. Senate.

“The Ohio Democratic Party was pushing, pushing, pushing me to run for attorney general,” Portune said.

Portune is the father of 9-year-old twins – a boy and a girl -- and a 5-year old special needs daughter.

“It is so important for both parents to be mindful and active in helping her development,” Portune said, just before taking his youngest to music therapy to help her develop her speech.

Respect to Todd Portune for what looks to be the right decision.

This post was made by Josh Nelson of Cincinnati News.

Malone passes drug test...woohoo!

Call me crazy...but I have the sneaking suspicion that Malone's sobriety isn't the biggest issue on the public's mind come election time.

Adam

Reality Bytes

Lemmie get this straight

After just three years on the job as city manager, City Manager Valerie Lemmie resigns and expects to be able to take seven weeks paid leave instead of working through the transition to a new manager? And she had already taken four weeks vacation this year alone? That, my friends, takes some brass ones. Call me crazy, but when you leave a job, you put in your notice and you work up to that day, and if you don't, you don't get paid.

Lemmie claims that this was Mayor Luken's idea. While I seriously doubt that it was (HR Director Carole Cunningham says that it was fair and reasonable for her to get the seven weeks paid...how I have no idea), that would be an incredibly imprudent move considering yesterday's news of the city pension shortfall.

Adam

Reality Bytes