Interesting and thought provoking post on The 463 tech policy blog on a dirty tricks email campaign launched against Democratic presidential contender Barrack Obama, targeted at Jews, claiming Obama is a radical fundamentalist Muslim.

I knew it was only a matter of time before the hate campaign started against Obama. It’s the nature of our country. It’s the nature of the right.

I hate to say it, though, but with all of the idiotic urban legends that arrive in our inboxes daily, the Nigerian 419 scams, the chain letters, and the lottery winnings awarded to people who never entered a lottery, why haven’t people become more discriminating about what they believe when they see it in their inbox?

“It’s in an email. It must be true.” It certainly doesn’t ring true for me. People need to think about what they pass on to friends, no matter the source. Here’s why email works so well for these disinformation campaigns: people are lazy. And they want to be seen as clever by their family and peers. So with a few clicks of the mouse they can forward these dire predictions and ground-breaking revelations to dozens of people. And I guess they are trying to be helpful. But they should cut it out.

A friend sent me a link to the Shaping Youth blog on “media and marketing’s influence on our children.” In a recent post, Amy Jussel, Founder and Executive Director for Shaping Youth, takes Target to task for an advertising campaign featuring the Target bullseye logo positioned between the spread legs of a male model, and points to “the tasteless toddler tee Hooters Girl in Training” as examples of overt and inappropriate sexual content in advertising. (It’s unclear from the post, but tThe shirt does not appear to be  is not sold by Target.)

I have a six-year-old daughter, and I am appalled at the cheap tawdriness of the merchandise marketed to her. In the clothing departments of nearly every major retailer, girls can find a wide selection of slutware — tight, low riding, hip hugger pants; skimpy halter tops; Madonna-esque outerwear that looks like lingerie; and so on.

Move over to the toy section and you’ll find Bratz, a collection of slutty dolls deliberately designed to look like they are high and stupid. Nice role models!

The problem for boys is similar, but not sexual. That’s because boys are not supposed to look sexy. They are supposed to look cool. The proliferation of camouflaged clothing in the boy’s department is nauseating. The message: War is good. War is cool. I’ve seen first graders show up at the elementary school in full camouflage with boots. What are parents thinking?

It’s all part of the sexing up of America. It’s good to see articulate, informed voices like Shaping Youth. What can the consumer do?

• Boycott inappropriate products and retailers
• Spend a little more and shop better retailers that don’t contribute to the problem
• Write letters to retailers expressing your distaste for these products
• Start a blog
• Don’t buckle to pressure from your kids
• Recognize that Target, Wal-Mart, Mattel, and the other trash mongers are not good parents. That’s your job.

The alternative is to dress your girls like hookers and your boys like mercenaries and then wonder why we turn out violent and oversexed.

The Street.com* reports: SEC to Look at Whole Foods CEOs Internet Activity

“The Securities and Exchange Commission has reportedly begun an informal inquiry into the Internet message board postings of Whole Foods Market.
The online version of The Wall Street Journal reported late Friday that regulators will likely examine whether Web comments by Mackey during an eight-year stint of posting company-cheering entries under a pseudonym had contradicted official Whole Foods statements.

The SEC also will likely look at whether Mackey selectively disclosed material corporate information in violation of securities laws, the Journal said.

In a Whole Foods blog post following the disclosure by the Federal Trade Commission of Mackey’s Web writings, the CEO said he never revealed any ‘proprietary’ information about the company.”

Wow. What an idiot.

* The original report was in the Wall Street Journal but I do not like linking to articles that are, or may become, subscription only