More Fun Than a Root Canal

Yesterday I had time to make a quick post in between two hours of meetings, an Operation Feed event, and an appointment to have a root canal (re)done. My laptop is out of commission, so I often take one of my office's laptops home to doo work while I'm waiting for my personal machine to get functional again, but I didn't yesterday. Yesterday I had to take actual leave time, and it was a gorgeous day, so I reasoned that I had no excuse to work at home or intentionally stay indoors, and I left the machine at the office.

So I missed out on something like twenty bloggable bits. Reacting in real time would have been more fun than the root canal, but I won't make a judgment comparing one blogging afternoon to my first bike outing of the year.

So, catching up, and speaking of sick leave... Frankie Coleman is being investigated for supposedly claiming work hours during which she did not actually do work. I feel a strange connection to Mrs. Coleman, as the last time she was really in the news it was because of an incident that took place two blocks down the street from what was to become my house. In all honesty, I am in no position to make judgments about any of the alleged work issues, as I have had at least one instance in which a superior and I had to clarify accountability standards for work done out of office or during non-regularly scheduled hours. The primary issue, and one that I strongly concurred with, was that my supervisor should always have the ability to defend the hours for which I was being paid, either by pointing to physical presence or alternate documentation of some sort. It's obvious that Mrs. Coleman and her supervisor Ms. Williamson did not have a sufficient understanding as of mid-March 2007. There are numerous reasons to be out of the office for someone employed as an administrator in the department of Workforce Development. It is easy to believe that Mrs. Coleman, a prominent member of the transition team, knew that Ms. Williamson's tenure was ending very soon, and therefore did not bother to establish a good working relationship. So it's quite plausible nothing improper happened at all. It's also quite plausible that an employee might take advantage of such a situation. I'll wait for the investigation.

Which is the part that really ticks me off about the Republican response to this. Complaints against State Workers go through the Inspector General, not the Attorney General. I hope that folks will remember that Tom and Bernadette Noe were private citizens when they weren't involved with Lucas County. I also would like to point out that Marc Dann hasn't "been all over" any Republicans as Attorney General. There's no evidence that he would have been, and given that many of the problem folk are out of government if not out of legal jeopardy, there's been no need. The potshots continue with jabs (heard on WCBE this morning, I believe Bennett was the one speaking) about Dann being to busy cleaning up corruption in his own office. As a matter of fact, when there was a problem in the A.G.'s office, the individual was fired and an investigation started. That's hardly a record of "cover-ups."

As a matter of fact, if the suspicion of a cover-up is based on the fact that the appointed employee, the agency head, and the governor are all members of the same party, and furthermore, that Republicans think that such a situation naturally leads to cover-ups... I have to wonder about how many cover-ups Bob Bennett knows about from the past 16 years that the rest of us never heard about.

One bloggable bit down, many to go. Next up, David Goodman hits the campaign trail again.

Election Day

There is no voting today in Bexley, but some of our near neighbors do have elections. From the Franklin County BOE:

Elections will be held May 8th in the cities of Hilliard, Gahanna, Reynoldsburg and Whitehall. There will be tax or bond issues in Jefferson Township, Mifflin Township Road District, Truro Township, New Albany Plan (sic) Local School District, City of Upper Arlington, Pickerington School and Licking Heights Local School Districts.

Want to know what, exactly, you are voting on?

This link leads to a list of candidates in the primary elections.
This link leads to ballot issues.

I planned to post this yesterday. H/T Jill for reminding me.

Full Cabinet

It doesn't appear that an official announcement has been made, so I won't step on that, but I have it on good authority that Ted Strickland has finally named a Director for the Department of Mental Health, and that this person was worth the wait.

I'll update this after it goes public.

UPDATE:

It's been released. Sandy Stephenson is the new director at ODMH, starting June 04. A lot of people have been waiting for this apointment (Mental Health just went through the entire biennial appropriations process without a director). I've never met Ms. Stephenson, but I know several people who know her well, and among them the universal reaction to this choice is "fantastic."

I think the transition is now actually complete.

Update #2:

I guess Mark Rollenhagen at the PD liked my title. Either that or we're both just lame.
(edited to change 'Stevenson' to the actual spelling of 'Stephenson.' My apologies.)

Navel Gazing Meta Stuff+

I'm continually surprised at who is reading the blog, why they're reading, and what they get out of it. I'll therefore start this post out by explaining something that many of y'all already know:

The "Meta" in the post title indicates that I will be blogging about blogging. If I were to be blogging about blogging about blogging (as I guess I actually am doing at the moment), that would be meta-meta-blogging. For anyone who might quibble about redundancy, "Navel-Gazing" actually covers conceptually similar turf, but creates more specificity and connotes a particular (deprecating) connotation.

Okay. First observation: I did a post with "Stripper" in the title. That post spent all of yesterday as the most clicked upon headline in the national LeftyBlogs network of local blogs. That is the first time (that I'm aware of anyway) since my voting story that I've made the top 5. Redhorse once had a similar cynicism-inducing experience, when a piece he did about Dennis Kucinich garnering LeftyBlogs clicks rocketed up the LeftyBlogs chart. It won't be long before a site-traffic addict posts a story headlined: "Exotic Dancer Claims Evidence of Diebold Scheme to Steal Votes from Kucinich."

Next: I heard a rumor last week concerning someone I've written about. I was told it was strictly confidential and not widely known. Be that as it may, I got multiple hits last week from people who were doing Google Searches on the subject of said rumor. So, I'm saying two things right now: A) word seems to be spreading, obviously, so someone has been either successful or unsuccesful there, and B) Watching a rumor spread via web analytics is fascinating.

Also, I've finally started to get some evidence that some of my readers are, in fact, fellow Bexley residents. This is good, because I like to write about Bexley stories. In the most recent issue of ThisWeek Bexley, the most eye-catching story is about how Bexley's prom required submission to a Breathalyzer test before admission was granted. Students were warned on the day of the Prom, at lunchtime, about the Breathalyzer requirement. This was at least partly inspired by the situation at UA's Prom, where 125 kids were kicked out of their Prom due to evidence of alcohol use.

What's actually the better story to connect this to, though, is the release of the 2006 PPAAUS report (h/t Q.B.) on student behavior among Bexley Middle and High School students. People tend to glaze over when presented with numbers, but let me throw these out there: 48% of Juniors and Seniors reported using alcohol at parties. Another 31% reported consuming alcohol at some time in some other context. Given that Prom Night is apparently the context in which high-school drinking is most socially expected, it's not unreasonable to guess that approximately two hundred of the 320 Bexley prom-goers (62.5%) would have consumed alcohol that night without the increased prevention strategies. Of course, post-prom drinking most likely went on as planned. Anyway, there were apparently complaints about violations of civil liberties and all of that. Um, no. There was no requirement to attend the prom, and both the existence and methodology of the search were announced with enough forewarning to allow students to modify either their drinking or attendance. The process was applied to all students. The constitution protects against unreasonable search and seizure. Once again, as someone who often gets in heated arguments supporting the ACLU's unpopular position on cases, I still have to say that this is one of the more reasonable search policies I've heard of. Which is, perhaps, part of why Bexley students respect their teachers at much higher rates than Franklin County as a whole.

Which, in turn, is why I don't grumble about things like having a deadline to fix the awful paint job that was done on our garage before we moved in. I hope y'all have a better excuse to enjoy your weekend outside.

Fine. I'll write about the stripper bill.

My State Senator was the most quoted voice in opposition when the bill to regulate adult-oriented businesses, brought to the legislature after petitions were circulated by Citizens for Community Values, after the bill was voted upon in the senate. His opposition mainly centered upon the continuing erosion of home-rule and the ability of communities to determine community standards. That's a defensible position to take, and I made sure to mention my support of Mr. Goodman's willingness to do the politically unpopular.

I have to admit, I'm still persuadable on the issue of how much home rule is most appropriate for Ohio's local governments. Although I tend to come down on the side of communities, I can imagine situations where doing so might make me uncomfortable. So, it's kind of a cop-out for me to dismiss all encroachments on home rule out of hand simply because they are encroachments on home rule.

I also have to admit that although I'm pretty damn strident in defense of the First Amendment, I have a difficult time making the case that prohibiting lap dancing is an encroachment on free speech rights. What can you not effectively express from the stage?

Finally, there's a sort of constraint-of-commerce argument floating around out there, with folks bemoaning the job loss that might accompany this law. Pho made a related point, but as a liberal, I believe in things like the Minimum Wage, Environmental Protection, Workman's Compensation, Child Labor Laws, etc. There is a common good which sometimes outweighs the sacrifices in economic efficiency that come with regulating commerce.

So, what I'm left with after all of that, is whether or not the small 'd' democratic state of Ohio believes that the proposed regulations promote or defend a common good that outweighs the constraints on trade, expression, privacy, and liberty that the bill would be imposing. The supporters say yes, that the restrictions will decrease crime. The common good is safety.

To which I say bullshit. There is no evidence that crime depends on the distance between a dancer and a patron. There is no evidence that adult oriented businesses create crime, at best there is evidence that criminal activity is more common near adult-oriented businesses. I have yet to see evidence that there is more crime associated with bars that provide nude entertainment than with bars that provide other forms of live entertainment.

Some people don't like the idea of strippers. They don't like the idea of sexually themed entertainment. That's not good enough for a law, and they know it, so they use safety as the issue.

Most smoking bans, including Ohio's, are justified as protections for employees who are exposed to hazardous chemicals in their place of employment. I don't think any other similar workplace safety issue would have passed. Rather than simply not patronize smoking establishments, many people who could care less about workplace safety voted for the measure so that they would not have to avoid second-hand smoke. Many people think homosexuality is disgusting. That's not good enough to codify discrimination.

I don't like handguns. That's not good enough to overcome the second amendment.

I get really really sick of people looking to pass laws based on "I approve of/like this activity" vs. "I disapprove of/dislike this activity." Democracy has some ground rules, and if I may be permitted a moment of holier-than-thou pique, it would be nice if folks actually thought about that.