Chazz Michael Michaels

Good points - all of them (although I wonder if there would be any difference in the cost of construction in CA vs OH). Having said that, my point is more that I believe a new courthouse tower is a tremendous opportunity for the city to create a showpiece for itself, to eliminate a dilapidated building and create jobs. This all assumes the project is studied (pretty sure that's been done) and then funded and executed properly

This may not be able to happen because of rising costs, interest rates, potential recession, etc but a new courthouse tower (even if not a supertall structure) is a tremendous opportunity to transform downtown and the surrounding areas. For example, from San Diego. When/if this happens, I hope it they get it right

Any chance Mr. Goncalves looks at that open parking lot and thinks, hmmmmm that would be a great spot for a new headquarters?

What a great game. Hope your son makes the team he was trying out for - there is very little as exciting and rewarding (and as nerve wracking) as watching your child compete in the sport that they love. Best of luck to him

Black Bird on Apple TV. Serial Killer series. Only 2 episodes in but pretty good so far

If they can't decide on the renovation or building of a new jail - pause the project and move onto the courthouse tower

I respect your sentiment. Part of what makes America great is the respect, protect and equality we have for women (current Roe v Wade ruling aside). Having said that, I think we can do a better job at recognizing people's achievements / contributions to society while at the same time recognizing that they were just as flawed and imperfect as we are. I do not know all the specific allegations against J. Brown but it just seems to me that if we were to take down any statutes of people that were flawed, made mistakes, have a checkered past that we would basically have no monuments. Again, I don't know all of the accusations against J. Brown but it seems to me that, if the people calling for the removal of his or other statutes were honest with themselves, they would see that we are all imperfect and that we shouldn't judge those that came before us for essentially being like us. Have a great 4th everyone

AMAZING!!!! More of this please - not just for Ohio but for our country!!!!!!!!

I understand the analogy but we are talking about grown women not children. The legal standard should be more applicable here. Again, I'd like to know if there is any physical evidence. Thinking this through a little more, contemporaneous notes (text messages send to friends or family) would seemingly be pretty damning If it is just testimony, sorry - not good enough

Other than testimony, which is "he said she said" is there any physical evidence? I thought I had read somewhere that there was DNA on some of the plantiffs' clothing. If there is physical evidence, that's pretty damning. If not, I'm sorry but the number of women filing claims against a very wealthy athlete does not constitute guilt to me. I'm not saying I don't believe that it happened but evidence beyond testimony please.

What about the societal issue of innocent until proven guilty? I don't like the allegations against Mr. Watson but didn't one court already through the case out because there was insufficient evidence? Are there not too many examples of people that have been wrongly accused/convicted based on insufficient evidence / bad motives (Rubin Carter, the Central Park Five, etc)? I do not like the allegations but why are people so willing to convict someone that a court isn't

I remember very vague bits and pieces - like my teacher's name - but little else. I do not remember having a crush on a girl in K-3 nor my family asking me if I had a girlfriend at that age (perhaps in a joking sense only)

I thought kids started going through puberty around 10-13 years old (that's 5-8th grade). Sorry, most K-3 graders are innocent and the idea of introducing them to sexuality or gender identity is a concept I believe most Americas would prefer happen later.

@jmicha I think most people would agree that gender identity could/should be part of a curriculum but NOT for K-3rd grade. I did not learn anything about sexuality or human reproduction until much later in life (I think 7th or 8th grade). Some could argue that was too late or too early - but it feels WAY more right than K-3.

If you can remember what you were thinking about in K-3, congratulations. I cannot. Having said that, we are again talking about two different things. Teachers should always feel empowered to support student that may be different for whatever the reason vs. required learning as part of a curriculum.

DEPACincy - very helpful information, thank you. As I freely admit, I am not familiar with the details of the laws for FL or OH. My point is that there is a difference between gender identity and sexual orientation being part of a teaching curriculum and the examples that you provide. I would hope/believe that most American's would never want any child to feel unequal because of their family (race, religion or identity) and I would hope that they agree that a teacher should be allowed to discuss a child's situation (e.g., a show and tell book or his/her parents) without fear of legal action. Two different things in my mind, a teacher supporting a student vs required learning as part of the teaching curriculum.

Since you seem we'll informed on this topic, when you say the book about "two mommies" is banned, is it banned in the sense that it cannot be used as part of the curriculum in K-3rd grade? If that is the case, I think most Americans are fine with that. I don't think gender, sexuality, religion, war, race, etc have any place in the standard curriculum for K-3 graders. -Having said that, if there was a student that had two mothers in a class and a teacher wanted to utilize/read this book to a class to help his/her students understand the situation, I think they should be able to (after getting approval from the administration and after alerting the parents). The ideas about gender identity and sexual orientation being discussed today (e.g., using different pronouns, etc) is a new concept that many people are unfamiliar and therefore aren't yet comfortable with. It will take time. I'm fairly liberal and I'm not sure I'm comfortable with these ideas. I'm sure there are Republicans that are bonkers but most Republicans I know are good, hard-working people that just want to make a better life for themselves and their family. We have to stop perpetuating this us vs. them mentality. We need to understand that not everyone is going to adopt progressive ideals at the same pace as others.

I think your points are valid but I suspect they apply to older children. As you mention, this is potentially a different issue with teenagers. -I thought the FL law was targeted at very young children (K-3rd grade); It's been a long while since I was in 3rd grade but I do not remember gender, sex and sexuality were ever topics that were discussed or relevant for children that age. -Again, I would want teachers to have the flexibility to explain differences between their students (race, religion, gender) when necessary - but I think most people would agree those topics are inappropriate for K-3 as part of a cirriculum

Perhaps you are right, I'm no expert. It just seems to me that meeting these laws (which in your view seem like an attack on the LBGTQ community) with an attack in response only further emboldens those that feel these laws are necessary. Would we not, as Americans, be better served by a response that simply says that this is wasted legislation that addresses no actual issues. There are Americans, right or wrong, that are concerned about the extent to which information about different sexualities/genders are visible to young people. I think I might be one of them - and I consider myself to be fairly liberal/progressive. If schools/teachers aren't teaching K-3 students about sexuality/gender - then why harsh protests? To quote Hamlet "the lady doth protest too much, me thinks" The overaction in response, in my view, is what causes the moral panic you mention.

I do not have any concrete examples. As I freely admit, I am not familiar with the details of either the FL or the OH. Two quick responses: -Regarding Heather Has Two Mommies - I would not have a problem with a teacher reading that book to my child in the 2nd grade (especially if it was in support of a child in that class that may have two mommies or two daddies); Having said that, I am not all parents. Why, out of all of the millions of books that are available, would a teacher choose to read that book unless it was in response to a specific situation and/or approved first by the administration and the parents? -If the bill provides a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, why the uproar? Why not let the bill die on the trash heap of history with a resounding "who cares"? It seems to me that by turning everything into an all out battle against the other side ("the right"), we only embolden them to dig their heals in and persist with their stupidity. Again, I'm not an expert on either bill - so if there really is a problem where we are limiting a teacher or a school's ability to address an issue or to support a student who's family may be slightly different than the majority of his/her students, I would steadfastly be against the bill. But, as you freely admit, it sounds like the bills address nothing.

I'm sure I'm like most Americans in that I have not had an opportunity to read the FL bill nor this latest OH bill. I am, however, frustrated that seemingly ever topic these days pits American against American unnecessarily. My view, which I think most American's would share, is that there are subjects, of which sexuality would be one, that shouldn't be taught to young children (the FL bill, as I understood it, prohibited instruction on certain topics from K-3rd grade). While inappropriate to teach these, I teachers should be given some discretion to discuss certain topics in the context of ensuring that no child should be made to feel different, less-worthy or be bullied based on their family situation (that discretion would apply to religion, race, gender, wealth, etc). For example, you don't have to teacher a 1st grader about the horrors of the Holocaust or of slavery to ensure hat their Jewish students or their students of color are treated fairly but we should allow teachers some latitude if it helps ensure this. I hope this makes sense. No an expert - just someone who doesn't like seeing his countrymen work to find common ground.

Is this property a potential replacement for the Nucleus property/development that looks to have fallen through (i.e., will stay with Stark)?

Not a developer but, from a cost perspective, it seems like the two options being considered are the two more expensive options (refurbish an old building to modern standards over a lengthy amount of time or build a mid-rise complex on 15-20 acres). Is it not less expense to build up rather than out? Aside from given the development team more options - because they don't have to find the required acreage - wouldn't building a tall building also be less expensive?

Good question

I like the way you think!!!!