A Streetcar Named…Cincinnati?

The Streetcar is once again in the news and, as usual, polarizing themasses.

Now, I’ve never been to Portland, but they seem to have a streetcar that works in favor of their economy. I can’t say I know why as it’s been there for a couple years on top of decades of strong urban core development. There is also strong rhetoric juxtaposing race issues between Cincinnati and Portland. I’m not a smart man, but I’ve found the strongest race-related language comes from the individuals NOT living in the city. That’s not to say anything about anything, but rather just my own personal observation and experience.

I have, however, been to New Orleans a couple times. NO has a fairly large black/low socioeconomic population, an urban core that has experienced some fairly significant economic hiccups over the last couple years, and sure enough a streetcar system. I have ridden their streetcar the times I have been there and found it to be a pleasant experience.

I know, it’s pretty impossible for me to talk about the strengths of a system which I know virtually nothing about. What I do know is the City of Cincinnati is a pretty great place. Even if you put aside Samuel Clemmens quote of Cincinnati being decades behind the rest of the county, this city has a rich history and a potential for even greater impact-if leaders will rise up and lead that kind of change.

And ‘that kind of change’ is directly related to the the biggest source of my frustration in opposition to the Streetcar Development. Opponents believe it won’t stimulate economic growth along the planned route(s), won’t curb urban crime rates, and wreak havoc on the City’s tax base.  I’m not an economist, and I’m not an urban anthropologist so I can’t speak to any of those issues without an emotionally charged debate ensuing-just read the comment thread of any online article regarding the streetcar to get your fill of that.

No, what bothers me most is hard to put my finger on, but it has to do with the, seemingly, lack of want of change. Themasses want change but don’t want to risk anything to create change. All I ever see, hear, and feel is a ‘chicken and the egg’ debate about how the streetcar will provide a tax base or it will cause a tax void and how you have to have one to fulfill the other. Same with crime rates and how one has to be fixed before the other will see positive growth…

So why not risk? Why not take a chance to develop a system that works in other cities? What is the worst that happens by following through with this development? Will more people leave than are already leaving? Will crime really go up further? Will business really leave the urban core faster than they already are because of this system? At the end of the day, we have to risk something to see change. I would hate to see projects fail before starting because some, who usually don’t even live in the city, won’t take a chance on a small project that could have huge rewards for a terrific place like Cincinnati. But you don’t have to take my word for it.

***Update – Check this out! It won’t even increase your taxes to complete

this is kind of worth a 1am post…

What happened to the Mr. Potato Head?

Can I just admit that I’m really confused by the health care debate? There is a lot of push from the administration to push health care reform through the House quickly, but it’s getting a lot of flak due to its nature. “Who wants Socialized medicine?”, “Canada’s an example of terrible service, long waits, and inadequate coverage; do we want to follow that example?”, or how about, “I don’t need or want big brother sticking his nose into my decisions of who to see or how much is enough time to spend with my doctor!” All of these are fairly consistent representations of the opposition to a federal health care plan.

I’m not totally in disagreement with that opposition. I see it, feel it, and understand where some of the frustrations lay. Yet I also question the flip side of the health care coin in that it has been a private industry, regulated by itself, and adjusting for the industry needs.

I guess when it adjusted for those industry needs the result was to push the costs back onto the consumer as is standard practice. Unfortunately, the consumer has become increasingly unable to absorb those costs. Now we’re in a bit of a pickle.

I officially have health care now. It’s costing me roughly $50 a month to cover health, dental, and vision. That’s pretty cheap on the front end, but a closer look at the policy reveals that I have a $500 deductable before the plan pays for 80% of the cost. Should I ever break my leg I have a feeling I’m still going to default on a medical bill. Thankfully I’m still single.

Well for another 10 weeks…

If I were keeping this job, and adding Carrie onto my plan, my monthly costs will jump and the deductable shifts to $1000 before the plan picks up 80% of the associated cost. A broken leg still leaves me questioning whether I can afford to put protein in my bowl of ramen. Carrie’s job has a really terrific plan and rate since she’s a teacher, but adding me onto her plan will leave us riding the red line to soup kitchens. Okay, that might be a bit of hyperbole, but it’s not too far fetched for us and I’m assuming a lot of ‘average’ folks.

So amid the noise of the downsides to all the options in health care, where does a guy like me go to find the truth, the best (affordable) option, and maintain the ability to provide for my family? What is the right answer to a complicated question?

Satisfaction (I can’t get no)

When I’m watchin’ my TV / and a man comes on to tell me / how white my shirts can be.
Well he can’t be a man ’cause he doesn’t smoke / the same cigarrettes as me.

Am I the only one still having some kind of identity crisis thing going on, or is it just what happens when you turn thirty?

Bill Goodman, I’m bringing my friend to church!

JW used this quote from Dr. King a while back (meaning it was in his old blog at one point in time) and I don’t want to appear void of ideas or original thought, but in light of this article I felt it appropriate:

The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral; returning violence with violence only multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.

There is absolutely no reason a church should sanction this kind of event.

**UPDATE**

This idea looks like another winner!

Hey! Check it out!

It’s happened!

Game on, yeah…

and now it’s fixed… sorry for being dumb on that one

Here’s something I learned

The Kentucky Derby is a giant Mardi Gras, but instead of serving ‘hurricanes’ it’s mint juleps, and instead of crazy masks it’s crazy hats. But all the drunkenness, beads exchanging, and adult akwardness is ever-present*.

Sometimes having a second job in photography is cool. If I don’t go back to Chuch Hill Downs for a horse race again, I won’t be sad. On the other hand, if you’re into ‘people watching’ as a spectator sport then this is jackpot gold friend.

*My vantage point was from the infield seating/populous and is a statement from what I saw occuring in that small portion of the total event. But I definitely saw some crazy things coming from the grandstands…

Today was a difficult day. As I mull over what happens next, and if I should permit myself continued hope in a boyhood dream, I weigh the words of Langston Hughes.

Dream Deferred by Langston Hughes

What happens to a dream deferred?

Does it dry up
Like a raisin in the sun?

Or fester like a sore–
And then run?

Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or crust and sugar over–
like a syrupy sweet?

Maybe it just sags
like a heavy load.

Or does it explode?

Something to bring me out of my hole…

Of course they did. This city is still so divided it makes me sick.

I qualify for public housing. I also qualify for other forms of public assistance.

I can only imagine what Jesus would have said in that public meeting to the people who voice their prejudices that way…

I’m saddened by this reaction, and I wonder why more people aren’t.

The only difference between insanity and genius is the genius has proof

Pope rejects condom distribution

The Catholic Church seems to be stuck in another awkward situation. It just doesn’t seem to be going well for them in the PR department. I mean, it’s enough to have a bishop declare that the holocaust was not a real event and bungle the response in the manor they did. But now the Pope goes to Africa and wants to take on HIV/AIDS by declaring people have more restraint and discipline in Abstinence Only education/programs. That is a really large can of worms to open and sort through. I don’t doubt the Church is trying to do the right thing, but I wonder how they came to the decision to go this route. Africa is not Europe or of European descent. I’ll give it to the Church for making the impact it has had on the continent. Jesus is spreading through there with fury and commitment.

And the Church wants to use the momentum to address a community engulfed in the largest, deadliest epidemic per capita than any other State in the world, Washington DC excluded. His Pontiff is going to take a cause, one which hasn’t really been figured to work so well in developed nations, to communities that have different cultural beliefs, backgrounds, and practices. Again, Jesus is growing through some of those communities in huge ways and I am not about to say He can’t do something. So it really boils down to the same debate we face here between conservatives and liberals.

So the two sides of this debate are as follows:

Conservative:

• The only way to 100% prevent pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted disease is to be 100% abstinent.
• Educating individuals to the proper use of condoms will lead to promiscuity.

Liberal:

• Does sex outside of marriage happen?
• Do kids who encounter abstinence only education have sex outside of marriage?
• Since the answer to both of those questions is yes, what can effectively be done to stop it?

Just to clarify before the inevitable attack. Do I think people should engage in sex outside of marriage? Nope. But I’m not going to pretend it doesn’t happen and I’m certainly not going to pretend I can solve it.

Research and studies show that abstinence only education doesn’t work at preventing 100% unwed pregnancy, let alone the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. I may have an overall impact on lowering unwed pregnancy, but sexual behavior changes and STD’s spike among those individuals who don’t have access to preventative measures.

It’s plain that I lean toward educating people and making available to them the tools necessary (which includes abstinence and marital fidelity, but I doubt anyone notices that) to prevent unwanted diseases and pregnancies. What I don’t understand is the necessity to stay rooted in programs that historically don’t succeed. I mean, isn’t the very definition of insanity doing the same things again and again while expecting different results?