Who is responsible for your health?

This ad is from the CDC which is no longer
just the Centers for Disease Control,but is
now the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention.

Forgive me for getting this wrong, but I always thought I - and I alone - was responsible for my health.

Sure, genetics play a role, but whether I was overweight or underweight , ate junk food or fruits and vegetables, exercised or not ... all that was on me.

Apparently I'm wrong.  Well, at least according to today's lead editorial in The Blade.

Yes, they do say our individual health is partially on us and the decisions we make, but they also say:

"The report notes that Ohio ranks near the top in the percentage of its adults who smoke, and of children exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes. Such things are as much a matter of individual responsibility, or its absence, as of inadequate public policy.

Really?  Inadequate public policy is to blame if you or I smoke?

Who DOESN'T know that smoking is bad for you?

In fact, people who do smoke, do so in spite of the fact that they know it's bad for them and for anyone who lives in their smoke-filled house.

How can inadequate public policy be to blame for that?

They even write:

"But it isn't just the responsibility of government to make Ohioans healthier and more productive."

Hmm... I guess I missed that responsibility in the U.S. Constitution as well as the state constitution.

For the record, I don't smoke - never have.  Neither has my husband. My sister does, but she doesn't smoke in my house and has never asked to do so.  Most smokers are considerate in that respect.

But no amount of government spending is going to make her stop. In fact, I doubt that anyone has decided to stop smoking because government spent money on an advertisement bemoaning the ill effects of the practice.

People stop smoking when THEY want to. They are the ones who must make the choice, which means it is entirely an individual responsibility and action.

The primary reason for the editorial is to call for "greater public investment" - that means spending - arguing that the more government spends on preventive care, the less it should end up spending on actual, more expensive, care as a result of bad habits.

You see, the 'logic' is that if government spends more money up front telling people how to be healthy, they'll have to spend less treating these people when they end up with costly diseases like cancer, heart disease, etc...

But first the people have to actually head the direction from the government to lead healthier lives - and that certainly isn't the case, at least, not for the majority of people.

There's an easy solution to the state spending so much money on actual care of illnesses that are preventable:  Don't.

What if the government warned people ahead of time that if they get cancer from smoking none of their health bills will be covered?  In fact, what if the government said that the cost of any illness or disease that was the result of self-inflicted activity wouldn't be covered?

Would people make better decisions knowing they'd be responsible for all the costs associated with bad habits, or that they might have to go without treatment if they couldn't afford it?

It's an interesting question and one that too few stop to consider.

But the government is all too happy to pay because, in doing so, they develop justification for telling you how to live. It is the 'logic' they use for controlling your life:  We're going to end of paying for your health care so we have the authority to tell you how to keep yourself healthy so we don't have to pay so much.

Oh, they might not say so in so many words, the bottom line is control - of your eating habits, exercise regimen and decisions.

Just look at Michele Obama's Healthy Hunger-Free Act which, as of a year ago, had 1 million kids leaving the school lunch line.

It doesn't stop.

And sadly, too many editorials are all to happy to jump on the bandwagon and advocate for even more government involvement in our daily lives, because (clearly) they know what is best and its for our own good.

Mayoral transition stories hint at bad things to come

Mayor-elect D. Michael Collins 

In looking online at The Blade, I had three important observations I want to share.

The first one deals with the editorial, "Mayor Collins His challenge is to persuade jaded Toledoans that city government can be a vital, positive force in their lives"

As editorials go, it's not bad, though it is the usual Blade telling their endorsed candidate what to do, which is a really a warning should he not follow their instructions.

No, the problem is the premise in the headline that city government can - and should - be a "vital, positive force" in our lives.

Government is not supposed to be any such thing. Governments exist to protect our individual rights. We grant them the opportunity to serve us as we see fit, giving them the authority to provide essential services like road repair, sewers, police and fire which we'd have a hard time doing alone (though when it comes to police, even that is changing).

Government should be seen as a necessary evil - something that must constantly be watched and guarded against lest it becomes too powerful and infringes upon our individual rights and freedom. It should be the last option - not the first choice - when there is a need.

Sadly, both the local paper and too many citizens don't understand this concept, which is probably why the city is stuck on stupid.

The second one deals with the 3/4% payroll income tax which Mayor D. Michael Collins wants to make permanent.

Since the 1980s, Toledo voters have approved this 'temporary' tax every four years. We've granted city council the ability to divert money from the original stated purposes and now use it to fund police, fire, capital improvements ... and yearly deficits.

We like the fact that we have a say every four years for it keeps a level of accountability present in how the city uses the money. If they don't use it properly, we'll take it away from them.

But like so many other things, a temporary solution was relied upon for every-day functions and the city never really makes any attempt to live without it, threatening us with doom and gloom if we fail to continue to grant it to them.

Collins wants to reduce it slightly, but make it a permanent tax. He said "growth in the economy would offset the loss and that Toledo would benefit from the positive signal the reduction would send to the business community." This just demonstrates his ignorance of the business community - and the economy.

Most people won't notice a reduction from 2.25% to 2.2% and business owners know that. The tax isn't paid by the businesses, but by the employees they hire and pay. And he has not mentioned, as far as I can tell, the impact that H.B.5, a revamp of municipal income taxes pending in the House, might have on the city or his plan.

Think about it: we're talking a $15 reduction for a $30,000 salary or a $12.50 reduction on a $25,000 salary. That's not a lot of economic growth when prices are rising.

But Toledoans will probably fall for it. Yes, stuck-on-stupid comes to mind.

The last thing is this quote from the same article:

“I plan to reach out to Dashing Pacific Group through the Regional Growth Partnership and help them develop a plan for the Marina District,” Mr. Collins said.

Did he not see the TV ads? Put out by a Toledoans for Working Families with a Columbus contact - not the Collins campaign - they portrayed a Chinese flag and said “Mike Bell cares more about creating jobs in China than he does here in Toledo.” They also said he sold the Marina District to Chinese investor Dashing Pacific Group Ltd. “for chump change.”

The ad was a direct attack on Dashing Pacific, something that the Chinese culture does not take kindly to. And since Collins refused to repudiate the ads, it's likely he will be seen as complicit.

If this were you, how receptive would you be to any outreach?

Then there is the arrogance - something Collins is well-known for. He wants to help them develop a plan for the property. How does he know there isn't one already or that he is better qualified than them to do so?

These three items are just a mere indication of what is to come - and it doesn't bode well for Toledo.

Toledo files motion to dismiss 'gang map' lawsuit

From The Blade

The City of Toledo filed a motion today asking for a dismissal of their appeal of the lower court decision regarding a map depicting the territory of gangs. They say in their filing that the publication of the map renders the question moot.

The Toledo Blade maintained that the map was a public record subject to disclosure. The city maintained that it was a confidential investigatory item which is exempt from disclosure under Ohio public records law.

The Blade filed a writ a mandamus asking that the city be ordered to release the map. The court ruled 2-1 that the map was a public record and the city appealed.

However, the paper published a copy of the map it says it was given by someone not in the city law department nor in the police police department.

Here is the press release:

City files motion to dismiss in “Gang Map Case”

The City of Toledo today filed a motion to dismiss in the case of State, ex rel The Toledo Blade Company. The motion stated the following:

“This case is before this Court as an appeal of right as it originated in the court of appeals as an original action seeking a writ of mandamus. At issue was the City’s refusal to provide the Relator-Appellee with a document prepared by a Toledo police detective and referred to as a “gang map.” The City refused to provide the map as it believed the map was a confidential law enforcement investigatory record and, thus, not a public record under Ohio law.

“In a 2-1 decision the Sixth District Court of Appeals granted the requested writ and this appeal was taken. On or before August 12 the Relator was provided with a copy of the requested “gang map” by an undisclosed source. The map was published in the Relator’s newspaper on August 13, 2013.

“While, arguably, important legal questions remain that are capable of repetition yet evading review, Respondent-Appellant believes that the publication of the requested record moots the underlying issue before this Court.

“Accordingly, dismissal of this action is appropriate at this time.”

###

What The Blade didn't tell its readers about their 'gang map' public records lawsuit

Ohio's Sixth District Court of Appeals

Yesterday I wrote an explanation of why the Toledo Police Department's 'gang map' is NOT a public record, despite what the Toledo Blade wrote in their editorial signed by John Robinson Block.

One of the things the paper said was that they were engaged in a legal battle over the issue. Ohio allows individuals (and media) to file a request for mandamus with a court to force the release of public records.

Interestingly, the Blade didn't explain any details of the lawsuit, so I decided to look it up.

Case number CL-2012-01183 was filed with the Sixth District Court of Apeals on July 11, 2012.

Here's a summary of the mandamus request:

* Reporter Taylor Dungien was told on three occasions that TPD maintains a gang map or "gang territories map" on a wall and electronically in the computer.

* She asked to view the map.

* Sgt. Heffernan, the individual responsible for handling public records requests, told her no because it is an "intelligence piece and we're using it to do our enforcement; it's actively being used."

* She made another request and the city's law director told her it was exempt from Ohio's public records law because it was a confidential law enforcement investigatory record.

(this is exactly the point I made in my post yesterday)

* The Blade maintains that it is a public record because it's a "compilation based on ongoing monitoring of of gang activity in the city" (yes, a lot of typos in the filing...) Accordingly, they claim, it can't be a 'investigatory' record.

* They claim the release of the map will not endanger an officer, victim, witness or informant - nor will it disclose the identity of a suspect.

* They also claim it won't reveal any "specific confidential investigatory techniques or specific investigatory work product."

(Interestingly, this claim that it isn't a work product directly contradicts their story about how long it took them to create their own map and how hard it was to do so, considering the lack of openness the gangs displayed.)

* They also claim that if portions of the map are exempt, the map should be redacted to give them the portions that aren't.

* They finally make the normal arguments that it's in the public interest and request compensation under the public records law.

The Court ordered the city to either release the map or show cause why they didn't have to.

Not surprisingly, the City responded and denied the Blade's claims, stating their original position that the map is exempt. They did admit to not offering a redacted version because it was "not capable of being redacted without becoming completely meaningless."

They also state that, to the point there is a public interest in the map, the "interest favors the effective pursuit of criminal investigations without interference" from the Blade.

The case followed the normal rules of Civil Procedure so after the initial filings, the discovery process would begin. However, on Sept. 20, the paper and the city filed a joint request for a pre-hearing conference because they couldn't agree upon discovery issues.

The court agreed to have them submit the issue - and their respective positions on the issue - to the court. This is where it gets interesting....

The Blade proposed that their attorney be allowed to view the map in confidence, agreeing not to reveal anything of it to the paper, so he could understand the legal basis for the refusal to release it. The city said no. Depositions began.

The paper again requested that the attorney be allowed to view the map under a protective order. The city again said no.

But as the deposition proceeded, the Blade attorney again asked to see it and promised not to reveal any part of it to his client. The city again refused and they agreed to go to the court for resolution of this dispute.

To recap: Having failed to get the map released, the Blade's attorney asked to view it and promised not to tell the paper anything about it. The city, maintained it was not a public record but a confidential record and not subject to discovery. And who could blame them?

You can't insist that an item be revealed in discovery when the item is the very subject of the mandamus action. But the city agreed that the court (judge) could view the document under seal and that they would make it available to the court.

Three judges signed the decision that said the law provided for no "hybrid" form of disclosure that would allow "attorneys eyes only" for the viewing of the map. The judges ruled that either the map was a public record subject to release and viewable by all, or it wasn't. They agreed with the city's position that the court should view the document, consistent with case law. That was December of 2012.

Following extensions of time and depositions, the Blade asked for a summary judgment in their favor, the reasons they believed they proved the record was a public one and asked for the order to release the map.

The city filed their request for summary judgment in their favor, setting out further arguments that supported their position that the map was a confidential law enforcement investigatory record (CLEIR). They also provided a copy of the map to the court.

Following that, the city filed a response objecting to the paper's request for summary judgment. In that response, they reveal various items of information from the deposition: that the map has been actively used as part of criminal investigations and some court cases are pending; the map was compiled for a specific investigatory purpose, but has since been maintained as an investigatory tool and nothing in Ohio law says a CLEIR can only be used once; revealing the map would tip off gangs and reveal the scope of TPD's knowledge about them; and (I love this one) that what other cities do with their crime maps has no relevance whatsoever to what Toledo is doing with theirs.

In accordance with the rules of civil procedure, the paper filed their objection to the city's motion for summary judgment. They claim that the map doesn't show specific crimes, just geography; it doesn't reveal specific techniques, just boundaries; release of the map wouldn't disclose specific houses or locations of suspected gang activity; that the law favors disclosure and that the burden of proof limiting disclosure lies on the part of the city; it doesn't relate to a "specific" investigation and doesn't reveal any specific technique, both of which are required in order to maintain an exemption under the law.

Those objections to the summary judgment were filed on April 18th.

Now it is up to the court to read the positions and arguments and make their decision.

Why The Blade is wrong about Toledo's 'gang map'

The Toledo Blade is doing a series on gangs in the city, which is a good public-interest story and certainly relevant news. It's called "Battle lines; Gangs of Toledo."

But they're not happy with the Toledo Police Department or Mayor Mike Bell because they won't release the map they have showing the territories of the various gangs.

Publisher and Editor-in-Chief John Robinson Block took the unusual action of writing - and signing - an editorial titled "On gang map, Mayor Bell ignores the public's right to know."

He writes:

The people of Toledo have a right to know about gang activity in this city. They have a right to know where it is. They are entitled to see the “gang map” that tells where gang activity is most dangerous and intense.

Many months ago, The Blade asked for that map, which is a public document under Ohio law. The mayor refused to release it. He has persisted in this refusal, even in the abse
nce of legal authority. This refusal is illegal and unjustified.

Except, the refusal is legal.

Ohio Revised Code 149.43 details the state's law about open records, access and penalties for failure to comply. It's one of the best public records laws in the country, generously favoring the public's right to know.

But there are numerous exemptions - items specifically designated as NOT a public record. Section (1) defines what a public record is and also says "Public record" does not mean any of the following: The following list includes this exemption

(h) Confidential law enforcement investigatory records;

The only way the Blade can maintain that the release of the gang map is a public record is to claim that it is not a confidential law enforcement investigatory record. That's also the only way the Mayor can maintain its secrecy.

Block also writes:

One consolation is that The Blade’s map is almost certainly more accurate than the city’s because gang members were naturally more willing to talk with our reporters than police officers.

Well if their map is more accurate, why are they still quibbling with TPD over theirs?

Block then writes:

Our motive is not to defame anyone or to depress readers but to show what is — to tell the truth.

In the final analysis, the gang map is not a matter of the newspaper’s right to know, but the people’s right to know. The Blade is merely the surrogate and servant of the people of Toledo. For only an informed public can govern itself.

For those of you who have followed my writing over the years, you'll know that I gave up coming up with headlines on the Blade's bias and just started numbering them. The local daily has a reputation - deservedly so - for being more of the dictator than the servant and for telling people what they want the people to know - rather than the truth. To say that hysterical laughter followed when I read this sentence, first to myself and then to a group of others, would not do justice to the hysterical laughter that actually followed.

But I digress - so back to the map as a public record...

TPD probably does not have a single map, but a series of maps over time, likely showing the various gang territories and how they have changed over time. Such a map could very legitimately be a confidential investigatory record showing which gangs are expanding, which are declining, which are combining and which are new. How they interact within their territories and with/against each other based upon those territories is an investigatory tool that could help TPD monitor and predict their activities and likely conflicts.

If the maps show disputed territory, it could influence such things as where TPD is placing their (highly controversial) monitoring cameras as well as the routes of their road patrols.

Additionally, if the gangs know what it is that the police know about their territories, it could cause them to change certain behaviors, putting the public further at risk.

If I can come up with such reasons and explanations as for why the TPD gang map is not a public record, I'm certain the mayor, having all the information, can as well. In fact, that's exactly what happened and the Blade promptly sued the city over the issue.

Contrary to what the editor claims in his editorial, the issue is not clear-cut and the public's 'right to know' isn't always outweighed by the public's own safety, or the safety of our police officers, through the protection of confidential investigatory records.

For more information, check out: What The Blade didn't tell its readers about their 'gang map' public records lawsuit

New TARTA hub won't spur revitalized downtown

The Toledo Regional Transit Authority (TARTA) and the City of Toledo would like to build a new hub for transfers on the bus system. The cost would be $24 million - at least, that's what they estimate today, though it is certain to be higher by the 2016 completion date.

The Toledo Blade thinks this is a wonderful idea because it would spur revitalization of the downtown area. They write in their editorial:

"...the proposed transit center could be a key element of downtown Toledo’s revitalization. The project is worth pursuing."

How many times have we heard this? Portside, The Docks, the Marina Project, a new sports arena, Promenade Park...the list of publicly funded projects that will revitalize our downtown seems to be endless. And yet, here we are with yet another.

We are constantly being told that *this* will be the one. This is all we need and we'll return downtown Toledo to its former glory days. And yes, in case you were wondering, this does qualify for stuck-on-stupid designation.

Not surprisingly, these projects never actually do any of the 'revitalizing' the promoters promise they will.

This is not to say that some of the projects are not good ideas - nor that they are not successful. But many, like the new Huntington arena which is successful so far, do not create NEW spending or growth. They just redistribute it from other establishments and areas.

Both Huntington Center and 5/3 Field have brought people to the downtown area. Eateries and other types of establishments have followed. But for every new place around these two facilities that has opened, others (perhaps multiple others) have closed.

There is no net gain in the county in terms of number of new businesses, employment or spending as a result of having these two new sports venues.

Sales taxes, which are key indicator of spending in the county, did not see increases as a result of these two facilities, either.

So what makes anyone think that a new TARTA bus station is going to somehow miraculously change the current activity in downtown Toledo?

Are people suddenly going to start taking the bus just so they can stop at the new hub? (I'll pause here so you can catch your breath from laughing so hard...)

The plan is to get the federal government to pay for 80% of the funding. Yes, TARTA and city officials think our broke, out-of-money, heavily-indebted federal government can pony up the dough for this boondoggle. You can pick yourself up off the floor now.

Will any special requirements or mandates come with any funding they might be able to eke out? Probably yes - and it will most likely be in the form of ridership.

Would TARTA revamp their routes to force more people into transfers downtown? That's already the number one concern from suburban communities - that they are forced to spend unnecessary time on a bus so it an come downtown before going back out to another suburban community (the whole wheel/spokes/hub concept). In fact, that is why many of the communities are opting out of TARTA - because it doesn't meet the needs of the suburban riders in terms of direct routes to where they want to go.

How many more communities would opt out if federal funding for a new transfer station would result in more routes being shunted to a downtown hub? No matter how nice they make it, I doubt it would be enough to justify extra time on a bus for a suburban rider.

Clearly a new bus station hub is not going to be a "key element of downtown's revitalization," no matter how much The Blade, local politicians or the woefully inadequate TARTA board may hope it will be.

The only thing that will revitalize anything in this city is the private sector. A thriving private sector will hire people who will then have funds to spend, generating economic activity that is in addition - in in place of - the spending they are already doing.

And the sooner the editorial board at the paper and the local politicians acknowledge this FACT, the sooner we'll see true economic develop and revitalization.

Oops! Were Blade's spellcheckers part of budget cuts?

The picture says it all...surprising how many people had to look at this and miss the incorrect spelling - in a headline, no less.... Wonder if this is just the on-line version or if the error made it into print as well:

Tell me again how my quality of life is improved by taking more money out of my wallet

I am sick and tired of politicians and media (like today's Blade editorial) telling me that I need to pay more taxes to improve my quality of life.

Are they serious?!?

How is anyone's quality of life enhanced by having less money for the things they need?

So far in this election cycle, we've been told that paying more money to the city for parks and recreation, paying more money for our library, paying more money for our schools - paying more money in general - will improve our quality of life.

We'll be healthier if we pay more money to both Toledo parks and the MetroParks.

We'll be safer and kids won't turn to violence if we just pay more for city parks.

Our kids will be smarter and they'll get better jobs becoming productive members of society if only we pay more money to the school system.

Our drug addicts will stop using drugs if only we pay more money to the recently merged entity that combined the alcohol and drug addiction agency with the mental health agency (after voters repeatedly rejected funding for ADAS).

Our kids will learn to read better if we only give the library more money. (What are schools for, then?!?)

Our kids will also be inspired to learn more about math and science if we continue funding Imagination Station. (Again, what are schools for?!?)

All these deductions from my wallet will supposedly improve my individual quality of life, even though I don't have kids, don't have family members with drug problems and have my own treadmill for exercise.

We're supposed to believe that politicians, bureaucrats and newspaper editors all know what's best in terms of our quality of life. Our beliefs about what really improves our quality of life are irrelevant.

But think about it: if you have a choice between paying more money to government entities or keeping that money for your OWN priorities, which choice is really most likely to improve your personal quality of life?

Perhaps you love football and your quality of life would be most improved by being able to order all NFL games on a pay-per-view channel.

Perhaps you have kids and your family's quality of life would be better enhanced by setting aside money for their college education.

Perhaps you have an elderly parent with Alzheimer's who you are helping to care for and your quality of life would be improved by hiring a companion to come in and sit with them for a period of time to give you a break.

Perhaps, like me, you don't have any of these circumstances, but you love to cook and your quality of life (and your marriage) would be greatly improved if you had a renovated kitchen where you and your spouse both have room to work and an oven that can fit the turkey you plan to cook when the entire family comes for Thanksgiving.

The point is plain - you know best what will improve your own quality of life and it is likely to be different from what your neighbor thinks will improve their quality of life.

But politicians, bureaucrats and media all think they know better than you. They think they are the best judges of what will make your life better - and they are eager to tell you.

And it all boils down to you having less money so they have more.

Our quality of life is always enhanced when we get to keep the money we earn and spend it on our own priorities.

Anyone who tells you differently is lying and deserves to be run out of town.

Blade bias #12 - waits until last paragraph to identify indicted commissioner as a Democrat

I started reading the story and, since I didn't know the indicted commissioner, I wondered if he was a Republican or Democrat. However, as I kept reading and the reporter didn't give a party affiliation, even after mentioning the man was on the ballot and how old he was, I knew he had to be a Democrat.

And sure enough, in the last paragraph, there it was. He's a Democrat.

Was there no place in the preceding 20 paragraphs to give us this detail?!?

You see, this is common practice for The Blade - if the individual in trouble is a Democrat, they bury the party affiliation. But if it's a Republican, the party affiliation is in the first several paragraphs or even the headline - so you can be sure not to miss the 'bad' association with Republicans.

It's certainly not a subtle bias - it is their modus operandi. It's also probably one of the reasons they, and other papers like them, have such declining readership.

It's bad enough if a reporter makes such a stupid error - it's worse when the editors allow it to go through.

Here are screen shots of the rest of the article just to prove the party affiliation wasn't earlier in the story.

I certainly don't expect The Blade to end this horrible practice in their supposedly objective news, especially when pointed out by #justablogger. But I do hope continually pointing out their bias (so often evident that I resorted to numbering my posts on it) will rightly educate any still-remaining subscribers and advertisers about what they may read.

If you can't get petitions right, why should we trust you to get a county charter government right?

The paper has another article about changing the form of county government - surprise!

After previously covering the fact that Better Lucas County (what a misnomer!) failed to submit enough valid petition signatures to put the measure on the ballot, they have today's story telling us they're going to try to get more signatures.

But we already knew that.

From the first article comes this lead paragraph:

It’s back to the streets for petitioners hoping to spur change in Lucas County’s government.

If that doesn't tell us the group is going to try to get more signatures, we also have this:

Thomas Palmer, a Toledo lawyer involved in the county reform effort, said the group will meet Tuesday to decide whether to appeal the elections board’s conclusions, and to decide how to make up the signature deficit.

Note that Palmer said "how" to make up the deficit. They were going to decide "whether" to appeal, but the decision to get more signatures was a given - the only question was "how" to get them.

That's twice in the earlier story that we're told they're going to collect more signatures in their effort to put the measure on the ballot.

But in traditional Blade style of pushing their agenda in what is supposed to be an unbiased and objective news report, they do today's story telling us what we already know.

Better Lucas County, the volunteer group trying to put a proposed county charter on the Nov. 6 ballot, plans to stay together after a disappointing attempt to collect nearly 14,500 signatures.

Robert Reinbolt, a group co-leader, said the group met Tuesday and agreed to continue the effort.

As if there was any doubt.

I could go on and on about the emotionally-laden and non-objective descriptive words and phrases used in the articles, but here are just a few that they are using to manipulate the perspective:

* hoping to spur change
* all is not lost
* important step
* disappointing attempt
* educate voters

The bigger point - and one most people may miss - is what Reinbolt says about their failure to ensure a very basic requirement on the petitions: having the circulators state the exact number of signatures they witnessed.

Most petitions include a blank space that needs to be filled in as part of the witness statement the circulator needs to sign. It's hard to miss, but that's exactly what Better Lucas County did:

Mr. Reinbolt said Better Lucas County focused on verifying registered voters' names and overlooked double-checking the circulators' signature counts.

As a result, over 4,000 valid signatures of the 22,195 total that they submitted were thrown out. But even if they had counted the 42 petitions with the fatal flaw, they were still short of the required number for making the ballot.

If this is the level of incompetence exhibited by Better Lucas County in just the petition process, it doesn't give you much confidence in their ability to 'reform' county government.

If my previous posts (see below) about the inaccurate assumptions, comparisons and conclusions in their study wasn't enough to have you reject the idea, certainly their inability to follow such basic requirements for the petitions will make you think twice about their aptitude, expertise and fitness to design a new form of government.


Previous posts:

Asking the wrong questions about a county charter form of government for Lucas County

The Blade is wrong about charter county government

Konop forces failed ideas into his county charter proposal

Another blatant attempt to push Lucas into a charter form of government

Next public meeting on county council issue scheduled

Initial thoughts - report on restructuring Lucas County government

Detailed look at report on changing Lucas County government

Konop admits that I am right

Citizens Review Committee makes my argument for me

Post Office closings show defect of district council seats

Deconstructing The Blade's drug-pusher mentality on changing county government

Time for a complete picture of what anti-coal rules really mean

True to it's penchant for embracing all things 'left,' The Blade did an editorial last week expounding on how the new EPA rules would be good for Ohioans.

They claim that imposing massive and costly regulations on the coal industry will save lives, based upon estimates from the EPA itself.

It's an editorial, so it's an opinion piece and certainly the unknown author is entitled to express an opinion.

But readers of the editorial should know both sides so you can form an opinion of your own.

These rules are part of Pres. Barack Obama's plan to put the coal industry out of business, despite his claim of wanting an 'all of the above' approach to energy in the nation.

As Phil Kerpen explains:

Four years ago, then-candidate Barack Obama explained his anti-coal energy policy in an editorial board meeting with the San Francisco Chronicle. Obama said: “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad.” He went on to explain: “So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it’s just that it will bankrupt them.”

Indeed Obama attempted to make good on his campaign promise to bankrupt the coal industry and make electricity prices skyrocket the legitimate way – by proposing cap-and-trade legislation in Congress. It was jammed through the House but crashed and burned in the Senate, where many Democrats understood such an energy rationing plan to be political suicide.
...

But the day after the 2010 election President Obama said: “Cap-and-trade was just one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way. It was a means, not an end. And I’m going to be looking for other means to address this problem.”

With Tuesday’s EPA action to bankrupt coal, he found his “other means” to address the “problem” of affordable electricity.

Here are some points to consider that the paper really doesn't want you to know:

* Technological progress has made coal use far cleaner than ever before. Since 1970, use of coal for power generation has shot up 183% while emissions have dropped 75%.

* Studies have shown the EPA’s approach will force power plants to close across the country, force electricity prices to spike by an average of 12% nationwide, and cost the economy well over one million jobs.

* The measure opposed in the editorial, S.J Resolution 37, proposed by Senator Inhofe, would have made sure the EPA writes sensible regulations that reduce mercury emissions but do not raise energy prices unnecessarily and destroy more jobs.

The key is balance - having sensible regulations that don't bankrupt an industry and don't raise the price we have to pay only to accomplish a minimal, barely measurable, reduction in pollution. And while they claim the measure will 'save lives,' we know the consequence will be lost jobs in the coal industry, higher costs for each of us - especially in Ohio, and loss of tax-paying businesses in the state.

We've already seen the impact with the closing of six coal-fired plants including ours in Oregon, Ohio. So much for jobs being the President's "number one priority."

I'm all for reducing pollution - but how much reduction will we really get and at what cost?

I guess I don't believe the accepted premise from the left that 'if it saves just one life' we should do it, no matter what the consequences.

UPDATED! Why was Michael Miller prohibited from talking about Make-A-Wish on WTOL?

Michael Miller, Editor in Chief of the Toledo Free Press, posted this as his Facebook status:

Michael Miller
So, WTOL's Jerry Anderson invited me to appear on his "Leading Edge" program this week to talk about the Make-A-Wish benefit CD. 30 minutes before taping, I was informed, "You are not allowed on our station" and the appearance was canceled. I have not been told the entire story, but I have no doubt WTOL's alliance with The Blade is the reason.

It is very sad that anyone would punish a Make-A-Wish project, and deny its kids, over media politics. On the day before Thanksgiving!

WTOL's Chrys Peterson has given her all for this project and the Make-A-Wish kids. I have always known her and Jerry to be class acts.

The powers that be (and bully) can keep me off a TV news show, but we are still going to sell our CD and we are still going to raise a ton of money and awareness for Make-A-Wish. At the end of the day, that is all that matters. Now more than ever, we need your support to make this CD a success. How long is this community going to allow a single entity to cast such a putrid shadow over our community's potential?

If, indeed, WTOL's reason for the cancellation is their media partnership with the Toledo Blade and the fact that the Blade has decided to sue the Free Press, Miller and its publisher Tom Pounds, then this is despicable.

Of course, it would also be par for the course for the paper ... and shame on WTOL for not standing up to a bully.

For a long time, many of us have thought that the single most negative and destructive influence in this town is The Blade, with the open bias it shows in its 'news' reports as well as the individual vendettas of its publisher, manifest throughout those same 'news' stories and editorials.

But to allow a personal issue with another newspaper get in the way of promoting Make-A-Wish and their benefit CD is just detestable, contemptible, loathsome, reprehensible and vile.

What does The Blade and it's publisher have against terminally-ill kids? Is their personal vendetta against a competitor so important that it cannot be set aside for a brief moment for the purpose of helping terminally-ill children get a final wish?!?

No words of condemnation are enough.

The telephone number for WTOL is 419-248-1111 and the number for the Toledo Blade is 419-724-6000 in case you want to share your thoughts with them or cancel your subscription.

Oh - and the CD will be available in all local Panera stores starting Black Friday. It's $10 and ALL proceeds go to Make-A-Wish.

UPDATE:

Posted on the Toledo Free Press Facebook page was this response:

Hi, I'm CJ Hoyt, the News Director at WTOL 11. We are ecstatic that Chrys Peterson appears on the Make-a-Wish CD. We look forward to promoting this CD in our newscasts, on our website and through social media. Jerry will also be featuring the CD in a segment of Leading Edge next week. WTOL has a long relationship with Make-a-Wish and numerous charitable organizations throughout Northwest Ohio and we value those relationships and the benefits they bring to our community. However, we also value our partnership with the Toledo Blade. And it is our station policy to not promote a direct competitor of our valued partner. I, alone, made the decision not to use you in our Leading Edge segment. But that won't stop us from finding lots of ways from promoting this worthy cause. If anyone has any questions about how our newsroom operates, they are always welcome to reach out to me directly. My phone number is 419-248-1108 and my email address is cjhoyt@wtol.com. Thanks!

I fail to see how interviewing Michael Miller about a Make-A-Wish CD equates to 'promoting' a direct competitor of The Blade. While The Blade may consider the Free Press to be a direct competitor, I'm not sure many people would say that a weekly newspaper is a direct competitor to a daily one.

But competitor issue aside, an interview does not equal promotion.

Tom Blumer, who writes at BizzyBlog and often covers media issues, has weighed in with his own post on the subject. I love his conclusion:

Remember this episode the next time you see an insufferable Blade editorial about how important it is that taxpayers empty their pocketbooks “for the children.”

And the great comment left by zf which sums up the entire fiasco rather succinctly:

In other words, WTOL values not angering it’s “partner” than helping kids. How is having the guy on there to talk about a CD benefiting a charity “promoting” a direct competitor?

Talk about putting politics before principles.

You're not a 'victim' if you're shot while committing a crime

First, let me start by saying that the death of anyone is not something to celebrate. That being said, finding yourself dead because you were committing a robbery does not make you a victim.

From the local paper's report of the incident:

Person fatally shot in North Toledo
Victim was suspect in apparent robbery attempt

Toledo police are at the scene of a convenience store robbery in North Toledo where one person has been fatally shot.

The deceased was identified by police as Lamar Allen, 25, of Toledo.

The incident occurred about 9:45 a.m. at the Express Carryout, 1920 Mulberry St.

The two adult male suspects were in the process of emptying the store's cash register when the clerk fatally shot one of them, said Toledo police Sgt. Joe Heffernan. The victim, who was struck multiple times, collapsed right in front of the counter.

It was unclear whether the second suspect, who fled the store, was hit by a bullet or got away with any cash. He was last seen running toward Stickney Avenue.

The robbery attempt happened about 9:45 a.m. and just as the store had opened for the morning.

The clerk, whose name police withheld, was working by himself at the time.

The robbery attempt was caught on a store video camera. Forensic experts are reviewing the tapes.

Note the choice of words (emphasis added): "The victim, who was struck multiple times, collapsed right in front of the counter."

Anyone who is shot while emptying a store's cash register cannot be a 'victim.' They could have called him 'suspect' or 'robber' or 'thief' or even included the term 'alleged' in conjunction. But "victim" certainly was a poor and inaccurate choice and makes it appear as if the news report is trying to garner sympathy for the robber.

Because remember: when you have a victim, you also have a perpetrator. So is the paper implying that the store clerk is somehow guilty in defending himself? It would appear so.

Then they make sure to point out that the robber was "struck multiple times" and "collapsed right in front of the counter." My take on this is that the clerk shot the guy several times and killed him dead.

Never having found myself in a similar position as the clerk, I have no idea how many times one might fire a weapon at two people who are robbing your business. But there's also no way to know, when you come upon such a situation, whether or not the robbers will fire back.

The perception the paper seems to want you have is that, somehow, the clerk must have used 'excessive' force since he killed the robber on the spot. I could be wrong in their motive, but knowing the penchant of the paper for such positions, I doubt it.

The bottom line is that the story could have been written and reported on without such biased words being used. But liberal bias in our local daily is a given, rather than the exception.

***Side Note:

While I can have sympathy for the robber's family at their loss, I have more concern for the store clerk. Even in self-defense, it must be a terrible thing to know you have taken someone's life - and logic about it being the 'right' thing is usually not enough to overcome the feelings that must result.

If he follows his own logic, Stainbrook should resign from BOE

The issue of District 6 Toledo City Council member Lindsay Webb's late filing of the acceptance of her nomination for election in November has been in the news lately, especially after opponent Doug DeCamp filed a protest, also late.

Rather than go through the idiocy of Webb's failure to meet a filing deadline, her 'mis-remembering' the location where she mailed the filing or the shear lunacy of claiming that the protest against her late filing was late so it shouldn't be allowed, but her late filing should be ... let's look at where the real problem lies: the Lucas County Board of Elections.

Having worked with the Board of Elections since the early '90s as both a candidate and a Commissioner, I have a lot of respect for the individuals there. Whether asking questions as a candidate, commissioner or blogger, I've always had timely responses and, to the best of my knowledge, correct answers. I know that any office may have a couple of employees who don't meet expectations or requirements, but that is not unique to the Board of Elections.

The office has had serious challenges over the years - many the result of the personalities of the board members themselves - but over the past five years or so, I've seen significant overall improvement, despite specific problems encountered. This I attribute to the board members (Democrats Rita Clark, Gary Johnson, Ron Rothenbuler and Republicans Patrick Kriner and Lynn Olman) who focused on running an elections system.

So when issues arise like the latest debacle of the board members certifying a candidate who failed to meet a required filing deadline, it is appropriate to look at the board members themselves.

And that is where the hypocrisy comes in - and readers of this blog know how I despise hypocrisy.

It is fair to look to the past at words and actions in order to judge the present goings-on.

Shortly after Jon Stainbrook became chairman of the Lucas County Republican Party, the winner of the Republican primary for a seat on the Lucas County Board of Commissioners withdrew. The party, under the leadership of Stainbrook, nominated Jan Scotland to fill the vacancy. As a result of the party's action, Stainbrook, as chairman, should have filed the nominating paperwork with the Board of Elections. He didn't - at least, not on time - and Scotland was not allowed to be on the ballot.

At that time, Stainbrook claimed, erroneously, that it was the responsibility of the Republican members of the board to make sure he did his job correctly. Lots of theories abounded about the failure of Scotland to be on the ballot, but in the end, the law prevailed and the missed filing meant Scotland did not run.

But that didn't stop the local paper from editorializing that the fault was completely with the two Republican board members. In fact, they even opined:

"If they truly had the interests of the GOP at heart, rather than an intense desire to see their adversary fail, Mr. Olman and Mr. Kriner could easily have helped to ensure that the nominating papers for Mr. Scotland were filed in time."

Stainbrook had some choice comments during the Scotland nominating failure that are important to note in light of today's Lindsay Webb issue.

* Mr. Stainbrook, then in his first few months as chairman, did not know about the deadline and said the Republicans on the elections board should have reminded him.
~ "Stainbrook says elections board staff violated law," The Blade- Friday, October 23, 2009

* During a news conference yesterday, he blamed inter-party politics for the situation.

"The job of the Lucas County Board of Elections is to get people on the ballot," Mr. Stainbrook said.
~ "Elections board chief criticized - Democratic official failed to warn of deadline, GOP says," The Blade - Thursday, August 28, 2008

And a bit more from the editorial board of The Blade in "Put Scotland on the ballot," from Friday, August 22, 2008:

As to who is responsible for this sad state of affairs, voters have only to look in the direction of Lynn Olman and Pat Kriner, the Republican members of the elections board , who have been in vendetta mode ever since Mr. Stainbrook ousted the local party establishment in June.

If they truly had the interests of the GOP at heart, rather than an intense desire to see their adversary fail, Mr. Olman and Mr. Kriner could easily have helped to ensure that the nominating papers for Mr. Scotland were filed in time.

And despite claims to the contrary, there was nothing to prevent the county elections staff from pointing out the Wednesday deadline so that it could be met. The insider skirmishing that has marred the deliberations of the elections board in recent years only serves to cast a pall of cynicism over the electoral system.

Why are these comments pertinent? Because they reflect the belief, by our local paper and Stainbrook, that it is the responsibility of the members of the board to notify candidates of deadlines and ensure that those deadlines are met.

So in the Lindsay Webb case, what position is Stainbrook going to take when it comes to responsibility for DeCamp's protest being late? Is he going to say that he, as a Republican member of the board, should have 'reminded' his candidates about the protest deadline? That's what he said in 2009:

"...the Republicans on the elections board should have reminded him."

And what position will the local paper take? Will they say that Stainbrook should have "helped to ensure" that the protest was "filed in time"? Or will they reverse their position on where the blame lies and again defend the publisher's buddy by making public excuses for him?

As for Webb, will Stainbrook and The Blade also say that it was Democrat board members Rothenbuler and Clark who are to blame for not 'reminding' her of the deadling for her acceptance filing? Somehow, I don't think so.

Don't get me wrong, my personal opinion is that Lindsay Webb never should have been certified. She missed a required filing and, as such, was not eligible for certification to the ballot.

Had I been a new member of the Board of Elections with two new directors heading the office, I would have requested, from the attorney assigned to assist the BOE, a complete list of requirements needed for each candidate and then directed the staff to prepare a checklist for the candidates for review during the meeting to certify them to the ballot. As a result of doing this, I would have known that one of the candidates failed to meet a filing deadline and the issue would have been dealt with prior to certification.

But that's me. Stainbrook is known for suing Republicans and spouting off - not for his administrative, supervisory or leadership skills. It is his failure to know what was required (despite saying that was the job of a BOE member) and ensure all requirements were met prior to voting on certification that led to the current fiasco.

And what about Stainbrook's fellow new Republican board member Anthony DeGidio? When DeGidio was appointed, it was his legal skills that were cited:

Mr. Stainbrook said Mr. DeGidio’s legal background will serve the board well.

“After you see all of the legal wranglings that happen at the board of elections you really need to have the party chairman and then there should be a lawyer,” Mr. Stainbrook said. “Tony DeGidio, with all the cases he’s done, he’s very aware of the Ohio Revised Code election law and that’s what you have to have is somebody looking out for the way things should be done. We’re lucky to have him.”

Where was DiGidio during the certification process ... and since??? If he's so aware of election law and is supposed to be looking out for the way things should be done, why didn't he know about the deadline for the nomination acceptance and ensure that all candidates had met it?

Obviously, as Stainbrook has said in the past, the problem is with the members of the board and they have failed miserably in their duties. As Stainbrook has so vehemently advocated in the past, they should resign.

But don't hold your breath.

Blade bias #10 - union violence unreported

It's been a while since I've done a Blade bias article and, quite conveniently, they provided fodder for a post.

If you listen to WSPD, you would have learned earlier this week about the vandalism and shooting at the home of the owner of one of the area's largest non-union electrical contracting companies. Details from the WSPD News department:

John King was shot in the arm last week when he surprised a man trying to slash the tires on the truck at his Lambertville home.The word "scab" was also scrawled on the side.

King says he became suspicious when he saw an outside security light outside go on.

When he stepped out of his front door, the man fired one shot and ran off.

King is the owner of the largest non-union electrical contracting company in the area.

The story has been picked up nationwide - The Blaze even provided a photo of King's vehicle with what appears to be two-foot high letters spelling SCAB scratched into its side.

But here's how our local paper reports the incident (link):

Lambertville man shot in arm after man tries to slash his tires

LAMBERTVILLE — A man was shot in the arm Wednesday night when he interrupted a suspect trying to puncture his vehicle’s tires with a knife, authorities said.

The incident happened about 11 p.m. in the 3300 block of Deepwood in Lambertville, according to the Monroe County Sheriff’s department.

When confronted, the assailant shot a small caliber pistol at the victim, grazing his left upper arm. The victim was treated at the scene and was to seek medical treatment on his own, sheriff's deputies said.

The suspect was described as being in his mid-20s to early 30s, white, of medium build, and about 6 feet tall. He was wearing a dark-colored T-shirt, jeans, and a dark-colored baseball hat.

He appeared to be in his mid-20s or early 30s.

The Monroe County Sheriff’s Office is requesting anyone with information to contact the detective bureau at 734-240-7530.

There is no mention of the the word 'SCAB'; there is no mention of the fact that the man owns a non-union company. There is nothing whatsoever to even remotely indicate that perhaps the union issue is a key component of the crime - clearly important information to helping find the culprit.

And when you read the comments following their story, you'll see people speculating that there is more to the story than just a tire-slashing event. Duh!

I'd wager that the paper only included this blurb because other news outlets were airing the story, as 'mere vandalism' just across the state line is something they don't normally cover.

Perhaps, they'd explain, there is no way to know the motivation for the act until the culprit is found and 'concluding' this was an act of union violence would be premature.

As if they've never jumped to conclusions on their own....

But there's a clear difference between jumping to conclusions and making an educated guess based upon evidence clearly present. Hint to The Blade - the word 'SCAB' is what is known to investigators as a 'clue.'

There is the history of the IBEW with this man and his company. As LaborUnionReport writes:

John King didn’t plan on being an enemy of unions. In fact, he says all he’s ever wanted to do is work at something he loves doing and be successful at it—something that most normal Americans would call ‘The American Dream.’

After high school and some college, Mr. King briefly worked for an IBEW contractor before being drafted into the military. Following his service in the early 70s, King became his own boss by going into business as the youngest electrical contractor in Toledo.

Over the years, King Electrical Services had always been a small business. However, during the Great Recession, King’s business has actually improved as his union competitors have priced themselves out of work.

Unfortunately, being a non-union electrical company, King has always been on the radar of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW). In fact, in 2006, he won a significant case against the IBEW at the US Court of Appeals, after the union had improperly promised his electricians jobs on union sites if they voted the union into King’s company.

Since he’s been in business, in addition to the legal battles and verbal abuse, King’s company has been vandalized and threatened on numerous occasions.

“Back then, it was nothing to have to regularly buy a new set of tires.” King said during a telephone interview on Tuesday. “The ice pick was the weapon of choice.”

Until Wednesday, the worst of the union attacks on King and his business came in the mid-eighties during the UAW strike at AP Parts. During a lull during the lengthy strike, King’s business was picketed by more than 50 IBEW picketers. This was at a time when he only had eight or nine employees. One of his employees, whose car was trashed by the union picketers, was also beaten up by IBEW thugs.

Unfortunately, the vandalism has never stopped. This year alone, he’s had to report three incidents of damage to police. This doesn’t include the incidents of stalking he and his men have to go through while they’re working.

In one incident earlier this year, rocks were thrown through the front windows of his shop, one of which had the word “kill” written on it.

When you take the prior incidences into account and the use of the word 'SCAB,' along with the act of slashing tires, it is logical to presume that the perpetrator dislikes King's non-union stance. Clearly the place to begin looking for the culprit is among IBEW and/or other union supporters. Fortunately, the police have a slug as well as the knife they believe was used to vandalize the vehicle. Obviously, there could be evidence on those items which may assist in identifying the perpetrator.

But if you read just the local paper, you wouldn't know any of this and you wouldn't even remotely suspect that there is more to this than just some nut job getting caught trying to slash someone's tires.

WSPD's Fred Lefebvre interviewed King this morning (podcast available here). King has offered a $10,000 reward. He said that this is particularly hard on his wife. I can only imagine what she must feeling and thinking when her husband is shot in their own yard by someone who got caught in the act of vandalism. Throwing a rock through a window is bad enough, but getting shot elevates it to another level entirely.

Now, the next question is: where is the IBEW? Wouldn't it be great if the leadership of the local union publicly denounces any such action as an option to its members and promises to expel the culprit if he is found to be a member of their union?

Oh - wait - considering it's a union, they'd probably pay for his legal defense....

UPDATE: As of 4:45, this story made the Drudge Report - see the middle column:

Hypocrisy and the outcome of elections

Where to start?

Sunday's signed Blade editorial by David Kushma is a rant. I'm all for a good rant, as readers of this blog will attest; and I'm glad he's doing it on the editorial page instead of disguising it as an actual story in the news section of the paper.

But the hypocrisy is beyond me.

Kushma doesn't like what Gov. John Kasich is doing, calling it a 'revolution.' President Barack Obama has embarked upon a similar 'revolution,' but on a national basis with everything from dictating where businesses can relocate (National Labor Relations Board versus Boeing), to mandating that citizens purchase a product whether they want it or not (Obamacare), to spending billions in a failed stimulus that was supposed to - but didn't - reduce our unemployment rate to below 8%, to his radical agenda transforming us into a copy of socialistic Europe.

These are radical departures from our American way of life - the life that our founders intended when they formed this nation based upon individual liberty, personal responsibility and a limited federal government.

Certainly, if Obama's policies and goals are acceptable, then Kasich executing a similar type of change is okay as well?

Apparently not, however, since the paper's political leaning is vastly to the left. No wonder they conclude that a leftist revolution is fine and good, while a conservative one is somehow 'evil' and must be condemned.

Of course, we have the last four years of former Gov. Ted Strickland's policies - many similar to Obama's in terms of philosophy - that left Ohio and its citizens worse off. Common sense tells you that continuing those failed policies will just lead to more failure. In fact, much of the deficit the state faced this year was because Strickland used one-time stimulus dollars to balance the previous budget, leaving us scrambling now that those one-time funds are gone. Then Auditor Mary Taylor warned this was exactly the outcome we could expect - and she was right.

Kushma mimics the Democrat's talking points on the budget but never tells you that Kasich and the state legislature passed a balanced budget, addressing an $8 billion shortfall without raising taxes. As Chairman of the House Finance and Appropriations Committee Ron Amstutz (R-Wooster) said, “This is how an effective, responsible government should operate.”

Would Kushma rather that the state increased taxes on citizens - most of whom can lease afford it during these (or any other) economic conditions? That's the choice that faced our elected officials in Columbus: cut government spending or raise taxes to cover the deficit. I, for one, am glad my taxes didn't get raised, but if Kushma doesn't think he's paying enough in taxes, he can always make a contribution to the state.

In the editorial, Kushma claims the budget slashes aid to, among other recipients, schools. That's not accurate, as one press release following passage of the budget explained:

Moreover, the budget adds more than $100 million in additional dollars over the executive version to the school foundation formula and guarantees that no district receives a cut in state aid.

The Legislature also expanded the value of and the eligible participants in the Cleveland Voucher Program to make education more affordable and to untie the hands of low-income families. The budget also increases the number of EdChoice Scholarship Program vouchers to 14,000 to 60,000 in fiscal year 2013 and increases the charter school sponsorship cap to 100.

“When the State of Ohio brought in increased revenue, we decided to invest those dollars in Ohio’s schools and give them an additional boost in their state aid,” said Vice-chairman of the House Finance and Appropriations Committee John Carey (R-Wellston). “Through this budget, we continue to capitalize on the opportunities before us and invest in the things that matter. At this time, we believe that our schools need the additional dollars so we can ensure that Ohio’s students receive a quality education, even during this difficult economy.”

He claims that cutting state aid to local governmental entities will result in tax increases on a local level. That is one possibility. But the other possibility is that those local governmental entities either cut spending or ask for, and are denied, tax increases also resulting in spending cuts so that government lives within its current means without constantly expecting more. As the editorial states:

Mr. Kasich insists that his strong medicine will force local governments to become more efficient, share services, and merge.

What a novel idea! In fact, in direct contradiction to Kushma's expected result, he quotes local Democrat County Commissioner Pete Gerken:

“They’re transferring the debt from Columbus back to Toledo.” He laughs and quickly adds, in old-time pol argot: “I ain’t raisin’ no taxes.”

See? Kasich is right.

Kushma then claims that SB 5, the collective bargaining reform which was passed and may end up as a referendum on the ballot in November, "...would effectively strip 350,000 public employees of many of their rights to bargain at all."

This isn't exactly accurate, either. SB 5 will limit what public sector unions can bargain for, that is true. But it doesn't strip any union of their 'right to bargain at all.' Words matter.

And why did the governor and legislature pass this bill? To save the state - and local governmental entities - money. But note the hypocrisy of the editor of a newspaper, who has threatened to lay off its employees if they don't get their desired $8.8 million in cuts from their own union, complaining because the state has given governmental entities the ability to get similar costs savings from public unions.

Perhaps Kushma is more upset with some of the other conservative positions the governor has taken because he has a list of them in the editorial. He seems to think none of these policies have anything to do with jobs or the economic climate of the state.

He doesn't like the fact that local businesses may be able to take more water from Lake Erie. Hmmm... In a desperate economy, giving businesses access to a resource they need to be successful seems like a good idea. And with limited water availability in other parts of the nation, perhaps this decision could be used as leverage to bring companies into the state?!? Local leaders have long touted the access to fresh water as an upcoming economic development tool. Why would this be a bad thing?

This same logic can be applied to drilling on public lands. So if we can reduce our energy costs by drilling (using the most current environmentally-friendly processes), won't that help our business and economic climate?

Kushma doesn't like expanded conceal carry laws. He thinks this is a bad idea, especially as Toledo deals with an increase of gun violence. News flash to Mr. Kushma: the recent gun violence is being committed by people who have illegally obtained their guns - not by law-abiding citizens interested in exercising their Second Amendment rights. I'll bet dollars to donuts (I love that phrase) that none of the recent gun violence in Toledo is being committed by people who have a conceal carry permit!

He doesn't like the plan, NOT included in the recent election law reform bill, to require a photo ID when voting. Again, mimicking the Democrat talking points, he says that will "disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters, many of them poor and old." Yeah - right. Allowing people who cannot afford it to obtain a free state identification card if they don't already have a photo ID is going to 'disenfranchise hundreds of thousands.'

Furthermore, is Kushma, like the Democrats, so filled with disdain for 'poor and elderly' voters that he believes they are incapable of complying with a photo ID requirement? How does he think they function in the world?

He also doesn't like any restrictions on the right of a woman to kill her unborn child. The Heartbill Bill, as it's being called, would prohibit doctors from performing an abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected. Much of the abortion debate over the years has centered around when life begins. This bill would define 'life' as when there is a heartbeat. Kushma thinks this is an "extremist" position - but he sees nothing 'extreme' in ending an innocent life.

Kushma does like some of the things Kasich is doing, but rails against 'gerrymandering' when it comes to redrawing legislative and congressional districts. Sadly, I don't believe he'd have such a concern if it was the Democrats doing the exact same thing if they were in control of the process.

He concludes with this:

I can’t believe that the Ohio the governor and Republican lawmakers envision is a state where most of us want to live. But I could be wrong.

In fact, Mr. Kushma, you are wrong. Have you noticed that Ohio has lost population over the last several years, primarily a result of the failed policies of the past? Kasich campaigned upon the promise to make the state more attractive to businesses, rein in the spending and keep taxes low. He's doing what the majority of voters in the state elected him to do.

I have only three words for you and they aren't even my own. They were uttered by President Barack Obama three days after taking office:

Elections have consequences.

Newspaper circulation numbers might not be what they seem

I was doing some research the other day on the circulation numbers of various newspapers and have been watching Editor & Publisher for the news release regarding the March report.

It was featured yesterday:

Today the Audit Bureau of Circulations released the FAS-FAX covering U.S. newspaper circulation figures for the period of October 2010 - March 2011. Complete files containing data on more than 800 daily and weekly U.S. and Canadian newspapers are posted on ABC's website.

Unless you are a member of the 'accredited press,' you cannot get the full report, but a rule change, detailed in the press release, caught my eye:

In the past, the top-line metric that ABC commonly reported was "Total Paid Circulation." This category no longer exists on ABC reports. The new top-line number is "Total Average Circulation," which consists of a publication's paid and verified print and digital circulation, including any branded editions.

So what does this mean?

According to ABC, here is the difference in what they are counting:

o Paid circulation is defined as copies purchased by the individual recipient or a specialized distribution channel (business/traveler)

o Verified circulation includes much of what used to be reported in “other” paid circulation (including third-party copies and copies distributed to schools and newspaper employees)

Yes, copies to employees and free copies to schools are now counted as part of the circulation numbers.

A while back, I learned that the University of Toledo had paid The Blade several thousand dollars to deliver an e-edition of the paper to all students. This information came from a student who wanted to know if their student fees were being used for this purpose and how he could stop receiving the daily email. I don't know the outcome of his efforts, but I do know the UT website states that nearly 21,000 students attend, so that means The Blade's circulation numbers, when released, will include those students, inflating their report.

Some may say this is a more accurate way of reflecting the reach of the newspapers, but there is a problem with what appears to be a simple change: it doesn't allow you to compare previous reports to future ones.

I believe ABC should have included this as a 'new' category in the report - but perhaps they were pressured by the newspapers to not do so.

My friend, Tom Blumer, who writes at Bizzy Blog, compared this report with the one from last March only to find that the new definition doesn't do much to hide the decline in the newspaper industry. He writes:

In a nutshell, ABC has added “verified” to “paid,” and has included copies in “total average circulation” which were formerly excluded from “total paid circulation.” Yet the industry’s top players with rare exceptions still showed circulation declines despite the alleged economic “recovery” many of them continue to tout.

So when we learn the circulation numbers of our local papers, keep this in mind...

Blade's bias gets outside attention

My friend, and fellow Ohio blogger, Tom Blumer, takes a look at the recent dust-up over the Brian Wilson 'monkey comment' as it's now become known.

In case you missed it, the Toledo Blade took an on-air comment from NewsTalk 1370 WSPD afternoon host Brian Wilson, chopped off everything but about 14 seconds and then shopped it around to, primarily, African-American members of the community to see if they could manufacture community outrage over the implied reference of children to monkeys, and the 'obvious,' (so they promoted) racism of the statement.

Eventually, the editorial board issued an apology, clearly admitting that they took a comment out of context, but they still blamed Wilson for saying something that he should have known they would distort.

I looked at the issue in terms of how the local paper 'pushed' an idea they wanted to promote rather than just do what papers are supposed to do - cover the events of the day.

Blumer's post looks not only at a summary of the ridiculousness of the actions by The Blade, but goes further to examine why the comment was more important than the serious issues facing Toledo Public Schools, including their performance and deficits.

He includes a rather damning chart from the Ohio Department of Education that shows African-American students are not meeting Adequate Yearly Progress. He writes:

As bad as the school district is, children from every other identified ethnic group managed to get acceptable results on the latest ODE report card (not that ODE is setting the bar particularly high). Why not African-Americans? What would MLK say?

What indeed?

Blumer also has high praise for Michael Miller's Toledo Free Press column on the matter:

"The next day, the Free Press’s Michael Miller posted a column that would be in the running for the NewsBusters Hall of Fame if it had gone up there."

And he should know - he's a frequent contributor to NewsBusters. He also writes:

Congrats to Miller and all those involved at the Free Press on their persistence. As to the Blade, it must really be a drag to know that those old, reliable tricks that used to work like a charm have lost their power to deceive.

Heaven help Toledo if people like those who run the Blade ever regain control over what “responsible” speech is in that city. If the Blade’s bludgeoners get their their way, parents might not even be able to deliver a “monkey see, monkey do” scolding to their children when their little ones do something dumb in imitation of their friends who have done something dumb.

Be sure to read the entire post at BizzyBlog. Tom understands the problems we have in Toledo - even if most Toledoan's don't. But with news-scaped* stories such as this one, we're beginning to.


(*New term which will be clarified in a future post.)

Simpson warns of Blade story on details in 'stolen' LCRP notebook

This in via email:

April 7, 2010
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Jeff Simpson

TOLEDO BLADE TO PUBLISH FROM STOLEN LCRP CHAIRMAN’S NOTEBOOK

Jeff Simpson Announced that He, and Others, Have been Approached by a Blade Reporter in Possession of Simpson’s Notebook filled with Confidential Republican Information.

Jeff Simpson, the Lucas County Republican Party Chairman, announced that he regretted that names of innocent people might be published in the Toledo Blade in an upcoming story.

“It was an accumulation of some ideas I had for the Republican Party, and a list of people who might be willing to help,” said Simpson. “To say the ideas were preliminary, and the list incomplete would be a vast understatement.”

“I’m told the notebook was picked up after a Young Republican Club meeting, in February," Simpson continued, “and then anonymously delivered to Tom Troy of the Blade.”

“I have met with Mr. Troy, and asked for the notebook’s return,” added Simpson, “but, to this date, I have only been provided copies of my notes.”

Simpson has called many people who might be on that list to apologize for any embarrassment the impending publication might bring. “I am truly sorry innocent Republicans will be mentioned in a Blade story simply because their name was scribbled into a notebook that reached Mr. Troy under the most dubious of circumstances.”

Simpson further attested that the concepts outlined were never seriously implemented. “The fact that I didn’t miss the notebook for nearly two months speaks to its importance in our work,” offered Simpson. “Although, I do look forward to the eventual return of my personal property.”

Jeff Simpson is a local lawyer, a past candidate for Toledo City Council, and past President of the Toledo Area Young Republican Club, and officer of the Ohio Young Republicans. He was elected, at the December 2009 meeting of the LCRP Central Committee, to replace Jon Stainbrook as Party Chairman. Mr. Stainbrook is contesting that decision.
-30-

The questionable value of a Blade endorsement

Like many conservatives in the area, I distrust the editorial endorsements of The Blade - especially when made for partisan primary elections.

Yes, I've been the recipient of general election endorsements, but I always considered them a double-edged sword.

It used to be said that a Blade endorsement was worth about 20,000 votes - but the joke was that you never knew if those votes were for you or against you.

Last year, they did not endorse for the primary or even the general election for Toledo mayor. And they don't always endorse for partisan primaries, though they have decided to do so for this year's Lucas County Commissioner race.

Their support of Ben Krompak for the Democrat ballot certainly comes as no surprise. He is very similar in philosophy and perspective to previous Blade favorites, Toledo Councilman Joe McNamara and current Commissioner Ben Konop. In fact, about the only difference between Krompak and Konop (even their initials are the same - LOL) that I've seen in Krompak's press releases and public statements is the level of maturity he exhibits.

But from a philosophical standpoint, Krompak's positions are so similar to what we've had for a series of elections that I expect no improvement in the region should he be elected. Oh, certainly, there will be new programs and ideas, but so far they've all revolved around government doing more - not less. And we need less government - and less costly government - always, but especially in these economic times.

When it comes to the Republican endorsements, I'm also not surprised at their support of Dan Steingraber.

Please don't misunderstand my statements which follow. I believe Steingraber is a solid fiscal conservative, a good businessman and I'm glad to have him as a choice on my own Republican ballot. He's certainly not disappointed me like fellow candidate Toledo Councilman George Sarantou has when it comes to votes on increasing government and raising taxes.

But as a Republican who will be casting a vote for one of the three candidates (the third being Springfield Township Trustee Andy Glenn) for this position on May 4th, the Blade's endorsement is not reassuring. In fact, several calls to WSPD this morning reflected a similar sentiment, though Steingraber did call in to say he was rather surprised by the editorial.

My experience in this area has led me to the conclusion that The Blade does not have the best interests of the Lucas County Republican Party - and Republicans in general - at heart. Their continuing support of Jon Stainbrook as chairman is all the proof one needs, considering that Stainbrook spends more time suing and attacking Republicans than he does the negative liberal policies of the majority Democrats in office - or even Democrats in general.

So why would the editorial board take a position on this race?

Some might speculate that they hope these two candidates will produce enough differences in positions to help the sales of the paper over the coverage of the race. That may be partly true, but declining revenue and subscriptions will never be overcome by coverage of a particular race for a single office.

Believing that the paper does not have our best interests in mind, I believe they picked the individual who has the least chance of beating Krompak, their 'chosen' candidate. I believe they want Krompak to win, so they're supporting the individual who provides the least challenge in that regard.

This is not to denigrate Steingraber or his abilities. This is just a practical look at what it takes to wage and win a race for Commissioner. Having done just that, I know first-hand the amount of money that will need to be raised, the contacts one needs to have and the organization that is necessary to be successful - not to mention the additional challenge of overcoming his opponents name recognition among Republicans.

While I don't dismiss the fact that Steingraber may be able to develop those aspects for his campaign, the other two candidates have them already, which puts them ahead in the 'ability to win' column. And I do not expect the local Republican Party to be a factor in providing such support and infrastructure.

Given equal values and positions (which is not the case for this race), the ability to win often becomes the deciding factor when voting in a primary. So I have to ask myself: if Steingraber were to win the nomination, would he be able to beat Krompak, especially in light of the fact that Steinngraber's support from The Blade will certainly evaporate as they promote their chosen one?

Sadly for Dan, I believe the answer is no - but not for lack of effort on his part. Krompak will have The Blade, unions, and the infrastructure of the Democratic Party. The Republican candidate will have ... well, whatever they, themselves, bring to the table personally.

There may be a way for Steingraber to turn the Blade endorsement into a positive. This morning on the radio he expressed hope that it might help his name recognition. That could be the case, but as in the joke above, there's no way to know if it does so in a positive or negative way.

*** Please also read the clarification I wrote on this article following a conversation with Dan Steingraber. ***