I guess some people believe I am polarizing or that is what I take away from a post from Michael at Cincinnati Group. I really don't see myself as polarized. I have opinions and people agree or disagree with them, but I don't think I am extreme on any big issue. I don't think being confrontational on issues or even heavy handed is polarizing. I also don't think when I state what I believe are facts, but do so in a manner people find harsh or shrill, that I am polarizing. I take sides on issues. I am not stuck on every element of most issues. There are a few I will not budge on, but that makes me stubborn, not out on a polar extreme. Additionally, I don't think people really hate me. They may think I suck and am a waste of time, but don't hate me. So I guess I would have said "love him or think he sucks" instead of "love him or hate him." It is a matter of semantics.
The post ended up having little to do with me, except that I guess I got lucky in naming my blog what it is. I guess no one would be reading me if Cincinnati was not in the name of my blog, not that many read me now as it is. I think my parents are just hitting refresh 50 times a day. I got indirectly slammed (or directly), but CiN took the brunt of it.
I do really disagree a lot about Michael's comment that I don't that much to do with Cincinnati. I have a lot to do with Cincinnati, but I am not niche blog about Cincinnati. I comment on local media, local news, local politics, and local cultural events mostly. During the Presidential race I did talk about national issue a lot, but I still hit the issues affecting people in the city.
I am not from Cincinnati, that is clear. I happily am from Western New York State. I think I bring a perspective on the city that is different and not filled with either assumed knowledge or historical bias. I have bias; just not one where I assume things here in Cincinnati will never change. It just may take years.