Residents of the state of New York: Congratulations; you just dodged a bullet.

Photo courtesy of : √oхέƒx™|flickr

Last week, on March 11, New York Governor David Paterson and legislative leaders withdrew plans for a host of controversial and highly unpopular taxes that would have resulted in approximately $1.3 billion in new taxes for the year beginning July 1 .

Paterson suggested the state, which faces a record $14.2 billion deficit, could finally afford to drop the proposed taxes because of money the state will receive as part of the federal stimulus package.

Paterson first presented in December what some people thought is a unique plan to aid in closing the historic state budget gap. Others have called the plan “an attack on personal freedom.”

What the plan proposed was an addition to, or in some cases an expansion of, excise taxes, known popularly as sin taxes.

Paterson wanted the state to increase or add sales taxes to, among other items, sporting event tickets, movie tickets, theater tickets, alcohol (beer, wine and liquor), Internet downloads, taxis, satellite and cable TV, cigars, massages and soft drinks that contain sugar. (See more details of the original tax plan.)

And surprisingly, it’s that last one, sugar-laden soft drinks, that caused the largest outcry among New York’s citizens. San Fransisco considered a similar tax:



The $404 million the soda tax would have raised would be used to fund public health programs, including programs aimed at preventing or reducing the incidence of obesity.

"We are in the midst of a new public health epidemic: childhood obesity," Paterson said in December.



Paterson expected such a tax to reduce the sales of sugar-laden beverages by about 5 percent and the statistics he cited in making his proposal are alarming: One in four children under the age of 18 is obese, and in economically challenged areas, that number may rise to one in three. Only 17 years ago, the obesity rate in New York was about 10 percent -- that's a pretty remarkable jump.

But from the moment the words were out of his mouth, New Yorkers were all over the matter, expressing an almost universal disapproval for what became known as the fat tax.

“Any new tax is a bad tax, particularly in this state where we are taxed to death (highest tax rate in the nation when all taxes are taken into consideration), said Dave Barmen, a small business owner from Upstate New York. “And if you think the revenue from the tax will go to what it's supposedly earmarked for, it's highly unlikely.”

Barmen also attacked the core purpose of the proposed tax – decreasing obesity and related health issues.

“All these laws that restrict personal freedom are antithetical to the whole purpose of this democratic experiment we call the United States,” he said, citing seat belt, helmet, hand-free cell phone and gambling statutes as unfair and unpatriotic. “It's one thing to have laws that protect people from harm inflicted by others ... it's idiotic to have laws that protect us from our own selves.”

And plenty of people agree with Barmen, judging from discourse throughout the blogosphere.

Even people who agree something needs to be done to squelch obesity, and childhood obesity in particular, believe taxing the matter away is neither necessary nor productive.

“Educate children on nutrition. Make home [economics] a mandatory class and make healthy eating the core focus,” one New Yorker suggested. “Because you will not stop people from drinking soda with an 18 percent tax.”

The idea of an 18 percent tax not being enough to deter unwanted behavior is also supported by a sizable segment of the population.

“I think the tax would have to be much higher to have a significant impact,” one blog poster said. “While some may switch to diet, an 18 percent increase is only about a 25 cent increase in total price on a two liter. I think people will pay for it: they are too addicted to their sugar and caffeine not to.”

Beth Walter Honadle is a political science professor at the University of Cincinnati. She specializes in public policy research and says the issue must be looked at from two perspectives.

Excluding tax income as the sole or even primary impetus for the soda tax, that leaves two objectives for the proposed but now aborted implementation: to less the consumption of soft drinks and/or to decrease obesity rates.

Honadle offered as alternatives to taxation educational programs, subsidization of healthier alternatives and on outright ban on the sale of sugared soft drinks.

Although, “We all know how well Prohibition worked out,” she said.

She said that if decreasing obesity is the ultimate goal and government feels it wants or needs to intervene, that intervention could take the form of building more pedestrian-friendly areas, building more bike lanes, requiring more physical education in schools and requiring employers to provide recreational facilities.

But all those things cost money, and doesn’t that just put us right back where we started?

Are you a customer of Fifth Third Bank?

I am working with fellow journalism major Ashley Monk on a story about the unfair and greatly inflated fees that Fifth Third Bank charges their customers and the way the bank manipulates charges and debits in a manner that is perceived to be unethical.

If you are a customer of Fifth Third and would be willing to discuss your experience with us, please email me at:

worldneedsnow@yahoo.com

We are especially interested in talking to residents of the Cincinnati area and UC students in particular.

We expect/hope for a story on this situation to run in The News Record either next week or the first week after Spring Break, the week of April 1st.

Thanks!

Economy hits Spring Break

Maui, Hawaii, Spring Break 2005

Students at the University of Cincinnati and other area schools are saying that, by and large, the shaky U.S. economy will not impact their Spring Break plans, echoing similar attitudes being expressed on college campuses across the country.

“I think that you are only this age in college once and you only have so many opportunities so you might as well take advantage of them while you have the time,” said Alex, a second-year CCM student.

Industry experts also support that perspective, even if doing so is somewhat self-serving.

Resort operator Sandals offers on its Web site a list of 26 tips for affording Spring Break.

Other operators make Spring Break sound both affordable and necessary.

''Typically, the student business is more resilient to the economy because it's like a once-in-a-lifetime trip,'' said Jason Chute, director of operations for StudentCity.com, a travel group that specializes in spring break travel.

That once in a lifetime, got to do it now before I graduate mentality is shared by Denise Lottman.

Lottman, a fourth-year A&S student said she and a group of friends found a good deal on a cruise to Mexico.

“[I] figure this is our senior year, and [I] have never previously done much for spring break,” she said. “I deserve a reward for getting through college.”

But just a bit of economic reality also creeps into Lottman’s thinking.

“A part of me thinks I would probably reconsider the trip had I not arranged to go nearly six months ago,” she said. “I plan on using paychecks and forget parking passes, I'm braving the Clifton streets.”

In addition to giving up luxuries like parking passes, some students are careful to note that they have worked hard to put together the least expensive vacation possible.

Alex will be making the migration to popular Spring Break spot Panama City, Fla.

“There are 15 of us in two six-person lofts,” he said. “Yes, money may be an issue at this time period, but let's be honest: It won't last forever, it will get better and I'll most likely be in college during most of the ‘down’ years.”

Alex estimates his total expenses for the trip will total only about $250: $100 for his share of the loft (for six nights), gas money for the drive (divided among 4 to 5 people per car) and food and drink.

Annie Dietrich, a second-year education major, can relate to Alex. She and 10 of her closet friends will be sharing a two-bedroom condo in Panama City.

But there are plenty of people who will not be traveling this March.

Amanda Turk, a fourth-year French student at Wright State University, will spend this break as she has spent so many others – working, saving up maybe for her next trip to France. That, she says, is more important to her than a week in Florida with thousands of other students.

Sean Peters, a third-year UC journalism major said that in his fantasy world, he’d spend Spring Break traveling through Western Europe.

He said that instead of France, Denmark and the Netherlands, he’d be staying in Cincinnati.

“I'll eat ramen noodles and watch reruns of Sponge Bob Square Pants,” he said.

Lauren Black of Toledo is facing an even more bleak Spring Break.

“I might be getting laid off. Awesome. So on my Spring Break I will be daydreaming of a better life while I search for jobs,” she said. “I guess you could say that a relaxing week at home has been ruined by the economy.”

And while Lottman knows how she’ll both pay for her trip and avoid racking up credit card debt, others will unfortunately, have to rely on credit, at least a little bit.

“I am going thousands of dollars in debt in loans anyway to pay for school, what's an extra couple hundred bucks?” Alex said. “I am paying for it through money I earned [and my] credit card ... quite simply, you have to pay money to experience things.”

Lottman echoed Alex’s sentiments.

“Screw money,” she said. “It controls way too many of our decisions.”

Zimpher's UC tenure first class

And now it is finally official - Nancy Zimpher will leave the University of Cincinnati to become chancellor of the State University of New York system.

After weeks of denying what was strongly suspected, the announcement was finally made. She said at today’s press conference in Albany, N.Y., that “Only the size and scale of the opportunity at the SUNY system” could lure her away from UC.

And anyone would agree with that – Zimpher would have to be crazy not to take a position that puts her in charge of 64 campuses that boast a combined enrollment of more than 500,000 students.And despite what many UC community members are saying now, her legacy is yet to be determined.

The truth is, Zimpher has been a polarizing figure on campus and in the region. It seems people love her or hate her. Some describe her as warm and engaging while others say she comes off a little “frosty.” There seems to be no middle ground: There is no ambivalence when it comes to UC’s president.

Those who love her point to strong leadership and an emphasis on academic achievement as elements that bring her great esteem.

“I’ve really enjoyed having a president who has such an open attitude toward students,” said Frank Bowen, UC dean of students. “I’m hopefully optimistic for the future of UC that we find a president who is as exploratory, optimistic and academically focused as [Zimpher].”

And the love fest doesn’t end there.

Student Government President Ryan Rosensweig commented that the value of a UC degree has increased under Zimpher’s tenure.

And Cincinnati Mayor Mark Mallory said: “I feel like I’m losing a friend.”

But those who, well let’s just say those who are not big fans of Zimpher seem to be hung up on a few very specific issues: comments she made about the lesser value of the “pre-Zimpher” degree and the firing of beloved basketball coach Bob Huggins in 2004. In fact, there are whole Web sites dedicated to trashing Zimpher in support of Hugs.

“Your attitude toward UC’s pre-Zimpher alumni is atrocious,” one alumnus said.

“Her comments about ‘pre-Zimpher’ alumni have left a bitter taste in my mouth (CCM ‘71). I have not renewed my alumni membership since she fired Huggins. Not because I thought she shouldn’t or couldn’t do it, but because of the way she did it,” said another.

And typical of the Huggins fan is this comment: “Whoever fires Bob Huggins doesn’t deserve to be at UC.”

And really, those are about the only printable comments there are on the subject of the Zimpher-Huggins rivalry.

So what is the truth?

While it is true that no one person is larger than the institution, and despite a few missteps (the closure of grad student housing tops the list), by and large, Zimpher has been good, very good, for the University.

UC’s reputation has improved. Enrollment is up. UC is now considered to be a top-notch research university. And Zimpher has positively impacted the entire region with her involvement in the Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce, Agenda 360 and the CUF Community Council.

She has made UC a university students can be proud to attend.

And to those people who still carry a torch for Huggins? Get over it already.

Around the time Huggins was fired, Zimpher was quoted as saying: “Character counts.”

If all members of the UC community are honest with themselves, they’ll see she was right and that UC athletics are better off now than in the Huggins heyday.

Gone is the questionable recruiting. Gone is the thuggish reputation of the team. And in are the classier, quality athletics programs of today; the UC community should be proud not only of the performances of the baseball, volleyball and football teams (not to mention the basketball team, which is quietly earning its way to an NCAA tournament bid), but also of the academic accomplishments of UC athletes. According to the most recent figures available, 68 percent of athletes graduate while only 52 percent of the general student population graduates.

So while SUNY’s gain is UC’s loss, there are several initiatives she won’t be around to see through, including the semester conversion, performance-based budgeting and the redevelopment of McMillan Park.

“I’ll take a hoe out there myself if it takes [longer than two years],” Zimpher said in January 2008.

Looks like we’ll never get to see that happen.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's a look at Nancy Zimpher's first visit with a college in the SUNY system, the University of Albany.

I want porn and pizza ...

Photo credit: nwistheone/flickr.com

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nwistheone/72190758/

So, I just cannot take it any longer. I feel I need to address the hypocrites and idiots who have found it necessary to comment on the University of Cincinnati's week of "Sexploration."

The event has garnered considerable media attention, especially from the Cincinnati Enquirer, and I'll admit I found it odd that the paper previewed the event on Sunday, Feb. 1. Here's a link to Cliff Peale's article: http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090201/NEWS01/902010361.

"Really," I thought at the time. "Is there so little going on in Cincinnati that the Enquirer is now covering benign campus events?"

After all, as a student at a major university, I didn't bat an eye when I first heard about "Sexploration," and I'm fairly certain no I know did either.

But the letters to the Enquirer's editorial page started showing up in print, Archbishop Pilarczyk got involved (http://www.newsrecord.org/sections/news/archbishop_upset_with_sexploration-1.1355050)

and so did Peter Bronson

(http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=blog03&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3ab0f34581-34e4-4b11-9a69-1df5eb81e786Post%3a84225783-71fe-47f8-b5c0-4d99989cea68&sid=sitelife.cincinnati.com).

"How are events such as "Pizza and Porn" and "Got the Hook Up?" any better than inviting a tobacco company to peddle cigarettes and celebrate the glories of a good smoke?" This is just one of the pearls of wisdom Bronson offers in his "Sexploration" blog post.

For the record, I can't think of I time I ever thought Bronson was right.

Sigh.

So let me first address the idiots (that's you and your ilk, Bronson). If any of these people had gone to, researched, or even called someone involved with the "Pizza and Porn" event, they'd realize the event was not dinner and a movie, but rather a public forum, a discourse, an exploration of people's thoughts and perspectives on pornography.

In other words, "Pizza and Porn" was intended to bring people of differing opinions together to encourage critical thinking concerning a difficult and controversial subject.

Gee, I could have sworn that this is what college is for: to teach people to think both critically and for themselves.

As for the hypocrites, well, I'll start with Pilarczyk. Dude, you are just in no way, shape or form in a position to comment on, well just about anything to do with sex.

"I find the 'Sexploration' program ... to be profoundly disturbing," Pilarczyk said in a statement released by the Archdiocese. "The gross disregard of the moral sensibilities of many in the university community is troubling in the extreme."

What's troubling to me is that a representative of a religion that is wholly and completely out of touch with life in the 21st century (Hello, no birth control? Seriously?) is commenting on the sexual mores of today's college students.

What's troubling to me is that a man who has vowed to live his life as a celibate is commenting on the safety of the sex others engage in.

What's troubling to me is that a man of such high position, so ready to publicly denounce the university and it's Wellness Center, could be completely misinformed as to whether or not taxpayer funds paid for the week's events (they didn't).

What's troubling to me is that after all the charges, convictions, admissions, accusations and payoffs surrounding pedophile clergy (including this: http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090117/NEWS01/901170367/-1/today),

Pilarczyk would so willingly and without thinking out the consequences put himself out there in this way, opening himself up to a potential onslaught of criticism and recrimination, ready to make a fool of himself over what is essentially the decision of two consenting adults to participate in safe sex.

Well played, Archbishop. Well played.

Finally, to many, but not all of (some of the comments are very rational and intelligent), the women who post on momslikeme.com: Are you such old farts that you don't remember your college experience? Are you liars or just phonies? Just wondering, because some of you spout such venom towards Pure Romance. Are you denying you had sex in college? Because I'm not falling for that. Just saying.

Whew, I fell better now.

Agree with me? Think I'm a lunatic? Comment away.

Should she stay or should she go?

UC President Nancy Zimpher
with Thane Maynard (and Lucy the bearcat) of the Cincinnati Zoo,
September 2008, UC Night at the Zoo

I bet you've heard the news already - Nancy Zimpher is poised to leave the University of Cincinnati to become chancellor of the State University of New York system.

Or, at least that what several major media outlets are saying (Hi, New York Times!).

Here at UC, mum is the word. Zimpher admits only that she has been approached about the position. In a statement issued on Monday, she said "It is not uncommon for me to receive such inquiries. I see it as recognition of the progress made by the University of Cincinnati on academic quality and accountability, urban issues, our strong research program and our collaborative endeavors throughout the region and state."

Gee, thanks for addressing the matter directly, Nancy.

UC spokeman Greg Hand and SUNY spokesman David Henahan are also holding the party line, stating no decision has been made.

The SUNY system is comprised of 64 campuses and has more than 500,000 students.

As a former student of a SUNY college (Oneonta!), I think this job would be big. Very big and very prestigious. Zimpher, if offered the position, would have to be crazy to decline it.

But if she were to accept it, UC would be left in the lurch - or would it?

The truth is, Zimpher has been a polarizing figure on campus and in the region. It seems people love her or hate her. I seldom hear of a middle ground; there is no ambivalence when it comes to UC's president.

So I invite you to share your thoughts. Do you love what she's done for academics and research, or are you still holding a torch for Hugs? Will be UC be lost without her or will time move on?

Should she stay or should she go?

(Please feel free to identify yourself in any comments you leave - I may  contact you for a future article on this subject.)

Crime in the UC area

It has almost become the punchline to some unfortunate joke -- the frequency with which we all receive crime notifactions via our Blackboard accounts. And indeed, according to Greg Hand, UC director of communications, notifications through November 2008, as compared to the same time period in 2007, were up 300 percent. That's quite a jump.

UCPD will be quick to point out that most of these notifications, as is par for the course, concern crime that occurs off campus, in the CUF (Clifton Heights, University Heights and Fairview) neighborhoods. And it is not particularly difficult to see how we got to this point; the economy is going to hell, unemployment is high and the city is closing jails due to a lack of funding.

We've all heard the stories. The man who was mugged after he slipped and fell on the ice? He broke his arm and was begging for help when assailants mugged him. Then there is the recent mugging in which one suspect was described by the victim as a four-foot tall 13 year old. What about the young teen boy who allegedly attempted to rob two students at an ATM on Halloween night? Did you hear about that?

Last quarter The News Record staff posted a poll on its Web site that asked readers to rate how safe they felt at and around UC. Overwhelmingly, respondents expressed great concern for their safety.

Now I'd like to take the polling process one step further.

I'd like to know what you think of all this madness. Are you scared? Have you been a crime victim? Do you know someone who has been a victim? What precautions are you taking to protect yourself? Do you have any suggestions for diminishing crime in the area? Or maybe you think all this talk is much ado about nothing.

Comment away. Speak your mind. Tell me everything.