Print This Post Print This Post

Jul

2

“Anti-Abortion! But Pro-Date-Rape” shirt offered by Amazon.com

Filed Under Abortion, Civil Rights, Culture, Government, Health Care, Marketing, Politics, Sexism, Women | 6 Comments

Joseph, wanna sleuth this one?

Amazon.com, doesn’t anyone look at your vendors’ items as they’re posted for sale? Apparently not, because this “Anti-Abortion, but Pro-Date Rape” T-shirt slipped through.

…

At least the site did the right thing by pulling the item, for it now reads, under the product, “Currently unavailable: We don’t know when or if this item will be back in stock.” But a T-shirt making light of sexual assault never should have been posted on the site, and we suspect some heads are gonna roll in corporate. You can help speed that process along with angry letters and phone calls to Amazon.com, 1200 12th Ave. S., Suite 1200, Seattle, WA 98144, (206) 266-1000.

Update: The T-shirt was up on Amazon.com all morning, but clicking the link this afternoon now brings you to a generic “I’m sorry” page.

I wonder if they’re related to the Sock Obama folks.

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 6:48 pm July 2nd, 2008 in Abortion, Civil Rights, Culture, Government, Health Care, Marketing, Politics, Sexism, Women | 6 Comments 

Print This Post Print This Post

Jul

2

Carnival of Ohio Politics #124 now posted

Filed Under Announcements, Blogging, Carnivals, Ohio, Politics, Writing | Comments Off

Did you that Bono wrote an introduction for The Book of Psalms? Yes, that Bono. Well don’t just sit there furrowing your brow, go check it out at The Carnival of Ohio Politics #124.And after you check that out, be sure to read all the submissions this week from new contributors, on new topics and with new ways of thinking about old ideas that could appeal or incite anyone.And have a great, safe July 4 on behalf of all the co-editors at the Carnival. 

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 2:29 pm July 2nd, 2008 in Announcements, Blogging, Carnivals, Ohio, Politics, Writing | Comments Off 

Print This Post Print This Post

Jul

2

Jerusalem bulldozer attacker had criminal record; 3 dead, dozens injured

Filed Under Israel, Jewish, John McCain, leadership, Politics, Religion, Social Issues, WH2008 | 9 Comments

The Media Line provides information about today’s attack, quotes from family members of the attacker, East Jerusalem residents, bystanders and Israelis. The group that is claiming responsibility, The Free Men of the Galilee organization, was behind the shooting of seminary students in Jerusalem earlier this  year.

Hamas says that it’s “the natural result of continuing Israeli aggression and crimes against our people in the West Bank and occupied Jerusalem…”

What do you think would happen in the US if Native Americans started to commit acts of terror for the same reason?

In Iraq, aren’t the US military and Iraqi government forces regularly attacked as “the natural result” of continued occupation? And yet many Americans – John McCain among them – seem to be a-okay with our military efforts to attack back, yes?

How do we justify telling another country not to attack back when that’s what we’re promoting – and we caused the situation (in Iraq) in the first place?

Here is a series of photos from the attack.

In my first draft of this post, I ended it with, “So, what would you do?” But as I looked for the most current information on the numbers dead and injured, I found this Ha’aretz column that places a very fair and accurate context on today’s event and yet still ends with the following:

This is what I don’t yet want to admit: that for all these years, in 2008 no less than in 1902, what a critical mass of Palestinians want most, perhaps even more than statehood, may be as simple as the vile thrill of vengeance, as straightforward as nothing more than seeing Jews dead and gone. 

Those deadly sins just can’t get a rest.

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 12:22 pm July 2nd, 2008 in Israel, Jewish, John McCain, leadership, Politics, Religion, Social Issues, WH2008 | 9 Comments 

Print This Post Print This Post

Jul

2

E-Communications Play Role in 2008 Campaign, 6% contribute online

Filed Under Blogging, Business, Campaigning, Democrats, Elections, Marketing, Media, Ohio, Politics, Research, Tech, Tools, WH2008 | 1 Comment

They may play an important role, but to get over the threshold of what will interest me enough to open the stuff in my inbox that comes from the campaigns? There are several tips I would give.

First, the research, from the Center for Media Research:

a new PEW study reported by Aaron Smith and Lee Rainie, “The Internet and the 2008 Election,” shows that a record-breaking 46% of Americans have used the internet, email or cell phone text messaging to get news about the campaign, share their views and mobilize others.

In addition, says the memo report, three online activities have become especially prominent as the presidential primary campaigns have progressed:

  • 35% of Americans say they have watched online political videos, triple that in the 2004 race
  • 10% say they have used social networking sites such as Facebook or MySpace to gather information or become involved. Two-thirds of internet users under the age of 30 have a social networking profile, and half of these use social networking sites to get or share information about politics or the campaigns
  • 6% of Americans have made political contributions online, compared with 2% who did that during the entire 2004 campaign [emphasis mine]

Here’s the Pew study.  But the Center for Media Research post has some good graphs and other info (I’m playing beat the clock between shlepping, finishing up the Carnival and my first workout session to get my back back to…something better than it is).

Let me remind you of something Ohio Democratic Party Chair Chris Redfern said to my in early 2006:

…we spoke about many topics, including blogs, bloggers and blogging.

If he were in a position akin to that of a media placement advisor for a corporation, but doing so for a politician, what percentage of a budget did he think blogs would get?

Zero. Unequivocally.

Did he think Paul Hackett or Howard Dean would say the same?

No direct answer, but we talked about how Hackett’s juggernaut experience in the Ohio 2nd race and Dean’s fundraising successes aren’t really parallel to the question I asked, but do represent the burgeoning use of a media that Redfern agreed was in its infancy and as such, not really a known quantity yet.

He stated at least a couple of times his belief that in 4-6-8 years, the story re: blogs may very well be entirely different.

So, we’re now two years from that time, not 4, 6 or 8.  But I still feel ready to ask Chairman Redfern: are we beyond the “Zero. Unequivocally” stage yet?

Well, what is 6% of all political contributions?  If candidates raise $200 million total between them, that’s $12 million? And how much ad money from the campaigns did it take to raise that $12 million? What was the ROI?

Certainly doesn’t sound like nothing, especially if you don’t have the $12 million.

I haven’t looked yet but if anyone has ideas of what have campaigns spent to get money, let me know.  I think I read a couple of months ago that the proportion is still miniscule for online advertising, but is that including this notion of e-mail communication?

And what if anything has the ODP spent to raise more? I know I get an awful lot of e-mails asking me for money, including from the ODP.  That must cost someone something.

Yeah, I think we’re past the unequivocal zero.

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 8:45 am July 2nd, 2008 in Blogging, Business, Campaigning, Democrats, Elections, Marketing, Media, Ohio, Politics, Research, Tech, Tools, WH2008 | 1 Comment 

Print This Post Print This Post

Jul

2

Milblog reveals factual error in SCOTUS child rape case (or, another reason why blogs matter)

Filed Under Blogging, Civil Rights, Courts, Crime, Culture, Government, Law, Military, Politics, Social Issues, WH2008 | 2 Comments

Something’s gone terribly wrong. From the New York Times (thank you Linda Greenhouse for naming and respecting the blogger, with no ridiculous, ad hominem adjectives attached to references of him):

It turns out that Justice Kennedy’s confident assertion about the absence of federal law ["that capital punishment for child rape was contrary to the “evolving standards of decency” by which the court judges how the death penalty is applied"] was wrong. 

A military law blog pointed out over the weekend that Congress, in fact, revised the sex crimes section of the Uniform Code of Military Justice in 2006 to add child rape to the military death penalty. The revisions were in the National Defense Authorization Act that year. President Bush signed that bill into law and then, last September, carried the changes forward by issuing Executive Order 13447, which put the provisions into the 2008 edition of the Manual for Courts-Martial.

Anyone in the federal government — or anywhere else, for that matter — who knew about these developments did not tell the court. Not one of the 10 briefs filed in the case, Kennedy v. Louisiana, mentioned it. The Office of the Solicitor General, which represents the federal government in the Supreme Court, did not even file a brief, evidently having concluded that the federal government had no stake in whether Louisiana’s death penalty for child rape was constitutional. 

The blog? Written by Dwight Sullivan and called the CAAFlog. The post? “The Supremes dis the military justice system.” The NYT says that Louisiana says that it’s not sure that it will take advantage of the 25 day period during which they could file a request for a reconsideration.  But the U.S. Department of Justice? It’s declining comment. (For the record, the USDOJ didn’t file anything in this case, according to the NYT article:

evidently having concluded that the federal government had no stake in whether Louisiana’s death penalty for child rape was constitutional. 

Over to Scott or Jeff who can parse this much better than me (well, I could try, but they are a much better resource). Now what do the presidential candidates say? What do they suggest?What if we find out that other justices did know this and discounted it?What do you think? 

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 7:19 am July 2nd, 2008 in Blogging, Civil Rights, Courts, Crime, Culture, Government, Law, Military, Politics, Social Issues, WH2008 | 2 Comments 

"));