Print This Post Print This Post

Jan

12

Remains of the Day, 1-12-08

Filed Under Remains of the Day | Comments Off

1.  Big happy birthday to Scott Bakalar.  I was wondering what a five-star blog looks like – I can’t believe I even asked. If you don’t know, then you haven’t read Word of Mouth.

2. From Word of Mouth, this post about feigned indignation.  Honestly, how do people do and say some thing with a straight face and a good night’s sleep?

3. Okay – why are two of the three top toys from Ohio makers about cooking and the other is about fashion? Not that I don’t have some choice words for what I think of the rest of the list. And we wonder about getting women into the leadership pipelines in all professions, disciplines and sectors.

4.  Always reasons to study more.  Maybe this year I will really make/find the time to do it (some readers might recall that last fall, I turned down a two-year study program to be an adult bat mitzvah).

5. Is there some serious hypocrisy going on here? Leonard Witt will definitely get to the bottom of it – and hopefully let the rest of us know.

6. If you’re someone who likes to battle selective outrage, read this post on The Moderate Voice about voter suppression incidences. It is very concerning.

7. Valdis Krebs’ social media versus political machinery is being employed again by Mike Huckabee, this time in Michigan.

Gratuitous remain: Every time I read about John McCain in Michigan and the young voters, all I can think about is Michael Flory.  But are they?

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 10:57 pm January 12th, 2008 in Remains of the Day | Comments Off 

Print This Post Print This Post

Jan

12

Columbus Dispatch lets OLCA member write story on OLCA denial of membership case

Filed Under Blogging, Government, Media, Ohio, Politics, Statehouse | 4 Comments

Note the URL title tag of the Dispatch story on the incident:

blog.dispatch.com/dailybriefing/2008/01/reporters_to_bloggers_butt_out.shtml

Nice, whomever wrote that, real nice. James Nash – especially since OLCA is your organization – was that you? Should we impute that “butt out” thing to you? How exactly would you convince us not to? Ugh. I simply cannot believe that Paul Kostyu would ever say that, at least not on the record, let alone on the Internet where you can pretty much never erase it.

I have nothing against you personally, James. Remember that time on Capitol Square – the Ohio News Now program with Dan Weist (three OLCA members (you, Dan and Paul Kostyu) up against two bloggers – pretty cute, huh?)? You actually didn’t even speak one word – not one, while Paul Kostyu, the president of OLCA said everything. I never did understand what that was all about, though I know you have seen Matt Naugle out socially (coincidentally I assume, not in a planned way). And you’ve responded to an e-mail here and there that I’ve written, always prompt and polite.

But this fact that you, an OLCA member, wrote the news item about your association rejecting bloggers for membership is not only too ironic for me, it sets up a conflict of interest that gives the perception of bias, if not actually being biased. Such a practice should be impermissible. Why isn’t it? How do you, the Dispatch or Paul – whom I really do like, based on correspondence, explain this?

Come on. Couldn’t there have been a more above board way to report what’s going on? Or not report it at all – I would have preferred that, personally.

Anyway, look at the word choices in your piece. Is there any question that you have a stake in what you wrote? Who writes on themselves (or a group to which they belong) like that, in a hard news story? That would be like new Wall Street Journal owner Rupert Murdoch writing a non-opinion front page story for the Journal about his behemoth company, News Corp. which owns the Journal.

Do you know I once wanted to write a very soft news story about my synagogue because it was doing something incredibly unique and the Plain Dealer editor involved loved the idea but I revealed, of course, that I was a member of the synagogue and his boss said that I couldn’t write the story (it was a feel-good piece about how a group of eighth grade Jewish students re-enact a shtetl in Burton Century Village – during the peak of syrup tapping season when they have literally thousands of visitors for Sunday pancake days) because of that?

So how do you get to write this story about the OLCA?

The Dispatch could have and should have found a non-OLCA credentialed staffer to write the story, James. You know it, I know it – they know it. Read more

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 9:17 pm January 12th, 2008 in Blogging, Government, Media, Ohio, Politics, Statehouse | 4 Comments 

Print This Post Print This Post

Jan

12

How to build a political party platform, 2008

Filed Under Campaigning, Elections, Politics, WH2008 | Comments Off

I cross-posted this post about experience and entrenchment at RedBlueAmerica. A commenter there wrote this:

I chuckled at this: “[. . .] goals shared by the Democratic front-runners (getting out of Iraq, re-establishing a positive global reputation for the US, keeping social security safe, reforming health care, improving education, addressing illegal immigration)”

Goals 1 and 2 can be read as “not being GW Bush”, which, really, as a platform, is pretty sorry. These are goals that cannot have existed pre-GWB, and as goals, demonstrate a general weakness of the Democratic platform except as one of opposition. The remainder amount to “doing stuff about stuff” because they lack any sense of specificity or direction. They are goals shared not just by the Dem front-runners, but by, um, everyone.

That comment caused me to respond with a question back: Why would someone characterize goals related to situations that we’re in because of the current President as goals that weaken the platform and that indicate that the Dems are only interested in opposing Bush (not that that’s a bad thing, frankly, but, okay)?

I interpreted the comment to mean that the commenter wishes that political party platforms stick to a static list of topics and come out one way or the other on it and give a plan for achieving that. Period.

If that’s the case, then there’s really no problem in just plopping any stated goal into the plank topic. It’s semantics.

But I believe that a party’s platform must be more flexible and more reality-based – not just a list of “we stand for this – we will do this to show that we stand for this.” That’s very caveman to me, and, I suppose, very conservative in the sense of “conserving” or keeping the same. In a changing world – which we are in, I fail to see how that approach to improving our lives as Americans, not to mention all the other lives into which we’ve inserted ourselves, matches reality. (Don’t go to that “we don’t need improvement” place – not buying it.)

Here’s how I explain my approach to a platform:

In the mental health profession, one of the cardinal rules of engagement is to “be where the client/patient is.” If you can’t do that, you can’t help them, and they can’t benefit from your skills. They just won’t be able to access you and you won’t be able to access them.

Whomever is elected president is going to have “be where the client is” – in this case, the clients are the American public and this country. Where are we right now?

We’re in costly (on many levels) military battles.
We’re disliked throughout much of the globe.
Our economy is volatile.
Generational differences, desires and needs threaten the likelihood of finding long-term solutions to economic
Tens of millions of people can’t afford or access health care coverage.
The demand on our resources by and the perception that illegal immigrants detract from our society (not to mention just isn’t a good thing – as citizens, we want to have a say over who and how many can immigrate to the USA) need to be addressed with concrete actions.

I won’t blather on – and I imagine this list will change, depending on whether you think there’s nothing wrong with any of these conditions but instead have a different set of conditions that you see a president walking into.

But whomever walks in in 1/09? Will be walking into what GWB walked out of and left.

So to say that the Dem platform amounts to only one of opposition is a canned critique. I don’t know how you can build a platform that has meaning if it doesn’t connect with the reality of what the incoming CIC will be facing. A platform devoid of that understanding is just a list of assertions disconnected from my life and yours. Maybe that’s what some people prefer. Not me.

You?

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 11:33 am January 12th, 2008 in Campaigning, Elections, Politics, WH2008 | Comments Off 

"));