Saturday, October 10, 2009
Good Review for Know's Boom!
Friday, October 09, 2009
Wenstrup Might Want to Head Back to Iraq
"I felt safer in Iraq."when talking about being back in Cincinnati, then you are a lousy candidate. By making such a clearly outlandish claim, Wenstrup has no respect for the City, otherwise he was lying, delusional, or never actually was in Iraq during any part of the war or occupation. Brad Wenstrup should be ashamed. He obviously knows nothing about this city and has NEVER experienced what it has to offer. I think he may want to consider moving out of the city, since he spouts the rhetoric of someone who hates the city and lives in the burbs.
Thursday, October 08, 2009
Always Pay the Band
Streetcar Facts!
As always check out www.cincystreetcar.com for more.
Don't forget: No on 9!
Big Sports Event (That Isn't Football) This Weekend
FTC Says Bloggers Must Disclose Freebies
In promulgating the guidelines, which apply for the first time to "new media," the FTC offers the following explanation:
The Commission does not believe that all uses of new consumer-generated media to discuss product attributes or consumer experiences should be deemed "endorsements” within the meaning of the Guides. Rather, in analyzing statements made via these new media, the fundamental question is whether, viewed objectively, the relationship between the advertiser and the speaker is such that the speaker’s statement can be considered “sponsored” by the advertiser and therefore an “advertising message.” In other words, in disseminating positive statements about a product or service, is the speaker: (1) acting solely independently, in which case there is no endorsement, or (2) acting on behalf of the advertiser or its agent, such that the speaker’s statement is an “endorsement” that is part of an overall marketing campaign? The facts and circumstances that will determine the answer to this question are extremely varied and cannot be fully enumerated here, but would include: whether the speaker is compensated by the advertiser or its agent; whether the product or service in question was provided for free by the advertiser; the terms of any agreement; the length of the relationship; the previous receipt of products or
services from the same or similar advertisers, or the likelihood of future receipt of such products or services; and the value of the items or services received. An advertiser’s lack of control over the specific statement made via these new forms of consumer-generated media would not automatically disqualify that statement from being deemed an “endorsement” within the meaning of the Guides. Again, the issue is whether the consumer-generated statement can be considered “sponsored.”Thus, a consumer who purchases a product with his or her own money and praises it on a personal blog or on an electronic message board will not be deemed to be providing an endorsement. In contrast, postings by a blogger who is paid to speak about an advertiser’s product will be covered by the Guides, regardless of whether the blogger is paid directly by the marketer itself or by a third party on behalf of the marketer.
There's a lot of hysteria in the national blogosphere (particularly in the legal blogosphere), most of which is probably unjustified. Check out PCWorld's extremely layperson-friendly guide to the new guidelines. As the article notes, most bloggers who review the free stuff they receive already disclose the potential conflict. Still, though, local bloggers who get swag (hey Griff: where's my swag?) and talk about what they've received should take a few minutes to familiarize themselves with the FTC's new interpretation of federal law.
Disclosure: I have not received money or other consideration from the FTC, PCWorld, or (sadly) Griff to comment on any of those entities' or individual's merits or shortcomings.
Issue Four WIll Fund Important Court Programs
The levy, while technically new, is really just a smaller version of the Drake levy, which is ending this year. Since Drake Hospital no longer needs public money, the Drake levy needs to end. But a significant portion of that levy has historically supported court-ordered treatment programs, so a new levy was created just to fund those.
In particular, the levy funds the municipal court's residential treatment programs and the common pleas Drug Court. The former is an alternative to jail sentences (but still places an offender in a facility guarded by the sheriff's office). The latter is the primary way that low-level, first time drug offenders in Hamilton County can participate in "treatment in lieu of conviction," through which a defendant can avoid a felony record by completing--under court supervision--a drug treatment program.
If passed, the levy will also fund two other noteworthy programs. The first, "Off the Streets," is run by Cincinnati Union Bethel. The program has been around since 2006, but hasn't previously been supported by county dollars. The program has an excellent reputation--and from what I've seen, a record of success. The second program would create a SAMI (substance abuse and mental illness) court in common pleas court. For the last few years, the municipal court has had a "mental health court," to which offenders with mental illness are tracked. They receive intensive supervision and connected with needed services. Presumably, the SAMI court would work the same way. I've represented several clients in the municipal court's program, and can't say enough about its potential to bring about positive change in individuals' lives.
All of these are important programs. If Issue 4 fails, judges will have fewer treatment and rehabilitative options. The levy funds programs that can really give people a fresh start in life.