Print This Post Print This Post

Jul

27

Pepper, Shaker, Beachwood coming to Top 10 Jewish Neighborhoods, N. America

Filed Under Announcements, Culture, Jewish, OH17, OH24th, Ohio, Predictions, Religion | 5 Comments

Don’t know if this will freak out Mayor Bruce Akers and other long-time residents of Pepper Pike in particular (the ones who didn’t want to change the blue law about no garage sales on Sunday because my family observes Shabbat), but read it and gape:

Communities to Watch

  • Eugene, Oregon
  • Las Vegas, Nevada
  • Shaker Heights/ Beachwood/ Pepper Pike, Ohio
  • Maui, Hawai’i

For more information on these three neighborhoods, click here for a downloadable PDF.

Hooboy – open up that pdf and take a gander at all the Jewish-oriented locales in these three NEOhio cities!

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 10:52 pm July 27th, 2008 in Announcements, Culture, Jewish, OH17, OH24th, Ohio, Predictions, Religion | 5 Comments 

Print This Post Print This Post

Jul

27

WLST 101: Anatomy Of A Threat

Filed Under Politics | 32 Comments

I know it’s a Sunday, a day of rest for many.  So I’d like to offer an academic-only topic for you to consider while you enjoy the hours.  Think of it as something like a law school exam question, where you have to work with whatever the instructor gives you.  I’m a bit rusty with this type of writing (of an exam question), so advice on what might be missing is more than welcome.

The Assignment: To consider, analyze and compose a response for the hypothetical recipient of the following hypothetical communication:

if you continue to be this annoying regarding [fill in the blank with the name of a politician about whom you've written] (“Politician”) race, you’re in for a serious fight. just wanted to warn you before i start swinging.

Assumptions:

The person who sent the communication (“Sender”) and the person who received it (“Recipient”) know of each other but do not have any formal or informal connections other than that they both write about politics and are on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum.

Neither Sender nor Recipient is a politician.

Sender does not live in or near the political jurisdiction of Politician.

Recipient lives in the political jurisdiction of Politician. Recipient did not vote for Politician in Politician’s last election (during a non-Presidential election year) which Politician won by approximately 67% to 33% of votes cast.

Analysis

The first observation in this hypothetical is that Sender’s communication announces a threat against Recipient in order to intimidate Recipient into no longer writing about Politician and/or writing about Politician in a way that Sender dislikes.

The analysis of that observation is that such a threat violates the informal but often noted convention related to blogging and political blogging in particular that, when a political candidate or elected official dislikes blog content, bloggers expect that person to respond to the content directly.  This can be done by emailing the author of the content, writing about the content in the politician’s own literature (whether online or offline), or responding to the content via comments that can be attributed directly to the politician or to his or her proxies (who identify themselves as such).

In this hypothetical, Sender is not Politician and has no known connection to Politician other than possibly being members of the same political party. We can assume for the purposes of this exercise that Politician has never responded on Recipient’s blog to any of the writings Sender calls “annoying” but may have had other communications with Recipient about content written in the past.

A second observation is that Sender fails to specify what the “serious fight” will be about or what tools will be used to do the “swinging.”

So what is the threat?  Let’s analyze further:

Note that Sender does not say that he or she will be “swinging” with unsurmountably excellent information about the politician.

Also note the tone of the communication and phrases like:

if you continue to be this annoying regarding

you’re in for a serious fight

just wanted to warn you

before i start swinging.

A reasonable person, similarly situated to the Recipient, could reasonably conclude that the lack of connection between Sender and Politician, the stated dislike of what Recipient writes and the implied and explicit warnings about future behavior by Sender indicate that Sender hopes Recipient feels so at risk of being hurt by this unspecified threat that the preference will be to stop writing about Politician.

A reasonable person would also call that a threat to Recipient’s First Amendment right to free speech, as well as just plain mean, nasty and unrelated to anything that has to do with Politician’s actual race or credentials.

So – let’s sum up for a minute:

A reasonable person reading the communication and the attendant circumstances outlined here could conclude that Sender is threatening Recipient and wants Recipient to feel so threatened that Recipient will stop writing about what Sender doesn’t like to read (maybe Sender should just stop reading what Recipient writes? nah – that would be too easy; maybe Sender should challenge the content of what Recipient writes with facts to counter Recipient’s assertions and opinions? nah – that would be too hard for Sender; okay – back to Analysis).

Since Sender doesn’t define the threat with any specificity, it’s impossible to know what Sender believes would actually be a threat that could keep Recipient from writing as Recipient writes, if in fact anything could achieve that.

Let’s hypothesize that Recipient’s writing is read by fewer than 300 visitors per day, which is to say that, in the scope of the millions who read political blogs, Recipient’s blog has very few readers and, statistically speaking, maybe even it could be said no readers.

Therefore, a reasonable person could conclude that Sender’s threat is unfounded (assuming the goal of the threat is to stop voters in Politician’s district who read Recipient’s blog (assumedly a tiny number) from being influencing to vote against Politician or at least re-think their choices in Politician’s district), since Recipient’s writing would, practically speaking, be incapable of influencing any statistically significant proportion of voters in Politician’s district (which, I’ll throw out this other assumption – probably isn’t populated with a lot of people who even know what a blog is, much less reads them). (And, if Sender is correct in the assertion that the writing is annoying, a reasonable person might assume that few readers ever finish what Recipient writes anyway.)

These assumptions raise the question of why Sender would bother to communicate a threat to Recipient’s use of free speech rights if Recipient’s use of free speech doesn’t matter to 99.9% of Politician’s voting district (two-thirds of which voted for Politician two years ago).

Other questions that you might ask and consider as relevant or irrelevant to devising a response to Sender:

What if Sender and Recipient are not both bloggers but rather Recipient is a mainstream media news outlet or alternative weekly or television station reporter or anchor?

Does Sender have a habit of making personal attacks rather than constructing fact-based arguments against that which displeases him?

Has Sender sent this kind of communication to anyone before?

Has Sender acted on this kind of communication to anyone before?  With what results (did the Sender or the Politician benefit? Was harm done to the recipients of those communications?)?

What laws if any has Sender broken or are in danger of being broken?  Civil? Criminal? Subject to restraining orders? (think harassment, stalking etc.)

What role if any does Politician play in Sender’s behavior?

You get the idea.

Resolution

Your task now is to devise a response to Sender’s communication.  This response can be in the form of steps, a communication or a combination.

For example:

Should Recipient call Sender?

Should Recipient forward Sender’s communication to Poitician (and how should Politician respond)?

Should Recipient forward Sender’s communication to Politician’s opponent?

Should mail servers be contacted since they serve as conduits for the threats?

Should Recipient forward Sender’s communication to the editorial board of the newspapers and entities that will be making endorsements in hypothetical Politician’s race?

To what other entities or individuals might Recipient forward the communication?

Should Recipient write more than ever about the race in the same, usual fashion?  Should others write more than ever about the race in their same, usual fashion?

Should others who blog find their blood chilling and boiling at the same time at the idea that a fellow blogger would send and use a threat of personal attacks against another blogger in order to get bloggers to stop writing about anything? What would be the consequences to all bloggers and discourse in the blogosphere if a threat of personal attacks did stop Recipient from blogging (the implication being that, just as giving in to people who kidnap and want a ransom of some type, once you give in to such demands, the demands will become more frequent and more bold)?

Given that the threat is unspecified, what if anything should Recipient consider disclosing?

Also feel free to suggest what other elements might be important for the Sender, Recipient and maybe most importantly, the innocent (or not so innocent?) bystander Politician, in whose name Sender has made these threats.  For example, is there a possibility that Sender’s attempts to help Politician will only hurt Politician?

Good luck, and don’t be afraid to think out of the box.

Oh – and really, the last word: Notice how I haven’t suggested that Recipient wage a personal attack on the Sender.  No recipient of such communications should ever resort to that.  It will only backfire, not to mention not be what a reasonable person would do.

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 1:59 pm July 27th, 2008 in Politics | 32 Comments 

Print This Post Print This Post

Jul

27

[updated] And now, Church fun with guns!

Filed Under Breaking, Crime, Culture, Law, Social Issues, Youth | Comments Off

From WBIR, you can read a live-blog of what’s going on in Knoxville, Tennesee at the scene of a church where seven people were shot while church kids performed parts Annie.

Hopefully, the sun will come out tomorrow for all seven who were injured.

Hattip NewsNet5.

Update: And now, two are dead and the suspect is arrested and held on $1 million bail.

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 12:50 pm July 27th, 2008 in Breaking, Crime, Culture, Law, Social Issues, Youth | Comments Off 

Print This Post Print This Post

Jul

27

Additional advice to Michael Savage re: autism

Filed Under Blogging, Debates, Illness, Media, Parenting, Scandal, Youth | 2 Comments

By accident, a few years ago, I learned about a blog called Autism Vox.  It is excellent.  It’s been a while since I’ve conversed with the primary blog author and I believe she even was at BlogHer last weekend but we did not meet, I’m sorry to say.

However, she is a great writer and blogger and someone on Savage’s team should be RSSing her blog.

In the meantime, I’ll provide the public service of two links to her blog about the Savage travesty:

A Little Autism Education for Michael Savage

Network Defends Dr. Savage

Doctor?

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 9:00 am July 27th, 2008 in Blogging, Debates, Illness, Media, Parenting, Scandal, Youth | 2 Comments 

Print This Post Print This Post

Jul

27

Making sense of Michael Savage who makes no sense

Filed Under Debates, Education, Government, Illness, Media, Ohio, Parenting, Republicans, Youth | 8 Comments

I didn’t hear it, I didn’t see it, I haven’t read much about it.

But I can tell you one thing that I knew immediately as I did listen to a brief piece on Michael Savage savaging the existence and treatment of kids with autism:

Michael! Baby! Those conservatives? Who listen to your show? You know – the ones who want to privatize education?

Honey, honey, honey.  Don’t you know that they’re trying to open the door with, get this, please don’t stop reading: vouchers for kids with special needs.  But not all kids with special needs – including gifted kids who are in fact part of the category the government has created called “exceptional education.”  Nope.

See, in Ohio, the people most likely to listen to you – the conservative folks who want to expand the use of vouchers and giving parents lump sums to pay and shop around for education (lump sums by the way that will never meet the actual cost of educating kids, especially kids with special needs – whereever on the spectrum – that can cost a district more than $50,000 and at a private agency? trust me on this one, hon, I worked there, I wrote the legal brief on it – can cost more than $80,000 a year? you really gonna convince a state government to hand over a voucher that size?)

Oh – where was I?

Oh – right – the listeners you have? Yeah – conservatives? Who want to dismantle public education?

Yeah, here in Ohio – they want vouchers, for, listen up – kids with autism.  But only kids with autism.  No other special needs.

Ohio’s governor hasn’t gone for this effort to kick the door down between private and public funding of education, and I’m supportive of his efforts.  Because if such an effort were to be supported by him, I want it for the challenges of raising gifted kids too – don’t get me started on their issues, trust me – just as many fun things to deal with, maybe more – who knows.

Anyway, Michael – you alienated your own core group of followers: conservatives who want to privatize education and have been trying to do it by getting the government to approve private school vouchers for kids with autism.

That’s why so many folks across the continuum are pissed at you. Not just because what you said was stupid, ignorant, uncaring and insensitive.  But because the people to whom you preach actually disagree with you and are trying to get what they legitimately need for educating their kids via a route that left of center folks will never approve.

So now you know, in case no one else has told you yet.

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 8:48 am July 27th, 2008 in Debates, Education, Government, Illness, Media, Ohio, Parenting, Republicans, Youth | 8 Comments 

Print This Post Print This Post

Jul

27

Haveil Havalim #175 (Carnival of Jewish Blogging) now posted

Filed Under Announcements, Blogging, Carnivals, Israel, Jewish, Judaism, Politics, Religion, Writing | 2 Comments

Now playing at Frume Sarah’s World: Haveil Havalim #175.

And if going through those submissions and checking out the enormous range of thought and observance represented there doesn’t convince you of just how different we can be and still have something in common, I don’t know what will.

Kol Hakavod, Sarah!

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 8:33 am July 27th, 2008 in Announcements, Blogging, Carnivals, Israel, Jewish, Judaism, Politics, Religion, Writing | 2 Comments 

"));