LincolnKennedy

That doesn't really make sense...if they were direct decendents of the Cincinnati Red Stockings, that would make them the second oldest professional baseball team behind the Red Stockings. I've never heard that statement before...I've always understood that the Red Stockings were the first/oldest professional team. The 1869 Cincinnati team was the first fully paid (i.e. professional) baseball team. In 1870, the club dropped it's professional status, and Harry Wright (the manager) was hired to organize a new team in Boston, for which he hired three old Cincinnati teammates including his brother, George. He brought the nickname with him as well, calling his team the Boston Red Stockings, which was fielded in 1871. When the National League was organized in 1876, the Boston Red Stockings were one of its original teams, eventually their nickname changed before finally settling on Braves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Braves The original name of the Chicago Cubs was the Chicago White Stockings. When the American League began invading old National League turf in 1899-1900, the teams they put in Chicago and Boston took the old nicknames of the National League teams in those cities.

This might be the funniest thing ever written on UO, outside of my posts.

So does anyone here have any experience on a BRT system? Does it require building it's own separate roadway?

Interesting fact: the Braves are the oldest professional team in baseball, a direct decendent of George and Harry Wright's 1869 Cincinnati Red Stockings.

American military support to the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) began during the Eisenhower administration. I think that by the time of Kennedy's death the number of "advisors" was up to 11,000. It's always fun for partisans to blame a single person, but the fact is that the ever-increasing American involvement in Vietnam was encouraged by the broad U.S. post-Second World War consensus. Kennedy should have known better about what he was doing (he was arguably the most informed legislator, both as a congressman and as a senator, on the issue of Vietnam); as the most political of generals, Eisenhower should certainly have known better; and even the Truman administration knew that the aid they were giving France in support of the anti-Soviet alliance was going to fight their colonial war against the Vietminh, despite the fact that the U.S. refused to support that war outright. These caveats aside, it was during Lyndon Johnson's administration that American involvement was expanded to where it became the war that we are talking about. The Iraq War Resolution of 2002 is stupidly similar to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution of 1964. Both times Congress effectively handed over it's war powers to a deceitful Texan. Nicely put. What I've always been amazed about is how most of those columnists continue to work and be taken seriously when their predictions consistantly fail to occur. Their job is to be predictive, yet when their statements do not come to pass, there is no penalty. They don't lose their jobs, or have their salary reduced. Same thing with a lot of sports announcers. Hell would be me stuck in a room with Tim McCarver and Charles Krauthammer (Wash. Post) without duct tape and a screwdriver.

^All of this crap you wrote was false. We didn't need more bombs; strategic bombing has never been successful (at least not until this war, with the integration of GPS http://www.slate.com/id/2162791/). Also, North Vietnam didn't have the industrial infrastructure that bombers were designed to destroy. "More warlike actions"? What the hell does this mean? What sort of strategy does this imply? A "war of posts" like Washington decided upon after the British utilized their superior mobility to capture New York and nearly destroy the Continental Army? Or the strategy of constant attrition (and I don't mean this in the usual pejorative sense that people imply when they speak of U.S. Grant) that was embodied in Grant's order to Meade: "Lee's Army will be your main objective point."? The U.S. was unsuccessful in Vietnam because the Vietminh represented the future and were a modern force fighting modern enemies (and they defeated the French, the U.S. and the Chinese in turn) with a modern political system. They recognized their strength, and created one of the world's great infantries and used it to great success. The South Vietnamese government was merely a hodge-podge of people generally opposed to the Communists. It represented only this, was a semi-feudal system, knew none of their strengths, had none, and was therefore unsuccessful. As bad as the U.S. conception, execution and ever-evolving justification of this ridiculous war in Iraq is, the fact is that the mayhem that exists over here exists because Iraqis are killing Iraqis. Iraqi civilian deaths far outnumber American deaths, so most of the violence isn't being used to expel the invader, it's being used to terrify and expel the neighbor. The fact is that there is a power vacuum in Iraq and the opportunity for the United States to fill that vacuum has passed. The insurgents and militias have the strategic initiative vis-a-vis coalition forces. We respond to their attacks. Also, the Shia goverment with whom the U.S. is ostensibly allied, is either engaging in or passively allowing ethnic/sectional cleansing. This sullies the United States (not to mention goes against the stated goals of the coalition). This is similar to the Vietnam conflict, in that the U.S. states is allied to a government that is not a government in any sense of the word conceived by the average American. Thankfully, the opposition elements don't have the strength, focus, discipline or goals of the Vietminh. In this way the conflict differs greatly from Vietnam. In my opinion, the United States, while staying heavily engaged in regional diplomacy, needs to begin withdrawing from Iraq. By withdrawing, we will actually be regaining the initiative- notice how the insurgents/militias disperse when confronted with a large American force. They do this to allow them to keep the initiatives, so that we always fight them on their terms. Granted, withdrawal is always a move associated with some weakness, but to recognize ones weakness and play to ones strength is the essence of good strategy. The United States has many more strengths than the insurgents/militias do, but maintaining basic law and order, i.e. policework, is not something that the U.S. military is well equipped to do. And it is nearly impossible for it to do it when there is no effective local power that shares our goals. Nixon was a douchebag but Bush can't hold a candle to him. Nixon went to China. That's grand strategy, highly successful and relevant.

^Wow. That's Stalinesque. I never would have guessed you for it.

I just walked it in 1:28. I''m not good with arbitrary sub-neighborhood district boundaries. It's the same problem you have with phases. You get distracted. Focus, man.

Interesting. I shall try this. I should be around women in about two months and I've been collecting and assessing pick up lines. Two others are currently in the arsenal: Assertive: "Go out with me. It's the right thing to do." Rakish: "Hi. Can I buy you a house?" And now this.

I'm going to take a minute here to sound like a real prick. So you are for pork spending when it is for something you want, but you don't want an earmark for minority inclusion because it is "anti-capitalist?" (By the way, the racial distribution for Cincinnati is around 50-50. Why would we use a national percentage for a local project?) News flash to everyone who is pro-business: we live in a capitalist system. That doesn't mean that an investment is "capitalist" when the funds come solely from a private corporation or partnership. Government debts, liabilities, expenditures and taxes are all an integral part of the capitalist system. A government investment is just as much of a capitalist enterprise (notice how the plan expects future phases of the plan to be implemented from the proceeds of the investment, a dead giveaway) as a private investment, and generally government investment creates the structure that allows private investments to flourish. The reason more people have more say in a government investment is because most Americans believe government is the common property of all, for the common benefit of all. That's why we expect laws to enforced equally. That is why the NAACP is advocating for minority inclusion in this project- so that they don't get cut out of the loop. That's also why we have competitive bidding, so government contracts aren't rewarded to cronies of the politicians. Competitive bidding isn't more capitalist than simply choosing a supplier/contractor/whatever. Do private firms have the same competitive bidding processes for outsourcing and the like as governments do? I doubt it.

Well, Cramer I guess you don't hold enough water to call out the enforcers to get this thread back on topic. And by the way, Bill Cunningham is simply an entertainer. One day he was talking trash about Cincinnati Public Schools so I got pissed off enough to call in and after a minute and a half of the incisive logic and muscular rationality that I bring to these situations Big Willie was asking me to date his daughter. If you don't believe me just ask my cousin. He heard the whole thing as he was driving back home from Walnut Hills High School.

^One leg stuck in Bavaria. Very nice! I was impressed someone from outside the city wrote such a detailed article about our town. Somewhat cliched but somewhat trenchant. I liked how he called us a virtual nation-state. It was nice to see that someone else noticed the Josh Hamilton/Chris Henry dichotomy (reference the Banks development thread), even if Daugherty dismisses it.

Dude, I could get you an equestrian statue of Grant by three o'clock this afternoon. With monumental plinth. There definitely needs to be a real idea as to what this public space is going to be used for, and it's design needs to reflect that. Otherwise, so called public space quickly becomes a killer of actual public life. Anyone who has tramped through the windblown and desolate Boston City Hall Plaza to get to Fanueil Hall just as a bunch of people are leaving their swearing-in ceremony to become new citizens and subsequently gets fired up with patriotic fervor in the birthplace of our nation's Revolution knows exactly what I'm talking about. I don't think the developers, nor unfortunately, our political leaders, really get that. They seem to be hoping for any development at all which they can then heap superlatives on. I'm pretty sure that the old Richardsonian Chamber of Commerce building burnt down well before the Riverfront was "refurbished". I think it stood on 4th Street, where PNC Bank Building now is. Despite UncleRando's comments I too believe this is a mistake. If we are seriously going to build a streetcar that's terminus will be on the north end of this two block development, then we don't need on street or surface lot parking. That streetcar should be built with the purpose of reducing trips by car. It's prospective route allows for access to residence, retail, grocery and one of the two largest employment areas in the region, as well as most of the major local cultural institutions. The only major institution/service that is not linked to the prospective streetcar system is a direct mode of transit to the airport. I repeat: parking in this development should be to create revenues for the local government (hopefully as part of an all-incompasing transportation plan/authority), not as infrastructure to support housing at the Banks. Why should the city/county favor a resident on 2nd street with free amenities that one on 4th, 9th, or 12th Streets does not receive?

I can't believe how much ground level parking is being provided. It is ridiculous. What lines of communication are there between the city's planned Streetcar line terminating immediately in front of this development and the county and the builders? I suspected the relationship between MARTA and these developers was b.s. I'm of a mind to actually write the commissioners, though I doubt that will do any good.

^Sweet fancy Moses! What sort of free-market Republican came up with that little bit of social welfare? Perhaps one who works as director of development for Paul Brown stadium: http://www.bengals.com/team/FrontOffice.asp I suppose I shouldn't cast stones though. I did vote for that sales tax increase. But 2026? The county got jobbed.

Either way, it still sounds evil. Who gets the revenues from the parking garages in this plan?

Frankly I don't think the modernistic architecture is all that terrible. Perhaps we might ask them to make sure the first three floors or so of each building have some warmth and humanity to them. A fair compromise. I hope to God this was a tongue-in-cheek comment. If not, Just click on sibcycline.com or coldwellbanker.com and you will soon be able to peruse high end apartments to your heart's content. I honestly think that they should require anyone living down there to have at least one child in residence. Then we might actually have people using those acres of planned parks or perhaps even attending baseball games. So is Carter/AIG throwing any of their own money in on this? Does anyone have any idea how big developments like this are financed and why the city/county couldn't have simply done this on their own, piece by piece, as these boys from Atlanta seem to be doing? What are these supposedly private investors bringing to the table?

Jeez Mecklenborg, does everything have to be a racial issue with you? Seriously though, that gap is egregious. I'm surprised a powerful Harlemite like Charlie Rangel or Bill Clinton hasn't noticed and complained about that lack of a connection. I'd be curious to know what the time savings would be for someone living in Queens and commuting to Columbia if they took that line all the way to Broadway.

^My hopes for any sort of remarkable thing in that area rest with the park. Speaking of which, how come Cincinnati doesn't have any good statues of U.S. Grant, W.T. Sherman, or Phil Sheridan? Those guys kicked ass, and they were all from Ohio (or close enough in the case of Sheridan). Hell, Grant's favorite horse was named Cincinnati.

I personally hate places like that, and you can already go to the Machine Room Restaurant at the stadium if you want that packaged sports bar feel. If you want a skuzzy sports bar, there are plenty on Third Street. But maybe I'm lame. I've hung out in Atlanta, and this is a stupid local chain bar/eatery. I'd rather they'd put in a Willy's. I can't help but get the feeling they are trying to build this thing like an amusement park, rather than let it grow organically, you know, like a city. But aside from the parking garages I don't consider the Banks project high on the priority list.

To be honest it was the silly anti-socialist rant that got me fired up enough to respond. There are two things to consider here: 1) the ideology of concealed-carry, which I feel I sufficiently addressed in my previous post, an 2) dealing with a real-life situation where you are confronted by an attacker. Regarding that, my point is that there is a big difference between simply carrying a gun and responding in an effective manner to a dangerous tactical situation. Just because you are packing doesn't mean you are going to use the weapon effectively, or even be able to use it. Let's consider the recent tragic events at Virginia Tech. From what I've seen on the New York Times website, this nutjob killed at least 30 people in four seperate classrooms, over the course of 20 minutes. Unless this guy murdered everyone in each classroom, reloaded, and then moved on to the next, the first question I have is, why didn't anyone rush this guy when he was reloading? When someone breaks out a gun and starts shooting at people, they cast a spell. They are the actor and the rest of us are the acted upon. Most people freeze because they don't know exactly how to respond in such a dangerous and novel situation and they hope that they become invisible. But it's pretty clear that the best response is to immediately pursue the attacker. Escape may give you the best chances of survival; but either way the key is to break the attackers initiative, realize that you are always capable of action, put him on the defensive, keep him off balance, take away his control of the situation. Carrying may give you an advantage but it doesn't change this point, which is more important that simply having a weapon. What is instructive about Cramer's experience is how effective simply acting with authority can be in defusing hostile confrontations between strangers. Most criminals aren't looking for a fight, they are looking for an easy mark. That's a good point, having a gun encourages people to use them, and then things escalate a lot quicker and become a lot worse.

I think you are wrong. I'm impressed that you actually quoted a correct definition of socialism, but you didn't even pay attention to yourself. Your desire to live a life undictated by the government really doesn't have anything to do with government control of the means of production. And no serious politician or poster on this blog, least of all Uncle Rando, is advocating that the government actively run the American steel industry, auto industry, etc. Uncle Rando is really more of a romantic, and when he speaks of the good of the community he strikes me as speaking more to an ideal community like the New England Town Meeting of myth where everyone shows up and is an engaged citizen in their community and its decisions. It's the difference between gemeinschaft and gesellschaft. Also your fierce desire for personal freedom of action vis-a-vis your local, state and federal governments is never going to change the fact that such corporations have always played major roles in every economy throughout history. Just think about the ziggurats. Violence is bad. The state has a monopoly on the use of violence. This is pretty much accepted by political theorists from the most extreme right to the most extreme left. The current vogue for concealed carry is based on the idea that subcontracting is the most effective means of meeting market demand (and I suspect it is pushed by the gun industry in order to increase sales). So in this case the demand for a non-violent living space would best be served by a profusion of violent weapons, either so each man may enforce the law himself, therefore applying it more quickly and efficiently than a dedicated force, or by engendering such fear of each other that everyone is scared into acting polite and civilized to one another. In my experience such theories do not hold water. It's really more inefficient for each man to act as his own policeman. Ultimately most folks aren't up to what is required to do the job. Also, let's not forget the mind state of the predator. He assumes himself to be more wiley than his prey. And it's quite possible he is. So an armed amateur cop is not more likely to thwart a relatively professional criminal simply because he is holding a sidearm. I wouldn't bother carrying a gun, or really any type of weapon in OTR. It seems like it would be a pain anyway. I doubt anyone on this blog would be able to effectively disarm a criminal who is holding a pistol in your face by pulling your own holstered pistol on him. And you can't pull a gun on a guy and tell him to move away just because you think he looks sketchy without essentially becoming the criminal yourself. Personally I don't care about concealed carry, and am inclined to go the way the professionals in a city's law enforcement community think best with regard to CC. That being said, if anyone, be it OTR street thug or enraged UO blogger, tries to manhandle Cramer, then it's on. I've had to single-handedly back up his drunk ass against some pretty pissed off Cubs fans. And it's clear from my handle that I've been shot at.

If they build something tall there I hope they take into account if and how much natural light they will be blocking from the square itself. And also, if you think the Banks is important, you have to think Queen City Square Phase II is more important than the potential Fountain Square West project. Which are both being considered by the same company, I believe.

I doubt it. Europeans aren't actually morally superior people to Americans, unlike the average blogger on UrbanOhio. I was in Trier in the summer of 2000, which is on the Moselle, just west of the Frankfurt Rhein/Main area you are describing. I thought that the area actually looked quite similar to the Ohio valley. As I tried to describe to my suburban living hosts, the two areas appeared very similar except the hills around the Moselle were tiefer (steeper) and Cincinnati was schwueller (more humid). Of course schwuel (humid) sounded very similar to schwul (slang for gay) and my German was subpar (below par) so I'm not sure what came across. Now that I think about it right after I made the comparison my hosts broke out some kick-ass local white wine (Moselwein). Oh yeah, we don't have hillside vineyards in Cincinnati either.

You'd think that people who, a few years back, wanted to instal "much-needed" automatic ticket giving cameras on the stoplights all over town would be willing to spring for a couple of motion activated cameras and streetlights. They are total wusses.