natininja

It doesn't help when UrbanCincy demonizes events like Dinner En Blanc being held in Washington Park. If we want to change the perceptions of OTR, we should be encouraging events like that, so that they can counter balance the People's Movement protests and what not. UrbanCincy was spot-on with that. I saw that event as distasteful before I even read all the disgusting details.

I think most people accept that the most likely explanation for that fire is some shady business, but they also figure it will never be proven. Whatcha gonna do?

I LOL'd.

That ice cream cone would finally be paid for.

Is it time to pragmatically cede that preservation is not going to happen, and shift efforts to demanding quality in new construction? At least UC is building with design in mind. Private developers are tearing down beautiful structures and replacing them with utter garbage. I feel much better about the prospects for Wilson's replacement than the Goetz House's.

Indians? Moar like WINdians! amirite? Battle of Ohio. Let's bring it. Reds-Indians WS. Let's bore the nation for our own epic enjoyment :D

I don't know about you, but I've seen lesbians absolutely slay some large meals. Certainly there are many notable exceptions (Rosie O'Donnell?), but on the whole women eat fewer calories than men. The people I can think of who are really into the whole shared-plates-as-meals thing are all women, which makes sense since it's a better value proposition for someone who is happy eating less. The exception would be guys I know who like sushi.

Ha. That game was ridiculous. Reds and Bengals were both satisfying today, though. Was fun to follow the games simultaneously.

I can't stand tapas and "grazing" type meals. Appetizers and sides are great, but at a certain point I want something I can just eat the hell out of till I don't want to eat anymore. I also like having a dish of my own that I'm not sharing with others and worrying whether I'm eating too much or whether I should finish the last piece. And then there's the issue of a la carte being more expensive, generally. Yeah, so, me and tapas don't really mix. And I'm certainly not a stereotypical overweight, Midwestern, meat-and-potatoes type. This type of "meal" is nice if it's a couple hours past dinner and I'm out for drinks, but that's about the only time I find it satisfying. Also smaller bodies and correspondingly smaller appetites. It just struck me that lesbians must save a lot on food bills. And bear couples must really get killed in that area.

^ I went to public high school and had World History, where we had to memorize a map of Africa. I still did abysmally on this quiz! You can forget a lot in 15+ years.

The sign on the side of the building mentions it's been a store for over 100 years, and that it opened in 1902. So it'd have to have been open until 2002 or later.

I know!!! Argh. She should be talking about how much investment and how many jobs the streetcar has already brought, and mention how much money will be lost by canceling the project, every time she gets to rebut an answer in which Cranley mentions the streetcar. Cranley is winning this debate. She's letting him get away with his BS. Some of you may be very disconnected. People's minds are set. Roxanne is NOT going to change anyone's mind about the streetcar. Neither are we. There are people who still think the freedom center gets million in tax support a year. Roxanne telling people there has been investment along the streetcar line isn't goin to help her. They don't believe it. Talking about what a waste of money canceling the project would be is important. Cranley used this as an opportunity to rally his base. Qualls should have done that, too. The informed voters are already decided. She needed to work on reaching the uninformed voters with her big picture vision and how the streetcar and parking lease fit into that. She actually has vision, which is one of the biggests contrasts between her and Cranley. That didn't come through in this debate at all. Edit: Re:Canceling the streetcar... I missed the beginning, but did she say anything about it being like a repeat of the subway? Everyone knows how stupid the abandoned subway is, so it's a good talking point.

She did a terrible job of speaking to her base. She also did a bad job of speaking to the black community, which Cranley frequently addressed. When asked directly about black unemployment, she opted to use inclusive language, like "everyone", which maybe she thought of as less patronizing. But I think Cranley's direct language about AA's/minorities is more effective. She needs to brush up on her talking points. When asked about how to address the budget, why on earth didn't she talk about investing to expand the tax base? Yikes. How many debates are there? When is the next?

I know!!! Argh. She should be talking about how much investment and how many jobs the streetcar has already brought, and mention how much money will be lost by canceling the project, every time she gets to rebut an answer in which Cranley mentions the streetcar. Cranley is winning this debate. She's letting him get away with his BS.

^ Yuck.

So then we have to wonder why Mr. Asphalt Jerry Wray is not pursuing a policy of bike paths and fix-it-first, since opposing Cincinnati's streetcar and other passenger rail is often chalked up to his asphalt lobbyist biases. I realize the federal funding structure is stacked against fix-it-first. But other states seem to act more rationally.

Good interview. I guess it is pretty easy to just say "transportation needs more funding!" when you're bound to get enormously outsized trickle-down from that. Because of that, it seems totally believable that they're not trying to pick any fights. They simply don't have to, and it could backfire as it would frame the discussion in a way that legitimizes other modes' seats at the table. Seems fairly convincing to me. Anyone have a counter-view to back the asphalt conspiracy theory?

^ Do you think that commercial would garner the same sort of response as the one from Lee Thibodeaux in the YouTube comment section?

It just occurred to me the Enquirer is likely to endorse Qualls. Their editorial board was an early supporter of the parking lease deal (though I think they back-pedaled a bit during the controversy) and there was an unsigned editorial saying the streetcar controversy should be put to rest (despite fanning the flames to keep their bread and butter going). Since the center of Cranley's platform is opposition to both, they are most likely to support Qualls. Then there's also the fact Buchanan is on the board of 3CDC, so preaching against downtown development is unlikely. I also think they have a handle on the fact that Qualls has been involved in helping other neighborhoods, despite Crankey's assertions otherwise. They also have more to gain from keeping the "downtown vs. the neighborhoods" thing going as it's a reliably popular article theme. Since Cranley won't even support anything they can't be sure how many eyes on the pages he can garner. What would they write about if he successfully killed the streetcar? That's gotta be a crisis situation they'd rather avoid.

Media and culture are like transportation and land use -- they feed off each other.

[move]Today I Learned [ move ][/move]

“This is the kind of company we should be fighting for,” said Councilwoman Laure Quinlivan I'm curious what she means by "kind."

^ In the first pic, the tag next to SEEB looks like OHIO. I don't think it is, though. OHTO maybe?

Yeah, I just meant that, after so many posts by a user, you could allow those words to be posted. Not that I really care; it's funny to see the effects of the filtering on occasion.

For some of us, that's a selling point.