Recent Comments
- Mandel: Public’s frustration w/Dems will have more impact in states with “bigger Jewish populations” (4)
- Jill Zimon: Steve – thanks for the comment – I agree. Voters need to be allowed to...
- Jill Zimon: Anastasia – what you said.
- 10 Worst Places for Women to Work (4)
- Jill Zimon: @Dick thanks for commenting, no question – she is an expert in that regard.
- Jill Zimon: @Westwood – thanks for the comment – I apologize for the delay in...
- Zimon to Run as Coffee Party Candidate for County Exec and Synagogue, AJC, Ohio Bar & NASW President (10)
- Jill Zimon: Hi Steve – have a good Pesach and great to know you are reading this still.
... - steve goldberg: I almost choked on my hamentashen!
- Jill Zimon: Hi Steve – have a good Pesach and great to know you are reading this still.
- Attn ODP: Step Away From the Pre-Primary Endorsement in Brunner, Fisher matchup (3)
- Jill Zimon: Adrienne – thanks for sharing that. I guess we’ll wait and see!
- Adrienne Deckman: Here is what I wrote to the ODP, for what it is worth: I am appalled at the...
- Mandel: Public’s frustration w/Dems will have more impact in states with “bigger Jewish populations” (4)
Print This Post
Jul
31
Ken Blackwell looks just like…
Filed Under Politics | 9 Comments
I don’t know exactly. But if we ran a My Heritage on Ohio candidates, I’m guessing we would have a few good laughs on both sides of the aisle.
Me? I look like Lance Armstrong and Hugh Grant and Carmen Electra (wait until I tell my spouse!). No. Really. Check it out.
Consider yourself warned: this could suck you and huge quanitities of time into a black hole.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 2:29 am July 31st, 2006 in Politics | 9 Comments
Print This Post
Jul
31
ISRAEL TO CEASE BOMBING FOR 48 HOURS
Filed Under Politics | 4 Comments
Read here.
Here, however, is the problem with ceasefires and why Hezbollah always figures out a way to make it okay to keep rocketing:
[Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora] took a tough line and hinted that any Hezbollah response to the airstrike at the village of Qana was justified.
“As long as the aggression continues there is response to be exercised,” he said, praising Hezbollah’s leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah.
Hezbollah said on its Al-Manar television that it will retaliate.
“The massacre at Qana will not go unanswered,” the group said.
Likewise, the report says that Israel has said that if rockets come down during the 48 hours, they will strike back.
Still call it a ceasefire? Still think it will help?
By Jill Miller Zimon at 12:52 am July 31st, 2006 in Politics | 4 Comments
Print This Post
Jul
30
Ken Blackwell looks just like…
Filed Under Politics | 9 Comments
I don’t know exactly. But if we ran a My Heritage on Ohio candidates, I’m guessing we would have a few good laughs on both sides of the aisle.
Me? I look like Lance Armstrong and Hugh Grant and Carmen Electra (wait until I tell my spouse!). No. Really. Check it out.
Consider yourself warned: this could suck you and huge quanitities of time into a black hole.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 10:29 pm July 30th, 2006 in Politics | 9 Comments
Print This Post
Jul
30
ISRAEL TO CEASE BOMBING FOR 48 HOURS
Filed Under Politics | 4 Comments
Read here.
Here, however, is the problem with ceasefires and why Hezbollah always figures out a way to make it okay to keep rocketing:
[Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora] took a tough line and hinted that any Hezbollah response to the airstrike at the village of Qana was justified.
“As long as the aggression continues there is response to be exercised,” he said, praising Hezbollah’s leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah.
Hezbollah said on its Al-Manar television that it will retaliate.
“The massacre at Qana will not go unanswered,” the group said.
Likewise, the report says that Israel has said that if rockets come down during the 48 hours, they will strike back.
Still call it a ceasefire? Still think it will help?
By Jill Miller Zimon at 8:52 pm July 30th, 2006 in Politics | 4 Comments
Print This Post
Jul
30
Ken Blackwell looks just like…
Filed Under Politics | Leave a Comment
I don’t know exactly. But if we ran a My Heritage on Ohio candidates, I’m guessing we would have a few good laughs on both sides of the aisle.
Me? I look like Lance Armstrong and Hugh Grant and Carmen Electra (wait until I tell my spouse!). No. Really. Check it out.
Consider yourself warned: this could suck you and huge quanitities of time into a black hole.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 7:29 pm July 30th, 2006 in Politics | Please comment
Print This Post
Jul
30
ISRAEL TO CEASE BOMBING FOR 48 HOURS
Filed Under Politics | Leave a Comment
Read here.
Here, however, is the problem with ceasefires and why Hezbollah always figures out a way to make it okay to keep rocketing:
[Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora] took a tough line and hinted that any Hezbollah response to the airstrike at the village of Qana was justified.
“As long as the aggression continues there is response to be exercised,” he said, praising Hezbollah’s leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah.
Hezbollah said on its Al-Manar television that it will retaliate.
“The massacre at Qana will not go unanswered,” the group said.
Likewise, the report says that Israel has said that if rockets come down during the 48 hours, they will strike back.
Still call it a ceasefire? Still think it will help?
By Jill Miller Zimon at 5:52 pm July 30th, 2006 in Politics | Please comment
Print This Post
Jul
30
Why isn’t the media quoting Hezbollah and private militias in the U.S.
Filed Under Politics | 13 Comments
In this AP story about the wretched attach on Qana, Lebanon, where it’s alleged that more than 30 children died, everyone is quoted about what happened and what’s happening and what won’t be happening and what more will happen.
Everyone except Hezbollah.
Why isn’t the absence of a statement from the militia noted? If they are so okay with firing scores of rockets from the depths of a populated area, why are they not shouting it to the skies that this is what they must do? Why are they not bringing forth all the support of the people who live in these areas to say, It is okay! I want to die for Hezbollah! Of course it’s okay if they shoot rockets from my house as I sit in it, knowing that the Israelis will fire back to destroy the rocket launchers!
Earth to media: you’re providing information to make people cry. For it is indeed sad and tragic.
But why are you not providing the justifications, the pronouncements, the anything from Hezbollah? There is not a single comment about what Hezbollah’s reaction is to what has been done to this town.
Why not? Why are you not saying that Hezbollah is silent, or Hezbollah is justifying, or Hezbollah is sorry and is there with assistance?
Of course the Lebanese government wants an immediate cease-fire – they are completely incapable of handling the Hezbollah militia.
For once, the lightbulb went on in my head as to why we can’t have private militias in this country. Although of course that doesn’t stop people from arming themselves. Can you imagine if people were allowed to have private militias?
Oh wait! We do have private militias. I forgot. And here’s a fascinating report from the U.S. Department of Justice, an attorney general opinion, all about the 2nd Amendment.
Read this thorough explanation of militias and private militias in the U.S. and tell me that Mel Gibson couldn’t buy a whole mess of weapons, find that guy in Seattle and organize to get rid of Jews. From that link:
The FBI has published its report on the militia movement and has determined that the movement is not a threat to the national security of the United States.
But here it is in html, and I couldn’t figure out where the URL is for the pdf, new machine and all, and, although it’s from 1996, in several places, it says that militias are a threat for domestic terrorism (see the report pages 16-18). I could have the wrong report, but I don’t think so. Besides, it’s hard to imagine that if a 1996 report says that there is a threat, that a later report would say there no longer is a threat, given everything that’s transpired inbetween.
No – I don’t actually think that makes sense – that they would do that. But I do believe that there are people who might want to. And the law would let them. Well, arm up anyway. How much further they got? I don’t know – I mean, if it’s not against the law to have all those weapons amassed for their militia…then I guess you’d have to wait until they actually did something?
I have no idea. I’ve never thought about this stuff much before. Hmm, private militias. Good reading on a warm, Sunday.
I’m guessing that more than a few WLST readers are familiar with the 2nd Amendment. What can you tell us about this facet?
By Jill Miller Zimon at 5:43 pm July 30th, 2006 in Politics | 13 Comments
Print This Post
Jul
30
Michelle Malkin
Filed Under Politics | 11 Comments
I confess. I don’t know her, I emailed her once a while ago, commiserating about being treated horribly in comments (re: the old Right Angle Blog) and emails when she was being ruthlessly attacked by offended readers, and I wrote about her Hot Air venture because I liked the expansion of how she uses new media.
All I’ve known about her, before the last couple of days, is that she’s a right-wing blogger, as opposed to a left-wing blogger. A conservative. Did I clump her in with Ann Coulter? Well, I confess again – maybe. I mean, not exactly – Coulter is out there on her own with maybe a select other few. So only because they both fall on the right of center did I have them in the same locale.
But since the Seattle terrorist attack at the Jewish Community Federation, which her blog got onto immediately, I’ve been checking back there daily. And when it comes to the Middle East, I guess maybe I’m becoming far more hawkish and therefore more to the right on this issue – than I ever imagined possible. How far can that go? I’m not sure. But I’ve been thinking about it a lot.
Especially when I read Malkin’s posts like this one, which details how Hezbollah usurps Lebanese civillian territory for their own purposes.
When you’re Jewish and at college among a lot of folks who’ve never met Jews and went only to parochial school all their lives, you start to think – if Nazi Germany happened again, would any of my friends – my boyfriend – who was Polish Catholic – would any of them hide me? Would they sacrifice their security for me?
You think these things.
And after Friday’s Shabbat massacre in Seattle, I began to think the same (which I have thought from time to time here, but not so much). Who do I know, with children and possessions and a life of their own, who would hide me? Help me get safe passage? Help my family members? How far would these people go?
Do you remember getting insurance information to take home to your parents that said, if your child loses an arm, you get 10K, if it’s a leg, 15K and so on? I remember getting one of those flyers in second grade and remember being horrified.
Who is my insurance? Who can I count on as tensions in the Middle East begin to polarize others, and me? I try to resist it, but it is true: the closer the threat comes to my door, to my house, to people that I love, the more I know I would be willing to sacrifice everything else – my pacifist inclincations included.
If I asked you to harbor my child, or my children, if they were the only ones I could save, would you do it?
I’m told that my cousin Alain in France, who is now in his late 60s or early 70s, spent a part of his youth in a convent in order to be safe during WWII. He long ago gave up on religion. But his parents did what they had to to keep him safe.
Where would I put my kids? Myself? All my loved ones?
You think I don’t need to think about this stuff. But need has nothing to do with it.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 3:33 pm July 30th, 2006 in Politics | 11 Comments
Print This Post
Jul
30
Where’s Ohio?
Filed Under Politics | Leave a Comment
I’m not sure. Maybe I’m just in denial and also trying not to jinx things, I’m kind of superstitious. I don’t like hubris and I get concerned if people crow or crow too loudly – like doing well is too ephemeral to ever trust it so you need to kind of hide it?
But I realize, looking at the titles of my most recent posts, that I’ve not written much about Ohio politics lately. I started Lance Mason’s MTB and hope to finish that. I also started my notes from Moshe Ya’alon’s appearance at the City Club over a week ago (the podcast isn’t posted yet).
So – here’s to Sunday and getting those two things on the blog. And a return to Ohio, more and more. I can tell you that there are a couple of quiet things I’m working on that are very Ohio, but nothing more to report right now. I know some folks hate that kind of foreshadowing. But there it is.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 1:50 pm July 30th, 2006 in Politics | Please comment
Print This Post
Jul
30
Why isn’t the media quoting Hezbollah and private militias in the U.S.
Filed Under Politics | 12 Comments
In this AP story about the wretched attach on Qana, Lebanon, where it’s alleged that more than 30 children died, everyone is quoted about what happened and what’s happening and what won’t be happening and what more will happen.
Everyone except Hezbollah.
Why isn’t the absence of a statement from the militia noted? If they are so okay with firing scores of rockets from the depths of a populated area, why are they not shouting it to the skies that this is what they must do? Why are they not bringing forth all the support of the people who live in these areas to say, It is okay! I want to die for Hezbollah! Of course it’s okay if they shoot rockets from my house as I sit in it, knowing that the Israelis will fire back to destroy the rocket launchers!
Earth to media: you’re providing information to make people cry. For it is indeed sad and tragic.
But why are you not providing the justifications, the pronouncements, the anything from Hezbollah? There is not a single comment about what Hezbollah’s reaction is to what has been done to this town.
Why not? Why are you not saying that Hezbollah is silent, or Hezbollah is justifying, or Hezbollah is sorry and is there with assistance?
Of course the Lebanese government wants an immediate cease-fire – they are completely incapable of handling the Hezbollah militia.
For once, the lightbulb went on in my head as to why we can’t have private militias in this country. Although of course that doesn’t stop people from arming themselves. Can you imagine if people were allowed to have private militias?
Oh wait! We do have private militias. I forgot. And here’s a fascinating report from the U.S. Department of Justice, an attorney general opinion, all about the 2nd Amendment.
Read this thorough explanation of militias and private militias in the U.S. and tell me that Mel Gibson couldn’t buy a whole mess of weapons, find that guy in Seattle and organize to get rid of Jews. From that link:
The FBI has published its report on the militia movement and has determined that the movement is not a threat to the national security of the United States.
But here it is in html, and I couldn’t figure out where the URL is for the pdf, new machine and all, and, although it’s from 1996, in several places, it says that militias are a threat for domestic terrorism (see the report pages 16-18). I could have the wrong report, but I don’t think so. Besides, it’s hard to imagine that if a 1996 report says that there is a threat, that a later report would say there no longer is a threat, given everything that’s transpired inbetween.
No – I don’t actually think that makes sense – that they would do that. But I do believe that there are people who might want to. And the law would let them. Well, arm up anyway. How much further they got? I don’t know – I mean, if it’s not against the law to have all those weapons amassed for their militia…then I guess you’d have to wait until they actually did something?
I have no idea. I’ve never thought about this stuff much before. Hmm, private militias. Good reading on a warm, Sunday.
I’m guessing that more than a few WLST readers are familiar with the 2nd Amendment. What can you tell us about this facet?
By Jill Miller Zimon at 1:43 pm July 30th, 2006 in Politics | 12 Comments
Print This Post
Jul
30
Mel on pg 1, hate killing of Jew in Seattle, p.20 (NYT) and p.11 (PD)
Filed Under Politics | 3 Comments
Just when I think I’m learning a little about the media industry, I realize how little I’ve actually learned.
Please – give me the 101:
Why does Mel Gibson’s APOLOGY, not even the actual reporting of his DUI, make the teaser on the bottom of the front page of both the New York Times and the Plain Dealer, and the news about the terrorism at Seattle’s Jewish Community Federation, that resulted in the death of one woman (who, by the way, converted from being a Prostestant to being a Jew) and gunshot injuries to another five women, and was perpetrated by an allegedly Muslim killer angry about Israel, doesn’t appear until page 20 in the NYT and page 11 in the PD?
[Sidenote: Of course, if print were to die, which I don't expect it to and I've never wanted it to, this issue of placement would be resolved to some extent because you can just search to find what you're looking for and you can fit more links on a webpage homepage than is probably now listed on a print front page.]
I’m not arguing about the importance of what is on the first page of the PD – serious strife and misery due to flooding. But really – a teaser about Mel and his apology for being inappropriate and racist? on the front page? And nothing, not a word, not a line, not a paragraph, not a picture of the mayhem, regarding Seattle’s tragedy?
It’s not like either of those papers have no Jews in their circulation. Both papers have the lion’s share of Jews in their states in their circulation.
Okay – so give it to me. How do such decisions end up with these results? (How come none of the editorial meetings I attended ever had stuff like this? That’s a be careful what you wish for thing, I guess.)
By Jill Miller Zimon at 1:25 pm July 30th, 2006 in Politics | 3 Comments
Print This Post
Jul
30
The New York Times endorses Ned Lamont in the Connecticut primary for the US Senate seat currently held by Joe Lieberman. The Hartford Courant endorses Joe Lieberman.
Let’s take a look at how they came to their decisions:
The NYT, in 11 paragraphs, mentions or makes a statement about Ned Lamont once in the second paragraph and once in the eleventh paragraph. Every single word in the remainder of the piece is a parsing of Lieberman. This is the sum and substance of how they feel about Mr. Lamont:
Mr. Lamont, a wealthy businessman from Greenwich, seems smart and moderate, and he showed spine in challenging the senator while other Democrats groused privately. He does not have his opponents grasp of policy yet.
That’s it. After the millions of words on blogs, in ads and in print, that’s all they can say about him, in an endorsement piece that runs 930 words, they only have 34 to say about this Democratic candidate.
I’ve written a few times about my indecision about whether I would give up Lieberman for Lamont, based on having grown up and lived in CT and still having family and friends there. As a Democrat and a Jew, this decision is particularly anguishing.
So, if I’m going to be convinced that I should throw the incumbent overboard, the NYT’s piece isn’t going to do it for me. Because, as a left-leaning Democrat, I’m not interested in hearing only the negative. I’m interested in turning away from producing only negative. I want to hear arguments in favor of the candidate they choose.
How often do we malign voters’ decisions based on just not voting for the other guy? And basically, that’s what the NYT editorial says to do. Don’t vote for the other guy. We can’t really tell you anything about the guy you’ll vote for instead, but just don’t vote for the other one.
Sure, we all do that once in a while. It’s inevitable in our system and given our expectations. But in a major newspaper endorsement? I expect more than that. Way more.
So let’s look at the Hartford Courant’s endorsement of Lieberman.
Out of 737 words, the Courant dedicates a higher proportion (about 78 words out of 737) to the candidate they don’t endorse (Lamont) than the Times did (34 out of 930) to the same candidate, whom the Times did endorse (that really doesn’t strike anyone else as odd?).
(Out of 16 paragraphs (several of which are only one or two sentences – not something you’ll find in the Times very often – it’s a writing style thing), the Courant’s piece has two full paragraphs that actually talk about Lamont.)
The Courant on Lamont:
His challenger, Ned Lamont, is a smart, knowledgeable, engaging candidate with a fresh face, superb campaign ads and a passionate antiwar fan club of bloggers and boomers. But Mr. Lamont has limited political experience, serving as a Greenwich selectman and finance board member some years ago.
His entrepreneurship is nothing to scoff at: He’s a cable TV millionaire. And his patrician pull toward public service — he’s the great-grandson of J.P. Morgan’s banking partner — is admirable.
But then what do they do? They don’t go getting all nasty and flamey on Lamont. They simply say look what Lieberman brings to the table that Lamont can’t and won’t and doesn’t.
Maybe it’s just the lawyer in me. But in law school, we’d call the Times’ version specious – because it’s just not based on anything that supports Lamont. And we’d call the Courant’s based on sound reasoning.
This is not to say that the Times’ doesn’t make good points about the troubling elements of Lieberman’s presence in the US Senate, as a Democrat and in general. The Times does.
But as an endorsement, it fails. And the Courant’s succeeds.
If I were voting in CT on August 8, I would vote for Lieberman. And the Courant’s editorial definitely put me over, especially in the face of the Times.
Maybe knowing that Lieberman will run as an Independent emboldened the Times to endorse Lamont in the primary. The telling time will be when the Times endorses a candidate for the general in November. Any guesses?
By Jill Miller Zimon at 12:43 pm July 30th, 2006 in Politics | Please comment
Print This Post
Jul
30
Michelle Malkin
Filed Under Politics | 11 Comments
I confess. I don’t know her, I emailed her once a while ago, commiserating about being treated horribly in comments (re: the old Right Angle Blog) and emails when she was being ruthlessly attacked by offended readers, and I wrote about her Hot Air venture because I liked the expansion of how she uses new media.
All I’ve known about her, before the last couple of days, is that she’s a right-wing blogger, as opposed to a left-wing blogger. A conservative. Did I clump her in with Ann Coulter? Well, I confess again – maybe. I mean, not exactly – Coulter is out there on her own with maybe a select other few. So only because they both fall on the right of center did I have them in the same locale.
But since the Seattle terrorist attack at the Jewish Community Federation, which her blog got onto immediately, I’ve been checking back there daily. And when it comes to the Middle East, I guess maybe I’m becoming far more hawkish and therefore more to the right on this issue – than I ever imagined possible. How far can that go? I’m not sure. But I’ve been thinking about it a lot.
Especially when I read Malkin’s posts like this one, which details how Hezbollah usurps Lebanese civillian territory for their own purposes.
When you’re Jewish and at college among a lot of folks who’ve never met Jews and went only to parochial school all their lives, you start to think – if Nazi Germany happened again, would any of my friends – my boyfriend – who was Polish Catholic – would any of them hide me? Would they sacrifice their security for me?
You think these things.
And after Friday’s Shabbat massacre in Seattle, I began to think the same (which I have thought from time to time here, but not so much). Who do I know, with children and possessions and a life of their own, who would hide me? Help me get safe passage? Help my family members? How far would these people go?
Do you remember getting insurance information to take home to your parents that said, if your child loses an arm, you get 10K, if it’s a leg, 15K and so on? I remember getting one of those flyers in second grade and remember being horrified.
Who is my insurance? Who can I count on as tensions in the Middle East begin to polarize others, and me? I try to resist it, but it is true: the closer the threat comes to my door, to my house, to people that I love, the more I know I would be willing to sacrifice everything else – my pacifist inclincations included.
If I asked you to harbor my child, or my children, if they were the only ones I could save, would you do it?
I’m told that my cousin Alain in France, who is now in his late 60s or early 70s, spent a part of his youth in a convent in order to be safe during WWII. He long ago gave up on religion. But his parents did what they had to to keep him safe.
Where would I put my kids? Myself? All my loved ones?
You think I don’t need to think about this stuff. But need has nothing to do with it.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 11:33 am July 30th, 2006 in Politics | 11 Comments
Print This Post
Jul
30
Why isn’t the media quoting Hezbollah and private militias in the U.S.
Filed Under Politics | Leave a Comment
In this AP story about the wretched attach on Qana, Lebanon, where it’s alleged that more than 30 children died, everyone is quoted about what happened and what’s happening and what won’t be happening and what more will happen.
Everyone except Hezbollah.
Why isn’t the absence of a statement from the militia noted? If they are so okay with firing scores of rockets from the depths of a populated area, why are they not shouting it to the skies that this is what they must do? Why are they not bringing forth all the support of the people who live in these areas to say, It is okay! I want to die for Hezbollah! Of course it’s okay if they shoot rockets from my house as I sit in it, knowing that the Israelis will fire back to destroy the rocket launchers!
Earth to media: you’re providing information to make people cry. For it is indeed sad and tragic.
But why are you not providing the justifications, the pronouncements, the anything from Hezbollah? There is not a single comment about what Hezbollah’s reaction is to what has been done to this town.
Why not? Why are you not saying that Hezbollah is silent, or Hezbollah is justifying, or Hezbollah is sorry and is there with assistance?
Of course the Lebanese government wants an immediate cease-fire – they are completely incapable of handling the Hezbollah militia.
For once, the lightbulb went on in my head as to why we can’t have private militias in this country. Although of course that doesn’t stop people from arming themselves. Can you imagine if people were allowed to have private militias?
Oh wait! We do have private militias. I forgot. And here’s a fascinating report from the U.S. Department of Justice, an attorney general opinion, all about the 2nd Amendment.
Read this thorough explanation of militias and private militias in the U.S. and tell me that Mel Gibson couldn’t buy a whole mess of weapons, find that guy in Seattle and organize to get rid of Jews. From that link:
The FBI has published its report on the militia movement and has determined that the movement is not a threat to the national security of the United States.
But here it is in html, and I couldn’t figure out where the URL is for the pdf, new machine and all, and, although it’s from 1996, in several places, it says that militias are a threat for domestic terrorism (see the report pages 16-18). I could have the wrong report, but I don’t think so. Besides, it’s hard to imagine that if a 1996 report says that there is a threat, that a later report would say there no longer is a threat, given everything that’s transpired inbetween.
No – I don’t actually think that makes sense – that they would do that. But I do believe that there are people who might want to. And the law would let them. Well, arm up anyway. How much further they got? I don’t know – I mean, if it’s not against the law to have all those weapons amassed for their militia…then I guess you’d have to wait until they actually did something?
I have no idea. I’ve never thought about this stuff much before. Hmm, private militias. Good reading on a warm, Sunday.
I’m guessing that more than a few WLST readers are familiar with the 2nd Amendment. What can you tell us about this facet?
By Jill Miller Zimon at 10:43 am July 30th, 2006 in Politics | Please comment
Print This Post
Jul
30
Where’s Ohio?
Filed Under Politics | Leave a Comment
I’m not sure. Maybe I’m just in denial and also trying not to jinx things, I’m kind of superstitious. I don’t like hubris and I get concerned if people crow or crow too loudly – like doing well is too ephemeral to ever trust it so you need to kind of hide it?
But I realize, looking at the titles of my most recent posts, that I’ve not written much about Ohio politics lately. I started Lance Mason’s MTB and hope to finish that. I also started my notes from Moshe Ya’alon’s appearance at the City Club over a week ago (the podcast isn’t posted yet).
So – here’s to Sunday and getting those two things on the blog. And a return to Ohio, more and more. I can tell you that there are a couple of quiet things I’m working on that are very Ohio, but nothing more to report right now. I know some folks hate that kind of foreshadowing. But there it is.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 9:50 am July 30th, 2006 in Politics | Please comment
Print This Post
Jul
30
Mel on pg 1, hate killing of Jew in Seattle, p.20 (NYT) and p.11 (PD)
Filed Under Politics | 3 Comments
Just when I think I’m learning a little about the media industry, I realize how little I’ve actually learned.
Please – give me the 101:
Why does Mel Gibson’s APOLOGY, not even the actual reporting of his DUI, make the teaser on the bottom of the front page of both the New York Times and the Plain Dealer, and the news about the terrorism at Seattle’s Jewish Community Federation, that resulted in the death of one woman (who, by the way, converted from being a Prostestant to being a Jew) and gunshot injuries to another five women, and was perpetrated by an allegedly Muslim killer angry about Israel, doesn’t appear until page 20 in the NYT and page 11 in the PD?
[Sidenote: Of course, if print were to die, which I don't expect it to and I've never wanted it to, this issue of placement would be resolved to some extent because you can just search to find what you're looking for and you can fit more links on a webpage homepage than is probably now listed on a print front page.]
I’m not arguing about the importance of what is on the first page of the PD – serious strife and misery due to flooding. But really – a teaser about Mel and his apology for being inappropriate and racist? on the front page? And nothing, not a word, not a line, not a paragraph, not a picture of the mayhem, regarding Seattle’s tragedy?
It’s not like either of those papers have no Jews in their circulation. Both papers have the lion’s share of Jews in their states in their circulation.
Okay – so give it to me. How do such decisions end up with these results? (How come none of the editorial meetings I attended ever had stuff like this? That’s a be careful what you wish for thing, I guess.)
By Jill Miller Zimon at 9:25 am July 30th, 2006 in Politics | 3 Comments
Print This Post
Jul
30
The New York Times endorses Ned Lamont in the Connecticut primary for the US Senate seat currently held by Joe Lieberman. The Hartford Courant endorses Joe Lieberman.
Let’s take a look at how they came to their decisions:
The NYT, in 11 paragraphs, mentions or makes a statement about Ned Lamont once in the second paragraph and once in the eleventh paragraph. Every single word in the remainder of the piece is a parsing of Lieberman. This is the sum and substance of how they feel about Mr. Lamont:
Mr. Lamont, a wealthy businessman from Greenwich, seems smart and moderate, and he showed spine in challenging the senator while other Democrats groused privately. He does not have his opponents grasp of policy yet.
That’s it. After the millions of words on blogs, in ads and in print, that’s all they can say about him, in an endorsement piece that runs 930 words, they only have 34 to say about this Democratic candidate.
I’ve written a few times about my indecision about whether I would give up Lieberman for Lamont, based on having grown up and lived in CT and still having family and friends there. As a Democrat and a Jew, this decision is particularly anguishing.
So, if I’m going to be convinced that I should throw the incumbent overboard, the NYT’s piece isn’t going to do it for me. Because, as a left-leaning Democrat, I’m not interested in hearing only the negative. I’m interested in turning away from producing only negative. I want to hear arguments in favor of the candidate they choose.
How often do we malign voters’ decisions based on just not voting for the other guy? And basically, that’s what the NYT editorial says to do. Don’t vote for the other guy. We can’t really tell you anything about the guy you’ll vote for instead, but just don’t vote for the other one.
Sure, we all do that once in a while. It’s inevitable in our system and given our expectations. But in a major newspaper endorsement? I expect more than that. Way more.
So let’s look at the Hartford Courant’s endorsement of Lieberman.
Out of 737 words, the Courant dedicates a higher proportion (about 78 words out of 737) to the candidate they don’t endorse (Lamont) than the Times did (34 out of 930) to the same candidate, whom the Times did endorse (that really doesn’t strike anyone else as odd?).
(Out of 16 paragraphs (several of which are only one or two sentences – not something you’ll find in the Times very often – it’s a writing style thing), the Courant’s piece has two full paragraphs that actually talk about Lamont.)
The Courant on Lamont:
His challenger, Ned Lamont, is a smart, knowledgeable, engaging candidate with a fresh face, superb campaign ads and a passionate antiwar fan club of bloggers and boomers. But Mr. Lamont has limited political experience, serving as a Greenwich selectman and finance board member some years ago.
His entrepreneurship is nothing to scoff at: He’s a cable TV millionaire. And his patrician pull toward public service — he’s the great-grandson of J.P. Morgan’s banking partner — is admirable.
But then what do they do? They don’t go getting all nasty and flamey on Lamont. They simply say look what Lieberman brings to the table that Lamont can’t and won’t and doesn’t.
Maybe it’s just the lawyer in me. But in law school, we’d call the Times’ version specious – because it’s just not based on anything that supports Lamont. And we’d call the Courant’s based on sound reasoning.
This is not to say that the Times’ doesn’t make good points about the troubling elements of Lieberman’s presence in the US Senate, as a Democrat and in general. The Times does.
But as an endorsement, it fails. And the Courant’s succeeds.
If I were voting in CT on August 8, I would vote for Lieberman. And the Courant’s editorial definitely put me over, especially in the face of the Times.
Maybe knowing that Lieberman will run as an Independent emboldened the Times to endorse Lamont in the primary. The telling time will be when the Times endorses a candidate for the general in November. Any guesses?
By Jill Miller Zimon at 8:43 am July 30th, 2006 in Politics | Please comment
Print This Post
Jul
30
Michelle Malkin
Filed Under Politics | Leave a Comment
I confess. I don’t know her, I emailed her once a while ago, commiserating about being treated horribly in comments (re: the old Right Angle Blog) and emails when she was being ruthlessly attacked by offended readers, and I wrote about her Hot Air venture because I liked the expansion of how she uses new media.
All I’ve known about her, before the last couple of days, is that she’s a right-wing blogger, as opposed to a left-wing blogger. A conservative. Did I clump her in with Ann Coulter? Well, I confess again – maybe. I mean, not exactly – Coulter is out there on her own with maybe a select other few. So only because they both fall on the right of center did I have them in the same locale.
But since the Seattle terrorist attack at the Jewish Community Federation, which her blog got onto immediately, I’ve been checking back there daily. And when it comes to the Middle East, I guess maybe I’m becoming far more hawkish and therefore more to the right on this issue – than I ever imagined possible. How far can that go? I’m not sure. But I’ve been thinking about it a lot.
Especially when I read Malkin’s posts like this one, which details how Hezbollah usurps Lebanese civillian territory for their own purposes.
When you’re Jewish and at college among a lot of folks who’ve never met Jews and went only to parochial school all their lives, you start to think – if Nazi Germany happened again, would any of my friends – my boyfriend – who was Polish Catholic – would any of them hide me? Would they sacrifice their security for me?
You think these things.
And after Friday’s Shabbat massacre in Seattle, I began to think the same (which I have thought from time to time here, but not so much). Who do I know, with children and possessions and a life of their own, who would hide me? Help me get safe passage? Help my family members? How far would these people go?
Do you remember getting insurance information to take home to your parents that said, if your child loses an arm, you get 10K, if it’s a leg, 15K and so on? I remember getting one of those flyers in second grade and remember being horrified.
Who is my insurance? Who can I count on as tensions in the Middle East begin to polarize others, and me? I try to resist it, but it is true: the closer the threat comes to my door, to my house, to people that I love, the more I know I would be willing to sacrifice everything else – my pacifist inclincations included.
If I asked you to harbor my child, or my children, if they were the only ones I could save, would you do it?
I’m told that my cousin Alain in France, who is now in his late 60s or early 70s, spent a part of his youth in a convent in order to be safe during WWII. He long ago gave up on religion. But his parents did what they had to to keep him safe.
Where would I put my kids? Myself? All my loved ones?
You think I don’t need to think about this stuff. But need has nothing to do with it.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 8:33 am July 30th, 2006 in Politics | Please comment
Print This Post
Jul
30
Where’s Ohio?
Filed Under Politics | Leave a Comment
I’m not sure. Maybe I’m just in denial and also trying not to jinx things, I’m kind of superstitious. I don’t like hubris and I get concerned if people crow or crow too loudly – like doing well is too ephemeral to ever trust it so you need to kind of hide it?
But I realize, looking at the titles of my most recent posts, that I’ve not written much about Ohio politics lately. I started Lance Mason’s MTB and hope to finish that. I also started my notes from Moshe Ya’alon’s appearance at the City Club over a week ago (the podcast isn’t posted yet).
So – here’s to Sunday and getting those two things on the blog. And a return to Ohio, more and more. I can tell you that there are a couple of quiet things I’m working on that are very Ohio, but nothing more to report right now. I know some folks hate that kind of foreshadowing. But there it is.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 6:50 am July 30th, 2006 in Politics | Please comment
Print This Post
Jul
30
Mel on pg 1, hate killing of Jew in Seattle, p.20 (NYT) and p.11 (PD)
Filed Under Politics | Leave a Comment
Just when I think I’m learning a little about the media industry, I realize how little I’ve actually learned.
Please – give me the 101:
Why does Mel Gibson’s APOLOGY, not even the actual reporting of his DUI, make the teaser on the bottom of the front page of both the New York Times and the Plain Dealer, and the news about the terrorism at Seattle’s Jewish Community Federation, that resulted in the death of one woman (who, by the way, converted from being a Prostestant to being a Jew) and gunshot injuries to another five women, and was perpetrated by an allegedly Muslim killer angry about Israel, doesn’t appear until page 20 in the NYT and page 11 in the PD?
[Sidenote: Of course, if print were to die, which I don't expect it to and I've never wanted it to, this issue of placement would be resolved to some extent because you can just search to find what you're looking for and you can fit more links on a webpage homepage than is probably now listed on a print front page.]
I’m not arguing about the importance of what is on the first page of the PD – serious strife and misery due to flooding. But really – a teaser about Mel and his apology for being inappropriate and racist? on the front page? And nothing, not a word, not a line, not a paragraph, not a picture of the mayhem, regarding Seattle’s tragedy?
It’s not like either of those papers have no Jews in their circulation. Both papers have the lion’s share of Jews in their states in their circulation.
Okay – so give it to me. How do such decisions end up with these results? (How come none of the editorial meetings I attended ever had stuff like this? That’s a be careful what you wish for thing, I guess.)
By Jill Miller Zimon at 6:25 am July 30th, 2006 in Politics | Please comment
2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
by Tips and TricksNews Now
