What’s In A Name

In talking about the origins of the group, he explained there was a lot of debate surrounding the name. “Initially someone proposed Citizens Organized Against All Spending and Taxes, or COAAST, but we thought it would be too over the top.” He went on to say “I thought COAST was still too obvious. I mean come on, you aren’t going to get anywhere in life coasting, and the only direction you can coast is down hill, but I was over-ruled, and turned out to be wrong.”

According to the source, the logo was also carefully designed to hint at the prank. The trajectory of the star is clearly downhill, and even includes a dead-cat bounce at the end. The original design included a shattered star, but that was changed because they felt it was too obvious.

Shining Moments

He went on to reminisce about some of his favorite moments in the organization’s history. He felt the Streetcar was a gift from above. His favorite moment was the infamous “We don’t have signs, we can’t afford signs” press conference. He continued “What people did not realize is that this was one of the best instances of performance art in the city. Tom Luken gets a lot of flack for this, but the signs were actually his idea, and he ad-libbed that entire bit on the spot. Outsiders cannot appreciate his sense of comedic timing.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muwA5wtVu4E

Decline

When asked why he was coming clean, he admitted that it just wasn’t fun anymore. He explained that they have fallen into a rut. “There is only so many times you can retweet someone complaining about something on a streetcar before even you get tired.”

He also pointed to some mistakes. “It seemed like a good idea when we decided to compare the 9/11 tragedy to the City’s policy of browning out Fire Departments. In retrospect, we really didn’t think that one through.” But the real tragedy , he admits, was trying to connect a fire death on a browned out station. “Even if it had been true, it was in bad taste, but the fact that the responsible department was working that day put it over the edge.”

He is not sure how long the others will keep things going, but he admits he is done. “I have mixed feelings about the whole experience. It was a lot of fun at times, but it was also depressing that the general public didn’t catch on to the joke. I always felt uncomfortable when I ran into committed folks that were not in on the joke.”

He imagines that his decision to out the organization will not be popular with the group. He tried to get them to come to a consensus to reveal the prank, but in the end he decided it was time, and today was the day to announce it.

According to Citybeat:

A resident has filed a complaint with the city’s Law Department, alleging that Christopher Smitherman’s dual role as a Cincinnati city councilman and president of the NAACP’s local chapter constitutes an abuse of corporate powers.

 

In his complaint, resident Casey Coston states that the NAACP’s status as a 501(c)(4) organization under the federal tax code allows it to lobby City Hall and participate in political campaigns and elections without jeopardizing its tax-exempt status. Such activities are a conflict of interest with Smitherman’s council duties, Coston alleges.

 

The letter was sent today to City Solicitor John Curp by J. Thomas Hodges, Coston’s attorney. It asks Curp to review the matter and also seek an injunction preventing Smitherman from serving as chapter president. Further, it wants Curp to seek an advisory opinion from the Ohio Ethics Commission.

This is more than a little amusing because it’s the same brand of complaint that Smitherman’s COAST friends love to file  (If you’re not familiar with their relationship, Smitherman and COAST buddied up against both streetcar/transit ballot issues, and COAST has been happy to heap praise on him lately).  Just a couple of weeks ago, COAST honcho Mark Miller filed a complaint with the city over Laure Quinlivan and her city-paid staff accessing her campaign website on city time. Quinlivan was fined $1500.13 (the 13 cents was for the bandwidth; yes, I’m being completely serious), and the city was forced to pay $10,000 in legal fees. This is obviously a completely different kind of concern, but it’s certainly the sort of thing that I’d wager COAST would be pumping themselves up over while crying “Corruption!” if it were any other councilperson.

Now, following my usual I’m-not-even-close-to-being-a-lawyer disclaimer, I have to say that it’s easy for me to imagine a scenario where this is found to be a conflict of interest on some level, based on the amount of flak that the NAACP’s fellow 501(c)(4), the AARP, takes on a regular basis without any of it’s leaders actually being in government. On the other hand, if it was that cut-and-dried, I feel like it would’ve come up during the last election. I’ll leave any deeper analysis to the experts.

It will be interesting to see how this winds up playing out. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the NAACP, and I would hate to see their name muddied over a political ethics issue. That being said, though, I think Coston’s question is more than fair. Personally, I oppose just about every policy angle that’s come out of Smitherman’s mouth in the last two years, and disagreeing with him is one thing, but Smitherman’s associations with COAST make me ask some questions about how much I can trust him as an official in general, regardless of whether or not there’s actually an abuse of power occurring (and I haven’t heard anyone directly claim that there is). I was a little surprised that he didn’t just flat-out quit the presidency when he won a seat on council, thinking that this might be an obvious point of attack for opponents. Whatever the outcome winds up being, I hope for the sake of both the city and the NAACP that it’s reached with a  minimum of political mudslinging. I think the letter itself says it best (again from Citybeat):

“The NAACP is an important institution in our nation and the city of Cincinnati. My client holds such (an) institution in the highest regard and has the utmost respect for its mission and role in the community. Neither the city of Cincinnati nor the NAACP’s integrity or authority should be compromised by conflicted leadership. Therefore, it is imperative that the city of Cincinnati investigate and take action to alleviate my client’s concerns on behalf of all citizens of the city of Cincinnati”

UPDATE: 16 FEBRUARY: It turns out that there’s a good reason I’m not a lawyer. According to the Enquirer, City Solicitor John Curp says that Smitherman is not violating any ethics rules:

A letter from City Solicitor John Curp responding to streetcar advocate and blogger Casey Coston’s concerns about Smitherman said that since the city does not have any contracts with the NAACP, there is no conflict.

 

The letter, sent to Coston’s lawyer last Thursday, does note Smitherman should not vote on any issues raised in council that directly involve the NAACP.

 

Paul Nick, the executive director of the Ohio Ethics Commission, told the Enquirer last week that his staff looked into the issue after reading about Coston’s letter.

 

“It would be the same rules, for example, if someone also was a member of the board of the American Cancer Society,” Nick said. “Direct incompatibility? No. Abstentions? Yes.”

Curp said Cincinnati currently has no contracts with the NAACP.

 

“It’s not an issue because we don’t have anything that involves the NAACP in front of city council,” Curp said.

The powers-that-be have spoken on this, and while I may not be thrilled with the answer, the complaint did draw public attention to possibility of a future conflict of interest, so I wouldn’t call it a total loss.

I’ll try to keep this rant to food.

I’ve been preaching about the local foods movement and local business in general, not because it is cool but because it trumps the corporate counterparts by the presence of COMPASSION and that their bottom line isn’t the only line they care about. Have you caught any of the articles tattling on the sometimes disgusting antics of Big Ag and Big Food? Did you hear about the company that re-processed gallons of moldy applesauce to ship to schools? Or the countless recalls of E. Coli-tainted meats and vegetables that somehow still manage to get to the public? Maybe you’ve seen these corporate food lies: your “freshly” squeezed orange juice that has actually sat in a vat for up to a year, your meats that get doused with ammonia , the cellulose and other industrial by-products that find their way into more processed food than you would like to know about. Why isn’t this squawked about on mainstream news?

“So what can I do about this and why should I care?” you might say. “Eating healthy / organic / local is too expensive and I don’t have the time / desire / know-how to cook.”

My shopping reflects my values and I vote with my pocketbook. Start small and don’t try to re-invent the wheel in a week. I would rather spend an hour cooking something for my family than watching TV, but that’s me.

Don’t like factory farms? Seek out a local market and shop there. Spending money with local retailers strengthens the community and is a slap in the face of recession. Start a vegetable garden, and share your bounty with your neighbors – defy the “bedroom community” label and chat in person. Know that if we don’t start giving a damn about what we purchase, and where it comes from – that the quality of these things will continue to tank. The rich will get richer from our apathy. Our economy is based almost entirely on us buying stuff, so make every dollar count!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsNUqK6saMU

This video of a farmer addressing the NYC Occupy group nearly got me bawling. I can’t help but feel sickened and a little enraged every time I hear a sound bite about how unorganized the movement is, or the “But what do they stand for?” bullshit. The food lies are as insidious as the lies about “trickle-down economics” – don’t believe the hype. There has been a great interview with Chris Hedges making the rounds that I think hits the mark, and I will leave you with this quote from his book, Losing Moses on the Freeway: The 10 Commandments in America:
“We watch impassively as the wealthy and the elite, the huge corporations, rob us, ruin the environment, defraud consumers and taxpayers and create an exclusive American oligarchy that fuses wealth and political power. We watch passively because we believe we can enter the club. It is greed that inspires us. It is greed that keeps us silent. Our greed is devouring us.”

Cheers-

Dark Martha

Conscious Urban Living

Carriage House Farm

PS – If you are in the Cincy area, and are interested in getting that garden going, join me for my class series coming up in a few weeks.

Note: This is Part II of the piece that I composed with Zac from Fatal Downflaw. The article will be posted on both sites. Part I can be found here.

Portrayal in the Media
With mega-conglomerate-controlled mainstream news media being the norm for America, it comes as little surprise that  Occupy Cincinnati has some very strong feelings about their portrayal in local media. All present felt like the media was almost waiting in the wings for the group’s next big action – probably hoping for some more arrests or similar fireworks.

Sonnet: “In Cincinnati, one of the things I’ve been surprised at is how much the media picked us up in the beginning. A lot of that had to do with the fact that Wall Street had been going on for several weeks, so we didn’t get blacklisted like they did in the initial phases of Wall Street. That being said, the overall tenor I would say has been very negative as of late, but we’re still getting coverage. I mean, we still have people picking us up on a regular basis, we still get press calls all the time. One of the things that we’re going to have to constantly battle is that the Enquirer… their board is incredibly conservative… and members of their board are also members of 3CDC, so we’re gonna have to constantly battle that, but we still have great independent sources like The Beacon, StreetVibes, even CityBeat has done a pretty good job covering us, so I take heart in that.”

Chelsea: “We’re all kind of waiting to get arrested again, too”

As expected by the Occupiers, there was another round of Occupy Cincinnati arrests a few days after Chelsea made that statement. Along with their definitive feelings about local media, when asked if there was anything that they felt that the media was getting particularly wrong or particularly right when characterizing the movement, there were immediate complaints and similarly immediate dismissal of comparisons to the Tea Party, and some other issues:

Sonnet: “I’ve been asked so many times, even by you guys, ‘What’s your end goal, what’s the point, why are you out there, what’s your message’ and there was a great article on Slate.com about how journalists are either plugging their ears, closing their eyes, or just being lazy because we’ve been telling people over and over and over again that we’re out here because we’re the 99%, because we believe in putting people before profits, et cetera, but nobody can understand those large concepts, or they’re unwilling to. So that’s my little soapbox about Cincinnati media because they are so not getting it yet.”

Aaron: “Also, there are other people out in the community who have access to these media channels and influence over these media channels, so while we were occupying in the park, this narrative came out that the park was a mess, that people were pissing in the alleys, that there were rats everywhere, and that’s just not true…. That’s been a cohesive message from the people that oppose us throughout the country; that the Occupation is dirty, it has all these homeless people involved, and it’s just gross. That’s just way overblown.”

One thing that does seem to have been portrayed accurately by the media is that their relationship with the police has been pretty cordial. Aaron even described it as “good” between them and the rank-and-file officers. They emphasized that these rank-and-file officers were themselves part of the 99% that they claimed to represent, and Chelsea mentioned a couple of extremely positive personal conversations that she’d had with police.

On Location
We were curious about how the decision to Occupy Piatt Park had been made, and how their removal from that park had affected their day-to-day activities. Aaron, Josh and Justin explained that they had originally chosen to occupy Fountain Square, but had left after one night out of respect for a breast cancer benefit that was taking place the next day. Piatt Park was their second choice of location, but it stuck until they were prevented (via arrests) from being in the park after hours. While they still use the park during it’s open hours, they claim that the park was cleaner and had less crime (zero, actually) while they were staying there 24 hours a day than it does under normal circumstances.

Aaron: “(The removal) has negatively impacted the park. It’s also negatively impacted us. I mean, it’s a central organizing principle for the Occupy movement, and it’s difficult to work around not having 30-50 people in the park at all times.”

Opposition
Occupy Cincinnati was the target of it’s fair share of complaints. We asked about one in particular that was echoed by some local politicians, and given quite a bit of press in the local media: that the local businesses felt that OC’s presence in Piatt Park was detrimental to business.

Aaron: Sorry ‘bout it. I mean, really, free speech and freedom of assembly is an inherent right of Americans, and I feel like of people around the world… If they’re minorly inconvenienced by it, I think it’s a small price to pay for the First Amendment. We get a free society out of it, and sorry that your front lawn looks like crap.

Josh: But it doesn’t even, and to refer to them as “local businesses” is a little capacious, because it’s not all local businesses. There are plenty of local businesses here who like and support us. The prime people who complain are these large, money-interested property owners who have building spaces. I mean, we could name the Bortz family and their Towne Property interest as one; LPK, which is a big design and branding firm which works mainly for P&G. Those are the primary people who are concerned about our presence here, because they also don’t like our message.

We also asked about concerns that had been raised, primarily by Leslie Ghiz and Wayne Lippert, that other, less desirable protesters would have to be shown similar deference if Occupy Cincinnati were allowed to remain in Piatt Park 24/7.

Aaron: This is the whole Ku Klux Klan argument, which is “If we let you guys do this, what’s stopping the Ku Klux Klan from doing this?” And my response is: nothing. You know, as horrible and ignorant and vile as they are, I, albeit grudgingly, have to respect their First Amendment rights. I think it’s a human right, and while some of it makes me personally uncomfortable, I’ve been put in this weird position of supporting their right to say the dumbass shit that they say.

Josh: It’s a straw-man that they’ve set up. It’s not a real argument. He’s not put in the position of supporting the KKK. It’s a straw-man argument that the city likes to trot out because of their history on Fountain Square.

Justin: If you believe in free speech, you believe in free speech for everybody. You don’t just believe in free speech for people that you agree with; you agree with free speech and the freedom of people that you totally disagree with. If you’re a country that values free speech, and we are, then there’s free speech for everybody and everybody has the right to peaceably assemble.

This exchange prompted us to ask if they felt that there were any local politicians who had expressed support for their movement. Justin mentioned that Chris Smitherman and Chris Seelbach had spoken out in support of their right to occupy the park, and that they’d been visited by Cecil Thomas as well. Everyone went to great pains to point out that Occupy doesn’t endorse specific candidates, mainly because they feel that any endorsements would exclude too many people; remember, 90% of them have to agree on anything they do. The same thinking didn’t apply, however, to candidates who they felt had worked against them publicly. They spoke out against Ghiz, Lippert, Bortz, and Murray (none of the four were reelected).

Today and Tomorrow
Occupy Cincinnati’s response to the November 15th early morning removal of Occupy Wall Street’s encampment from Zucotti park was essentially immediate; that night 15 OC protesters sat, arms locked, around the James A. Garfield statue facing Vine street, and were arrested for civil disobedience – being in the park after 10:00 PM. Earlier that day, the Rev. Jesse Jackson had approached Josh Spring at the Greater Cincinnati Coalition for the Homeless about connecting locally, and had spoken to Occupy Cincinnati the evening of the 14th, and then again on the 15th after a participating in the Postal Worker’s Union march that day.

Aaron: “Things just fell into place that way, we had the arrests planned, and then  in the middle of the day we’re all ‘what the fuck Jesse Jackson is going to be here!?’ It says a lot that he spent the bulk of his time in the city with Occupy Cincinnati and the Postal Worker’s Union march – which is something that OC was heavily involved in.  What was remarkable was how much he means to so many people.  What he’s done, accomplished, represents… I got out of the way so some of my friends could be closer to him when he was speaking because it was literally a religious experience for some of them. I mean, the man marched with Martin Luther King, you know? He’s got all the street cred in the world.”

Some might question Adbuster’s push to start the Occupy movement in mid-September- though certainly it’s blossoming into an international phenomenon wasn’t planned. Staring down a Midwestern winter, it can’t be encouraging to imagine spending the entire winter as part of a movement that has come to be known for persistent outdoor presence.

Aaron: “We’ll wear coats, the cold sucks. We’re investigating some indoor spaces that will allow us to return to focus on organizing 24/7. We’re also looking at occupying some foreclosed homes or throughout the city, you know, direct action. We want to draw attention to what’s been going on in some of these specific situations – whatever it takes to effect people’s lives for the better.”

In early December, the Occupy movement is two and a half months old. Elections have come and gone, and none of the groups – Occupy Cincinnati included – are making daily headlines – though certainly incidents like the UC Davis pepper spraying have ensured that the public hasn’t forgotten about the Occupiers.  So what’s next for Occupy Cincinnati?

Aaron: “We won big in the local elections last month. If just one of Lippert, Ghiz, Murray, or Bortz had failed to be re-elected, it would have been huge for us. but all four? We might still be in Piatt Park if not for the motions those four supported in City Council. Chris Bortz and Towne Properties [the Bortz family has controlling interest in Towne Properties, which owns several properties around Piatt Park], how is that not a conflict of interest? Anyway, coming up we’ll be in court for the next few moths, you can count on that – a lot of stuff going on. We’ve got fresh batches of charges from recent arrests, so they’ll be even slower to come around. Our cases have already come up once, and the city asked for continuances, out through the first of the year.  Maybe they’re concerned about the rulings, you’d have to ask them. But our long term goal is what’s been said over and over: we want to get money out of politics, and have government be responsive to people, not to dollars.

Note: This profile was a collaboration between Zac from Fatal Downflaw and myself. This article will be cross-posted on both sites. Additionally, there was such an abundance of material that we opted to split it into two parts. The first runs today, the second will run tomorrow.

It’s a chilly night on Vine Street, but the Occupy Cincinnati (OC) members, gathered at the base of the Garfield statue, take little notice – they’re used to inclement weather. We sit down with Aaron, Sonnet, Chelsea, Molly, Josh, and Justin. Our first lesson about Occupy Cincinnati is that they’re tight knit, and as we quickly learn, each other’s greatest supporters. Our second lesson is that  we’re not going to get any one-on-one time with any of them – so our conversation is with the group.

All politics aside, and I’ll admit up front that I don’t agree with Leslie on much of anything, this is way over the top even for her. She’s well within her rights to post just about anything on any of her social media outlets (and she has), but it is unthinkable and inexcusable for an elected official to publish the names, addresses, and email addresses of at least two constituents who were simply angry about her calling for either the removal of Occupy Cincinnati protesters or a no-confidence vote in the City Manager.

The offending posts have since been deleted (or at least removed from public view), but her Facebook wall is public; anyone could have seen them, and even if the posts had been privacy-restricted, publishing that information at all was, frankly, the height of irresponsibility. I can’t imagine that anyone submits their name and address, accompanied by any kind of message, to an elected official’s website with the expectation that it might be made public. The fact that she went so far as to ridicule them while she was doing it is almost secondary in my mind, though it is more than a little disappointing. Sure, everyone makes mistakes, even big ones, but I find it unsettling that someone whom the people have entrusted with a Council seat is possessed of judgement this poor.

I’ve emailed the campaign office (being careful to remove personal information from my signature) for a comment or explanation, and I’ll update if and when they get back to me.

I was horribly disappointed, though, with how the process evolved. The originally agreed upon process in which dues paying members like you had a 100% say in the PACs endorsement eroded, thanks to petty partisan politicking by several board members, many of whom have pledged their support to specific candidates. I am sad to report that the membership vote in the endorsement process will count for a paltry and inadequate 45% of the overall endorsement score that is used to choose CincyPAC endorsed candidates. In other words, an unelected Board of 12 has decided that they know better than you, and will weight their vote in the process more heavily.

 

I was even more disappointed when a board member suggested that we keep our algorithm secret from our membership and the candidates seeking the endorsement. Even more discouraging was the suggestion that we count the votes first, and once the results were known by the board, the weight of the members vote could be changed to influence the final result.

Ms. Roberto goes on to advise her readers that their money would be better spent on individual candidates, and referred to the remaining Board of Directors as a “Soviet-style group of ruling elites”. This reference was pounded home by a graphic of a Soviet hammer and sickle replacing the final “C” in CincyPAC (a sure sign of a reasoned, level-headed argument, right?).

CincyPAC, as one might expect, has a somewhat different view of their process. From the response posted on the CincyPAC website:

The organization’s endorsement process was thoughtfully and thoroughly crafted to vet candidates on their positioning as it relates to our six core values. The CincyPAC board voted and approved changes to the endorsement process this year to maintain and enhance the integrity of the process.

 

After the process was approved, we distributed an eleven-question questionnaire to all Cincinnati City Council candidates on August 29. Candidates who filled out the questionnaire and submitted prior to our September 5 deadline were invited to participate in an in-person, videotaped interview with further questioning related to CincyPAC core values. Candidate endorsements were distributed after tabulating results for membership vote (45 percent), question and answer scoring (35 percent). The board vote made up for 20 percent of the endorsement decision process.

 

Since 2009, CincyPAC has always offered a weighted endorsement process, with membership receiving the largest percentage of the determination. The organization does not allow membership to be the sole deciding factor in the endorsement process as a safeguard to ensure the process cannot be manipulated by an organized effort. We operate as a PAC with established core values, and endorse candidates who represent the YP voice and interest.

That may not be a specific denial of Ms. Roberto’s accusations, but I think it’s safe to say that it’s more a case of CincyPAC not deigning to answer charges they consider to be non-credible rather than one of them avoiding the question. The reason I think that’s the case is that Ms. Roberto is apparently co-hosting an upcoming fundraiser for COAST, a political group which is demonstrably dishonest. This is also relevant to a response that Ms. Roberto posted to CincyPAC’s statement, where she again accused the remaining directors of being “biased” and “partisan”. If COAST’s public statements are any indication, and presuming Ms. Roberto subscribes to a fair number of the viewpoints of the group that she’s hosting a fundraiser for, she is likely just as “guilty” of being biased and partisan as any member of the Board of Directors currently sitting. At the very least, it draws into question any accusations of extreme bias coming from her corner.

That being said, I think Ms. Roberto does make a fair point about the Board’s weighting of their endorsement selections if in fact the membership was led to believe their vote was/would be the primary deciding factor. I attempted to contact CincyPAC to get their position on this and received no reply, but according to their own math, unless the questionnaire is somehow compiled or voted upon by the membership, the CincyPAC Board does at least influence, if not control, 55% of the vote. That makes their assertion that “membership recieves the largest percentage of the determination” questionable at best. However, I also feel that CincyPAC makes a fair point about why they do things the way that they do. If a PAC committed to particular “core values” has an endorsement process that is mostly or completely based on the votes of members, there’s very little (if anything) to prevent a large-enough group of people  with $25 to burn from co-opting the group and pulling it away from those values, and that would most certainly defeat the original purpose of the PAC.

It’s also worth noting that CincyPAC did give money to three Republicans in 2009. Murray, Ghiz, and Zamary (frankly, I was shocked to see Ghiz on the list) each received $250 of the $1700 that was spread out among seven candidates. Their contributions for 2011 have either not yet been made or are not yet accessible from the City’s website, but their endorsements for this year only include one Republican, Catherine Mills. Mills has connections with the group, and as Griff at Cincinnati Blog observes, those connections could have as much or more to do with her endorsement than her positions on CincyPAC’s core issues. Yes, they did go from three Republicans out of seven down to one, but that could simply be due to the current composition of the group as opposed to what it was 2009, or the fact that, frankly, most of this years Republican candidates seem to have gone out of their way to oppose many of CincyPAC’s stated values. At any rate, it certainly doesn’t prove “bias” on the part of the Board.

How much does all of this matter in the grand scheme of Cincinnati politics? It’s debatable, but probably not a great deal right now. CincyPAC’s statements make it sound like they want to become a driving force in government in the city, but they’re not there yet. As I noted above, I have no idea what kind of money they’re kicking around this year, but as of the ’09 election, they’re still being dwarfed by union and corporate PAC’s in terms of contributions. That’s certainly to be expected, as those groups wield massive massive memberships and checkbooks, and CincyPAC was right on par with other citizen/special interest PAC’s at the time (including COAST). On the face of it, there’s no reason they can’t grow to be a force in the future, and I think they’re worth following if you’re interested and/or invested in the city.

In that vein, though, I should point out that while I was doing research and talking to people about the story, the impression that I got from almost everyone familiar with the group was resoundingly negative. “Exclusive social club” was a phrase used more than once, and the sentiment that “diversity” was being talked about more than it was being pursued was repeated several times from both sides of the proverbial aisle. Obviously, this doesn’t even remotely resemble a scientific survey, and the sample size was super small (seven or eight people that I spoke to personally, plus numerous tweets on the topic). It means nothing on it’s own, and to be clear, I’ve never met anyone who was associated with CincyPAC in person, and I’m not a member, so I have no opinion on whether those sentiments are indeed accurate or not. It’s entirely possible that I just happened upon the people that were dissatisfied and thus the most vocal about it. If I were CincyPAC though, I think that I’d at least be trying to determine whether or not I have an image problem, and be working on ways to solve it quickly if I did. I hope that they’re able to work it out if they do. They support values that, at least in my opinion, the vast majority of urban voters can and will get behind. They just need to find a way to cater to a large enough group of people. If they can pull that off somehow, I believe it would be of immeasurable benefit to our city.

According to Pat Clifford of the Enquirer, the new district map (known technically as HB 319), makes 14 of our 16 districts “generally uncompetitive” or “highly uncompetitive”; that is to say, outcomes are projected to differ by at least 10-15 percentage points, which is an absolute landslide by most metrics. As Mr. Clifford astutely points out, this also has the effect of marginalizing both independent voters and moderates (that is, people with a weaker party identification than most) all across the state. There’s no longer any need to cater to them if your reelection is all but assured by the number of people who vote for a particular party every time they come out.

That is a serious problem. History is full of examples of the bad things that happen when moderates lose their voice in government, and I think it would be hard to argue that our current House reps have acted with moderates in mind even under the current districts. If you share the sentiment that Congress has gone careening off of the rails in the last couple of years (and as of August, many people did), my guess is that the trend only gets worse among reps from Ohio once these districts take effect. Honestly, even if I was represented by a someone who shared my personal political beliefs today, I’d still be concerned by the lack of counterbalance.

The bottom line is  that most of us believe in (and believe that we’re participating in) a system where the voters choose the candidate, but if this map is any indication of how said system operates, it would appear that the tables have been turned, at least to a point. I’m not saying that world will end because of this, but by the same token, I think that if you consider yourself a concerned voter of any stripe, it’s an issue that you ought to watch very carefully. I sincerely hope that I’m just being a little paranoid, but again, if history has taught us anything, it’s that politicians are far more likely to be co-opted by special interests if they feel comfortable that they can win re-election regardless of how detrimental their actions are to their constituents.

Update 14 Sept: Mark Miller has essentially admitted that his tweets were misleading in an interview with Channel 12. “Yea, they can’t take fire department salaries and go out and buy rails with it. I admit that. That’s exactly right, but that’s not what they’re doing. They’re taking money that should be spent on salaries and buying a study.” That’s not what you’ve been saying though, Mark. Hat tip to 5chw4r7z for pointing this out.

I’ve seen my share of offensive things on Twitter. It’s likely that I’ve posted a few things myself that people found distasteful. That being said, yesterday I saw something that seriously boiled my blood. Honestly, I waffled on writing about it at all. I’d hate to contribute to getting them any publicity, but I think it’s important for everyone to see exactly what lengths COAST will go to in their attempt to win fraudulently sway hearts and minds to their side.

I understand that the streetcar is a contentious issue. I happen to support it, but I’ll also be the first to admit that it’s possible for a rational person to oppose the idea, and that’s fine. That’s what debates and public forums are for. However, COAST has dedicated itself to flat-out spreading lies regarding how the project has been funded up to this point. Funds for construction come of out of a fund that cannot legally be used to to fund firefighting (or police, etc and so on). Fire companies are not being browned-out to support streetcar construction. It’s simply not true. This is, quite simply, a step too far in the debate (if it even continues to be a “debate” once you’ve lied as much as these guys have). Having an opinion and spreading lies about it is one thing. Co-opting a national tragedy and diminishing it by dishonoring it’s memory through associating your lies with it is quite another.

It’ll be interesting to see if there’s any fallout for them from this, particularly among the politicians they endorse. I suppose it all depends on whether or not the media picks up on it, and I doubt that a lone Twitter shenanigan, no matter how vile, will hit the radar. If it does though, I wonder if the council-people they back will start jumping ship, or at the very least ask them to keep their endorsement to themselves. Personally, I’d have a pretty tough time voting for anyone who knowingly associated themselves with this garbage, but maybe that’s just me. I hope that it isn’t.

If you follow me on Twitter, then you already know that my other passions are news, politics, and sports. Politically, I’m a lefty on just about everything, but I find that distinction less important than any debate itself; I’m interested in making my own judgments based on the best facts available. It’s my ardent belief that folks who simply parrot the talking points of their cable news network-of-choice are just adding the background noise and preventing meaningful discourse. Most media pundits do it too, and if you made me list things that were gumming up the political process in this country, that would rank close to the top. You’ll likely see me address things like that on occasion as well.

Ask a Cincinnati sports fan to describe their fandom in a single word, and you’ll likely get “frustration”, or another F-word closely related to it, as an answer better than 50% of the time. It’s not that I don’t share that frustration; I most certainly do. As I write this, I’m watching the Reds’ season end with the most humble of whimpers, and I’ll comment on that sort of thing from time to time. However, I also like to remind the pessimists that Cincy is also home to the Cincinnati Cyclones, a team that has captured one more national championship than both of their major league Cincinnati counterparts combined since they were founded in 1990. It’s not all bad, and I’ll likely chime in on that from time to time as well.

That’s me and what I typically like to write about in a nutshell. I’d like to thank Loki for this opportunity to comment at length regarding our fair city, and I’m looking forward to doing just that. Cheers!