International Ombuds Day Finds 3 Alaskan Ombuds At Loussac

My first book chapter was on the Alaska State and Anchorage Municipal Ombudspersons.  And later I did some follow up chapters.  So I have a special place in my heart for people serving in this office.

Basically, an ombudsperson's job is to take complaints about government service, investigate it, and make recommendations.  An honorable job and the people who carry out these jobs well are on my hero list.

After dropping off a book due at the Loussac library today, I saw the big ombudsman signs and learned it was International Ombudsman Day (2nd Thursday of October for those looking ahead to next year.)  From the International Ombudsman Association website:

"On Thursday, 10 October 2019, IOA invites you to participate in National Ombuds Day. This is the second celebration of a profession that has existed for centuries, yet remains relatively unknown and underutilized.
This Year’s Theme Is
Ombuds: Unusual Name. Important Service.
Ombuds Day serves as an additional opportunity to educate and raise awareness among the public about the history and practices of the ombuds profession including the various ombuds models, the roles they play, the services they offer and the value provided."

Here's Anchorage Municipal Ombudsman Darrel Hess and his  Deputy May Ramirez-Xiong today.

I also got to talk to the State Ombudsperson, Kate Burkhart, who works out of Juneau, but Anchorage also has a state ombuds office as well.  (Note:  She was standing in front of the Long Term Care Ombudsman sign, so, to avoid confusion, I blocked out some of the writing on that sign.)

Also, there was Kathryn Curry, Deputy Long Term Care Ombudsman, of the State's Long Term Care Ombudsperson.  That's a very specialized office that's mandated by Federal Law Older Americans Act.  They specialize, as the name suggests, in investigating complaints about long term care facilities.

And maybe I'll find some time to write about the next installments of the Project Innocence and Pebble Mine classes I attended before the library.

[There's always a non-sexist way to say something.  Ombudsman is the original Swedish word that comes from Old Norse.  The ombuds community discusses different ways to actually say it in non-sexist ways.  My preferences are ombuds and ombudsperson.  I suspect the names above are in statute and people rather not go through the process of changing it.]

Trying to Watch "Fair Game" with an Open Mind

[This is a long post.  Most of you won't read it all.  It's long though, because it shows step-by-step how a rightwing website neutralizes truth, in this case how they make bogus claims against the movie Fair Game - the name is so apt - to neutralize some of the most shocking known behavior of the Bush Administration.  This is probably longer than it need be, but finding the truth, despite what people say, doesn't come in bumper-sticker brevity.]


We saw the movie Fair Game last week. It tells a story* about the active undercover CIA Agent Valerie Plame who was outed by the White House in July 2003.  Her husband, former US Ambassador Joe Wilson, had been hired to determine if Niger had really supplied yellow-cake uranium to the Iraqi government to be delivered in those now infamous aluminum tubes.  (*I think we have to stop using "the" story for anything, because even without the ideological split in the US, it is ever clearer that different people relate different stories about the same events)

Contributing to my state of mind, was the fact I had just heard an NPR story called the The Great Textbook Wars that afternoon.  From NPR:

In 1974, Kanawha County, West Virginia was the first battleground in the American culture wars. Controversy erupted over newly-adopted school textbooks. School buildings were hit by dynamite and Molotov cocktails, buses were riddled with... [The full article is at WNYC]

This piece had interviews with the people who began the boycott against the new textbooks which included a more modern and diverse group of authors and ideas than the previous texts had.  A couple of people cited their 1974 protest as the beginning of the Tea Party movement.  From the piece I gathered that the protesters were generally not well educated, their world view was dominated by religion, and they were not happy about the changes in their lives being brought about by integration - which was reflected in the textbook changes.  We also heard from teachers who said they needed a curriculum which better reflected their students, that discussed more than just dead white males in literature and history and science.  BUT, it was also clear that the catalyst for the protesters was a feeling of being disrespected.  They felt these changes were being forced on them without any input from them and they weren't going to take it any more.  Perhaps they couldn't stop the national civil rights legislation of the 60s, but they could stop their local schools from imposing new texts which raised questions they didn't want their kids exposed to.

Yikes, I'm trying to explain the link between textbook wars and Fair Game without making this too lengthy.  Much of this has been sitting for a week as I let the ideas naturally rise.  I don't think I used enough yeast.  But I need to get this done.  Let's just say the textbook wars reminded me once again that people do things for reasons and when people get pushed too far, emotion blocks out any chance for reason to triumph.

Even without the textbook story in my head, my tendency is to play the devil's advocate and think about other interpretations of the story.  I can't watch anything - even something I agree with - without thinking about how someone with a different perspective would react.  

As I watched Fair Game, with the radio show fresh in my mind, I could hear the Tea Party supporters of Joe Miller shouting out "Lies, Lies!" throughout the movie.  I did wonder what they would have said about a Joe Wilson talk to college students where he warned about government becoming a tyranny and how it would get worse if they didn't pay attention and stand up and protest.

We're in a period of American history - one that is not unique in this respect - where 'truth' is limited to facts that don't challenge 'my' world view.  This affects those on all points of the political spectrum, though some are more prone to be ruled by raw emotion rather than hard facts and logic.  The key is to find a path which blends both the passion that stirs us to do things with the rationality that gets us to do them effectively.  We can't let emotion blind us to the 'truth.'

In Fair Game's portrayal of the Valerie Plame case, even recognizing that Hollywood leaves out much of the story and enhances it for dramatic effect (so do politicians and all of us, of course), a few facts can't be disputed.

1. President George W Bush used evidence - the aluminum tubes and the non-existent yellow-cake uranium - to justify going to war with Iraq, even though the CIA was telling them couldn't be true.  In one scene Scooter Libby badgers a CIA analyst - Are you 100% sure?  99% sure?  96% sure?  If you aren't 95% sure, are you willing to risk our security?  
   
   Even if we accept the notion that the White House was convinced this was true - and not simply a plausible ploy for getting the American public to go along - it turns out later that they were, in fact, wrong.  There were no weapons of mass destruction.  .
   
   
2. The White House exposed the identity of an active undercover CIA agent with open projects - and informants in different parts of the world whose lives were jeopardized and possibly lost because of the outing.  Besides being a federal crime, this also forced the resignation of an experienced agent with active, needed knowledge, and endangered CIA contacts around the world.  While the White House ran a misinformation campaign that suggested Plame was a third rate agent who didn't do anything, they do the same sort of campaign with anyone who is in their way - ie the Swift Boat campaign against Kerry.
    
3. Scooter Libby was tried and convicted.  And his sentence was commuted by the White House
   

These 'truths' are all on the record.  You can quibble about different details of the movie - it had 90 minutes or so to present its narrative - these three things are indisputable..


Or so I thought.  While prepping this, I ran across the blog Newsbusters - a right wing blog set up to debunk liberal lies - which reviewed the movie Fair Game


Here's what Newsbusters tells us about NewsBusters.org

Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), the leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias.
In August of 2005, with the assistance of Matthew Sheffield of Dialog New Media, the MRC launched the NewsBusters blog to provide immediate exposure of liberal media bias, insightful analysis, constructive criticism and timely corrections to news media reporting. [emphasis added.]

You can read the Wikipedia post on NewsBusters which emphasizes the ideological stance (and was itself attacked by Newsbusters.)   Even if you read NewsBusters itself, it is clear  that this is a site set up to promote conservative Republican causes first, and not to expose the truth.

The trend I see is this:

1. Attack the opponent - lying is totally within the rules
2. If your opponent fights back you have a couple of choices
1.  Attack again
2.  Change the subject
3.  Say that nobody can be trusted - raise questions about the honest folks so the dishonest folks look equal.  This is what they mean by 'neutralizing'.

The point is to totally sully the water so that any sort of authentic discussion is impossible.  Then the loudest and most persistent wins.

This works to the advantage of the conservatives because their reserve of funding is deeper.  Sure, liberals can raise a lot of money too, but in part that's because the money people want everyone - people who agree with them and those who don't - to be indebted to them.  They bet on all the horses - the only sure way to win no matter who's in office.  The Republicans have also just done a much better job of spreading their message.

I go through all this because I'm pretty sure that Fair Game is reasonably accurate on the basics if not every cinematic detail.  Newsbusters attacks Fair Game's validity by making bogus claims on minor issues and distracting the reader from the really serious issues the movie raised.  Neutralizing them as Newsbusters says its goal is.   Few people will check their out-of-context quotes..  This stirs up their partisans and sows seeds of doubt among those who don't know the background and who assume that no one could lie so shamelessly.  In the end, the casual reader goes away thinking, "another biased movie.  You can't believe anyone these days." Neutralization accomplished.  But what if they are telling the truth?  Then the truth has been neutralized and lies are equal to truth.

Look at  Newsbusters' damning conclusions about Fair Game:

1. Liman [the movie's director] is being dishonest in order to push a left-wing agenda.
2. Liman is being dishonest because the factual story is far less interesting than the fictional account released Friday.
3. Liman is completely ignorant of the facts, and too lazy to do even a little research.

The message is:  it's all lies, there's nothing there, they're stupid and lazy.

How did they reach these conclusions?  They made them up.  They took several ideas from the movie and declared them to be false with the help of out-of-context quotes from the Robb-Silbermann Report on WMD's. 

The Daily Caller's Jamie Weinstein did the legwork in demonstrating just how far from the truth some of the film's central claims are. Chief among them, perhaps unsurprisingly, is that Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, and other White House officials exerted political pressure on intelligence officials to cherrypick intelligence favorable to claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

In fact, not only did Libby do no such thing, but according to the Robb-Silbermann Commission, which investigated the intelligence behind the Iraq war, "The analysts who worked Iraqi weapons issues universally agreed that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments."

What??!!  First, there is no contradiction.  The Robb-Silbermann Report quote does NOT say there was no pressure exerted.  It clearly says that the intelligence officials didn't "skew or alter any of their analytical judgments" because of political pressure that did exist.  

They damn Liman because he didn't read the report:

Weinstein asked "Fair Game" director Doug Liman if he had read the Robb-Silbermann report. He had not.

Liman was the director.  It was his job to take the script (not write the script) and make a movie from it.  The report is 601 pages.  Why should Liman read it?  But I'm sure the author of the book  the movie was based on read the report.  Why do am I sure?  Because the book was written by Valerie Plame and her husband Joe Wilson assisted her.  They had a huge stake in knowing every detail of this report and Wilson testified before the commission and is cited in the report. And probably the script-writer read a lot more of it than did anyone associated directly with the Newsbusters article.


Then Newsbusters proceeds with more obfuscation.

But other blatant falsehoods pervade the film that could be disproven with a simple Google search. For instance, it is near-common knowledge by now - except among politically interested Bush-bashers - that neither Libby nor then-White House advisor Karl Rove leaked Wilson's wife's name to the press. In fact, State Department official Richard Armitage dropped the name to the late columnist Robert Novak, setting off a political firestorm.
But according to Weinstein,

You wouldn’t know this by watching Liman’s “Fair Game,” since Armitage is nowhere to be found — except in script at the very end. The narrative that Karl Rove and Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff Scooter Libby were nefarious behind-the-scenes players intent on destroying innocent reputations while pushing the nation into war on false pretenses fits too nicely into Liman and Hollywood’s leftwing vision. You can’t, after all, let facts spoil a cinematic anti-Bush diatribe.

OK,  neither Rove nor Libby contacted the media and directly told them. And the movie doesn't say they did. But it is also 'near-common knowledge' that Armitage worked closely with them both and would never have leaked the information exposing the identity of an active undercover CIA agent on his own, without their assent.   Newsbusters conveniently fails to mention that Libby was convicted and President Bush commuted his sentence because of his actions portrayed in this movie.  Here's what Fox News wrote (yes, that Fox News) about the conviction:

I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby Guilty on Four of Five Counts in CIA Leak Trial

Libby was accused of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to FBI agents and the grand jury about how he learned about Valerie Plame's identity and whom he told. Plame is the CIA employee whose husband. Amb. Joe Wilson, was sent to Niger by the agency to investigate claims that Iraq had tried to buy yellowcake uranium.

The Newsbusters article continues with more twisted truth:

According to Weinstein, the fictional Wilson "suggests his report to the CIA definitively debunked the Iraq-Niger claim." In fact, Bush's statement was accurate: British intelligence had discovered just that. A bipartisan report from the Senate Intelligence Committee found in 2004 that Wilson's report "did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium” and "did not change any analysts’ assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal."

Wait, wait, wait.  The movie didn't dispute that the British reported this.  But the movie said that the British report was wrong.  Which it was. 

Here's the paragraph from the  Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq the first quote is lifted from:

When the former ambassador [Joe Wilson] spoke to Committee staff, his description of his findings differed from the DO intelligence report and his account of information provided to him by the CIA differed from the CIA officials' accounts in some respects. First, the former ambassador described his findings to Committee staff as more directly related to Iraq and, specifically, as refuting both the possibility that Niger could have sold uranium to Iraq and that Iraq approached Niger to purchase uranium. The intelligence report described how the structure of Niger's uranium mines would make it difficult, if not impossible, for Niger to sell uranium to rouge [sic] nations, and noted that Nigerien officials denied knowledge of any deals to sell uranium to any rogue states, but did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium. 

The movie didn't deny the possibility that Iraq might have approached Niger for uranium, only that if they did, Niger never sold or gave them any.  And even if this allegation about the movie were true, it's a relatively minor point compared to the ones I listed above. It's like disputing that the man had dirty fingernails and skipping the fact that he murdered someone. 

The second quote is also shown to NOT support Newsbusters contention:

(                )                                                              PARAGRAPH DELETED                                                             
(                )                                                              PARAGRAPH DELETED                                                             
(                )                                                              PARAGRAPH DELETED                                                             

(U) Conclusion 13. The report on the former ambassador's trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq.

The three paragraphs before this conclusion are deleted, so we have to go from the little that is there.  But it is clear if you read this, that analysts' assessments weren't changed because they already believed there was no uranium deal between Niger and Iraq.  His report "lent more credibility to the original" CIA reports.  The only way that could be true is if those reports said the deal didn't take place.  And the quote clearly says the INR didn't think Niger would sell the uranium to Iraq.

So everything in these two quotes is consistent with what was in the movie.  But not too many Newsbusters readers are likely to go to the original source to check on a narrative they already want to believe.

This attack on the Fair Game, in my mind, is the same as claiming Obama is a Kenyan citizen and a Muslim.  The point is to raise questions about clear, factual events that you don't want people to believe.  To destroy the good name and character of people who oppose you.  To raise questions about their message.  What don't the Newsbusters folks want people to believe?

1.  People close to Karl Rove and VP Cheney, people who would not have acted without Rove's and probably VP Cheney's approval (of course it would be given with plausible deniability) exposed an active CIA agent, a serious violation of the law and breach of US Security.  An action that the conservatives would have lynched a Democratic White House had it done the same thing. 

2.  That there was clear evidence that there was no uranium deal between Niger and Iraq and the aluminum tubes were not for rockets to launch nuclear weapons, yet President GW Bush used this as a key justification for going to war against Iraq.  In fact, Secretary of State Colin Powell knew it was false and did not mention the Niger uranium in his speech to the United Nations. (See the Robb-Silbermann report, footnote 210 on page 213 - and no, I didn't read the whole report either, I just know how to use 'search.')

3.  The attack on Valerie Plame clearly came from the White House, most probably Rove and Cheney were involved, and was in retaliation for Plame's husband publicly refuting the lies the White House was using to justify going to war against Iraq.

4.  Scooter Libby was convicted - presumably as the fall guy to protect Rove and probably Cheney - and then his sentence was commuted by President Bush.

The point of this post is NOT to have a pissing match over facts with people who don't care about seeking out truth.  You can't win a game like that against people who have unlimited resources and no shame.  The point is to illustrate where we are in the US today - nearing a dark age when truth is suppressed ruthlessly and the common good is trashed for private gain. Over and over again.  In every sector from religion to oil to banking, and yes, even in academia. 

The attack on the movie attempts to make readers think the movie is total fiction, but it doesn't acknowledge or refute these facts I've outlined that the movie clearly presents. Facts that should raise a hue and cry from anyone who believes our leaders should obey the law, be fiscally responsible, and that human life is sacred and should not be sacrificed needlessly. (The war in Iraq has killed about 100,000 Iraqi civilians.)

But we shouldn't  be surprised they would attack the movie.  If  Rove and Cheney's people were willing to expose an active undercover CIA agent in retaliation for her husband telling the truth, there's probably little they wouldn't do to defeat their perceived enemies.  Newsbusters behavior here isn't that different from what the movie is about - attack the messenger to suppress the truth. 

Their tactics to replace 'truth' with their own version of reality is working.  People who oppose them are attacked and have to 'prove' their innocence (a traditional American value, right?) and so much mud is thrown that most people throw up their hands and say, "They're all corrupt."  And that's a victory for the corrupt.  Because their corruption isn't as problematic if the voters think that the honest folks are corrupt too.

And lots of writers think twice before posting on something like this out of fear they will be attacked.  This blog is off-the-radar enough I don't think I have to worry.   I'm not pointing out the inconsistencies because I think anyone will change their mind.  I'm doing it to illustrate how public discourse has been horribly polluted so that truth becomes totally indistinguishable - for many - from fiction. 

Yes, Valerie Plame was declared by Karl Rove to be "Fair Game" for this sort of nasty, democracy destroying attack.  But Plame, thanks to her husband, didn't fold.  She did what President Obama needs to do.  They fought back.  So, put Fair Game on your movie list.

House Judiciary - On Crime Evidence and Campaign Expenditure

(H)JUDICIARY		STANDING COMMITTEE *
Apr 07 Wednesday 1:00 PM		CAPITOL 120
+	SB 284	CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES	TELECONFERENCED
+	SB 110	PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE/DNA I.D. SYSTEM	TELECONFERENCED
+		Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled	TELECONFERENCED

THIS IS MY VERY ROUGH NOTES.  DON'T RELY ON THIS.  I'LL POST THE AUDIO WHEN IT IS AVAILABLE.  

1:35pm Senator French is walking the committee through SB110 on Perservation of Evidence/DNA ID System.  The meeting opened with Chair Ramras warmly welcoming Sen. French and praising him and his office for being so easy to work with.

There are a number of people on the list to testify, but Rep. Ramras also wants as much time as possible for SB 284.  This is not a bill I've prepared for.

Online testimony:
Mr. Oberly, Executive Director of the Innocence Project:  The task force reviewing this will be helpful and police will hold up decisions until the task force does its study.

Jeffry Mittman, ACLU Alaska:  We support this bill as well.

Gruenberg:  Concern about length of time evidence is kept.  His concerns were with who decides the crime is solved.
French:  The concern that someone would peremptorily declaring crime solved, is covered.
Ramras:  We know of Rep. Gruenberg's propensity for belts and suspenders.
French:  These issues will be looked at by the task force.
Gruenberg:  It looks like you are right relating to biological evidence.  We're talking about non-biological evidence.  The house bill had this on p. 3 beginning of line 7.  The two bills seem to treat the non-biological evidence seperately.
Ramras:  As I recall there was a focus on biological evidence.
Gruenberg:  The bills themselves deal with both biological and non-biological evidence.  Will we have any fall out between now and when the task force makes its report.
French:  In the six years I was with the Prosecutors I am unaware of anyone disposing of evidence and I would be stunned if it happened in the next year.
Ramras:  Chair is satisfied with the discussion.
Gruenberg:  Is there anyone else concerned?  I don't see it among other committee members.

Gatto:  An agency ... may destroy biological evidence if ....   - that's not a complete activity - mailing a notice - makes no requirement of the recipient ever receiving the letter.
French:  I think the certified delivery implies that it was received.  If you continue reading - no person notifies after 120 days after receiving the notice...
Gatto:  Line 27 page 3.  Key word is mailed.  Doesn't matter they got the wrong address, or person can't read English.  If you wanted to have a certainty the letter was received and failed to act is not something the agency can control.

Heron:  We did amend that in other hearings and require a receipt.
French:  Would a proof of receipt help?   That seems reasonable.
For completeness.  I appreciate your desire to move this down track.

Language requiring applicants to pay costs of evidence retrieval have been romoved.  We've gotten approval/acceptance from department of law.
Timeliness provisions also changed.  p. 15 - were three years.  Not from this day forward, but looking back.  People now in prison have ten years after we pass the bill.  Otherwise people have unlimited amount of time.
Gruenberg: I'm still troubled by same issue.  If they got the perpetrator and say the crime is solved and destroy the evidence.  Now prosecution could say we are permitted to do this under this law.

French:  I don't share your concern.
Ramras:  Would you care to do a member swap from now to April 18? 
French:  [Something about the person not admitting guilt.  I'm not sure what this is about.]
Deleting attorney affidavit.  ????
Requiring evidence ???? deleted.
Page 8 lines 22-27 - right out of the federal bill.  We leaned on the Fed bill which is called the Gold Standard.  It was passed by Republican Congress and signed by Pres. GWB.

Gatto:  Subsection C.  Applicant did not admit or concede guilt under oath.  Admission of guilt is not not acceptable as a plea for this bill?
French:  What you'll hear from public defenders is that some people plead guilty with regularity.  They take a fall for someone else, doesn't understand English, lots of reasons to plead guilty falsely.

Ramras:  Two conceptual amendments = #1 page. 14.  Anyone else who wants to testify?
Public testimony closed.
Conceptual Amendment #1  - add to duties of task force -
Gruenberg:  think that should go in subsection D, lines 2?
Ramras:  Withdraw #1
#2 standards for return of property added to duties of task force [changed where to add it]
#3 page 7 line 31-p. 8 line 3 - subparagraph D3 page 7 lines 10-14  should conform (I have no idea what this is about).  Withdraw.
Holmes: CA #4 p. 7 line 31 delete 31-p. 8 line three and replace with applicant did not admit or guilt in ...except for the court in the interest of justice... nolo contendr plea is not an admission ... that is currently on p. 7 lines 14.
Passes.
Gatto:  CA #5 - p. 3 line 27 - return receipt requested  passes

Passes.  Concurrent resolution adopted.  At ease.

That's it for CSSB 110.  At ease and then I'll be back for SB 284.

Here's the audio. You can get the exact words used. CSSB 110 is the first 42 minutes.

The Emperor's New Clothes: The Power Of Fairy Tales And Of Expectations

From The Classic Reader's version of Hans Christian Anderson's The Emperor's New Clothes:

"Many years ago, there was an Emperor, who was so excessively fond of new clothes, that he spent all his money in dress. He did not trouble himself in the least about his soldiers; nor did he care to go either to the theatre or the chase, except for the opportunities then afforded him for displaying his new clothes. He had a different suit for each hour of the day; and as of any other king or emperor, one is accustomed to say, 'he is sitting in council,' it was always said of him, 'The Emperor is sitting in his wardrobe.'"

Then two scam artists arrive in the capital and declare that they weave clothes out of an exquisitely beautiful material.  But more importantly, only the good and honest can see its beauty.  Those unfit for the offices they hold are unable to see it.

"'These must, indeed, be splendid clothes!' thought the Emperor. 'Had I such a suit, I might at once find out what men in my realms are unfit for their office, and also be able to distinguish the wise from the foolish! This stuff must be woven for me immediately.' And he caused large sums of money to be given to both the weavers in order that they might begin their work directly."

The weavers set up their looms and work late into the night.  The emperor gets curious about how things are going.  While he doesn't doubt himself at all, it seems more appropriate to send one of his ministers to check on the weavers.  The minister goes into the room and is startled to see no cloth on the looms at all.  He begins to question himself.  Am I not really wise?

"The impostors requested him very courteously to be so good as to come nearer their looms; and then asked him whether the design pleased him, and whether the colors were not very beautiful; at the same time pointing to the empty frames. The poor old minister looked and looked, he could not discover anything on the looms, for a very good reason, viz: there was nothing there. "What!" thought he again. 'Is it possible that I am a simpleton? I have never thought so myself; and no one must know it now if I am so. Can it be, that I am unfit for my office? No, that must not be said either. I will never confess that I could not see the stuff.'"

The weavers describe to the minister the intricate and beautiful patterns and colors and he listens closely so he can describe it accurately to the emperor.  They also ask for more gold and silk so they can finish the project, which they get.

The minister returns to the king and describes the magnificent new clothes.  Not much later a second minister is sent to check on the progress.  He too sees nothing and questions his own fitness for the office that pays him so well when he sees nothing and goes back to describe the amazing new clothes.

Word gets out in the city about the emperor's new clothes and everyone is excited, particularly about the fact that only the competent and honest can actually see the material.

When the emperor himself finally is presented the new clothes he is shocked.  What is this?  Am I unfit to be emperor?  When asked by the weavers what he thought, he smiled and said it was charming.  The rest of the courtiers smiled and competed in their praise of the new suit.

A city wide procession was held.  The streets were crowded.  Everyone buzzed and murmured when they saw the emperor.  Then there were shouts of how magnificent the new suit was.  But then the procession passes a child.

"But the Emperor has nothing at all on!" said a little child. "Listen to the voice of innocence!" exclaimed his father; and what the child had said was whispered from one to another. "But he has nothing at all on!" at last cried out all the people. The Emperor was vexed, for he knew that the people were right; but he thought the procession must go on now! And the lords of the bedchamber took greater pains than ever, to appear holding up a train, although, in reality, there was no train to hold. [emphasis added]

The Role of Fairy Tales

Fairy tales serve a significant function in the development of children and the passing on of cultural norms.  A number of articles, such as this one, talk about how they help children resolve inherent emotional conflicts.  One article I found, that gathers together many of the benefits, was a chapter subheading called,  "The Value of Fairy Tales In Education."  It listed:

• Fairy tales bring joy into child life.
• Fairy tales satisfy the play spirit of childhood.
• Fairy tales are play forms.
• Fairy tales give the child a power of accurate observation.
• Fairy tales strengthen the power of emotion, develop the power of imagination, train the memory, and exercise the reason.
• Fairy tales extend and intensify the child's social relations.

Fairy tales pose moral dilemmas for us along with an array of human qualities to overcome these dilemmas.  Fairy tales pass on cultural wisdom that we can apply to our daily lives as adults.

I'm assuming that some of you have thought about the Republican nominee and his supporters as you reread the Emperor's New Clothes.   And the various stories that are coming out that suggest that he is all hype and fiction.  Such as this Newsweek story that details the fictions of his fortune.  I would caution those looking for proof of Trump's duplicity to remember their own expectations when accepting the facts in the Newsweek story.  But also take note of the auther Kurt Eichenwald who has done groundbreaking financial reporting including the book Conspiracy of Fools on Enron.  

As more and more 'children' are saying out loud that the Donald has no clothes, more and more people are starting to question their beliefs.

The Role Of Expectations

But I want to share an incident that occurred the other day that demonstrates the power of mental expectations. (Or maybe just the declining quality of my mind.)

I drove to the market. I was taking an air mattress bed, something too big to carry on my bike, over to a friend, and getting some food on the way.  When I came out of the market, I walked over to where I had parked my car.  I was looking for my wife's car and couldn't find it.  Instead, there was a car exactly like my own car.  I was so committed to the idea that I came in my wife's Subaru that I thought, "Wow, there's a car like mine."  Then I looked at the license plate.  It was my car.  Yet my mind was tightly bound to the idea that I'd driven over in the Subaru.  (It uses less gas and so, if I need to drive, and my wife isn't using her car, that's the one I take.) And if I had the Subaru, then my wife must have had to use my car.  But why wouldn't she just call me, since she knew I was going to the market.  And as I was listening to the rings on the phone to ask my wife why she'd driven to the market, I suddenly realized - I had driven my car and not hers.  

As I say, this might just be an indicator that my mind is rapidly deteriorating, but even if that is the case, it still shows how powerfully an expectation can prevent us from seeing the obvious.  Whether it's racial stereotypes, political ideology, ego, desires, one's personal interests, or simple habit, we usually see what we want or expect to see.  

[I'd note one of the more literate discussions of fairy tales, by Meg Moseley, who, importantly, notes that often such tales carry forward cultural biases, like the idea that young maidens must wait to be rescued by handsome princes.]

Every Good Thing Attracts The Bad - Fake Blogger Endorsements

Blogs began with a certain level of honesty and innocence.  People listened to blogger recommendations because they were genuine.  And marketers noticed that and started asking bloggers to market their products.  I wrote about this phenomenon two years ago at some length and with links to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

Today I got one that went beyond most of the others.  Not only do they want me to talk about their products, they'll even write the post for me, and reward me with a gift certificate.  I would note that when I looked into this in the past, I learned that bloggers who get paid for their recommendations but don't tell their readers, are breaking the law.  (See below for more details.)

So here's the email I got.  (If you sent me a private email in response to something you read on my blog, or because you're a friend, I would not post or share your email without notifying you first and seeing if you have any objections.  But this is an unsolicited email asking me to break the law for their benefit.  There are no reasons why I should keep their correspondence confidential.)

Hi

I work for XXXXXX and wanted to reach out to you. We came across your blog What Do I know? and thought you'd make a great person to work with for a mutually beneficial initiative we've started. We're looking to have a select group of bloggers like yourself pick out their favorite XXXXXXX products and then ideally mention them in a blog post. The product selection is quite varied so I'm sure you'll find something that fits perfectly with your blog. To make this really fast & easy, we've developed a tool that guides you through everything. It even helps generate a blog post title and the actual content once you've chosen your products. You can get started by visiting this url: http://XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (yes I'm sparing you the real url) It should only take a couple minutes, but we would like to offer you a XXXXXX.com gift certificate in exchange for your time if this sounds interesting to you. All the best, Axxxxxxxx

So I followed the link and I had to pick one category from a long list.  Things like holidays, animals, birthdays, trendy, religion, gaming, brands. . .  24 in all.  I picked political and went to step 2.  Pictures of the products.  You'll see they didn't check my blog too carefully.  Here's a screenshot of three of the products.

Mind you there were dozens of choices for political products but they were all anti-Obama.  T shirts, bumper stickers, baseball caps, etc.  I guess these are bargain basement now.

Then I went to the next step to see what the post they were going to give me would look like.

 Let's see, I think this promotion sucks.  It's unethical, illegal, and their politics are all wrong.  Oh wait, I'm not doing a post to push their products, I'm doing a post to warn other bloggers and consumers.

The post they had for me turned out to be very similar to the picture above.  There were three T shirts, but vertical, and with links to buy them.

There was no disclosure that the blogger was getting a gift certificate for posting this.  I don't know how much it was for.  I didn't go that far.

I did go back and check the religion category.  There were cards (Christian and Jewish), bumper stickers and stickers (Buddhist), and T-shirts (Muslim.)  The Jewish cards ranged from ok in a secular way to tacky to offensive. The Muslim T-shirts, I can't tell if any would be acceptable to a Muslim, but some were clearly offensive.


My Blogger Colleagues!  It's illegal to get paid to endorse products without disclosing that relationship to your readers.  This solicitation does not ask me to disclose, nor does it warn me that if I don't disclose I would be breaking the law.  (In the past I even had solicitations that offered to pay me more if I DIDN'T disclose.)


This is from the Federal Trade Commission website, dated June 2010.

"The revised Guides – issued after public comment and consumer research – reflect three basic truth-in-advertising principles:

• Endorsements must be truthful and not misleading;
• If the advertiser doesn’t have proof that the endorser’s experience represents what consumers will achieve by using the product, the ad must clearly and conspicuously disclose the generally expected results in the depicted circumstances; and
• If there’s a connection between the endorser and the marketer of the product that would affect how people evaluate the endorsement, it should be disclosed.

Since the FTC issued the revised Guides, advertisers, ad agencies, bloggers, and others have sent questions to endorsements@ftc.gov. Here are answers to some of the most frequently asked questions.

About the Endorsement Guides

Are the FTC Endorsement Guides new?

The Guides aren’t new, but they’ve recently been updated. It’s always been the law that if an ad features an endorser who’s a relative or employee of the marketer – or if an endorser has been paid or given something of value to tout the marketer’s product – the ad is misleading unless the connection is made clear. The reason is obvious: Knowing about the connection is important information for anyone evaluating the endorsement. Say you’re planning a vacation. You do some research and find a glowing review on someone’s blog that a certain resort is the most luxurious place they’ve ever stayed. If you found out that the hotel had paid that blogger to say great things about it or that the blogger had stayed there for a week for free, it could affect how much weight you’d give the blogger’s endorsement."

There's a lot more questions and answers at the link. 


Remember the title of this post?  Every Good Thing Attracts The Bad.  In this case I'm giving the example that when blogs started they were new and fresh and honest and people listened to bloggers' endorsements because they were genuine.  And then the marketers moved in to exploit this new source of credibility and trust.

But this happens everywhere.  Legitimate organizations always attract the illegitimate who want to use their good name for their own gain.  We see this in every field, from religion to education and throughout the business world.  Knowing how to tell the genuine from the charlatan is a skill that has been useful since humans first became humans.  It's a skill I encourage on this blog a lot. 

"It's like a bully, a black hole bully punching the nose of a passing galaxy"

This blog's name is "What Do I Know" because I'm interested in how people 'know' what they know. How is it that Christians of one denomination 'know' their truth while those of another know a different truth? And Muslims yet another truth. Hindus and Sikhs still others.

How is it one voter 'knows' that Ron Paul is exactly what American needs, while another thinks he would be a disaster?

I don't know the answers to these questions, but the explanation that makes most sense to me is that humans come to 'know' things through a complex mix of ways.

• genetics provide us with instincts and predisposed tendencies
• experiences with the world that provide us with mostly unconscious knowledge of the physical world (visually interpreting depth and movement) and the social world (interpreting the intent of other people)
• instructions from authorities such as parents, the media, teachers which is why Chinese babies end up speaking Chinese, unless they get adopted by, say, an American, in which case they end up learning English; and why Muslim kids usually have Muslim parents
• logic and reason provide us with ways to examine what we know, test it, change it

All of these ways are essential, none is best for everything, some are better for some things. How they play out in our brains is different from individual to individual, and even within a single individual from one time to another.

So I found Seth Borenstein's AP story on a black hole the other day interesting. He writes:

"It's like a bully, a black-hole bully, punching the nose of a passing galaxy," said astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York, who wasn't involved in the research.

But ultimately, this could be a deadly punch.

What in Neil deGrasse Tyson's life causes him to see, in these images, a bully punching someone in the nose? Why does he put human intent in them? Poets use images to convey abstract ideas. If Tyson is trying to make this astronomical event understandable to us non-astronomers, why that image? Watch the NASA video and see if that is what you see.





Actually the description in the video is far less based on human emotions.

This made me think of Rohrschach tests. Those inkblots psychologists give patients to interpret. From the same ink splotches, different people see totally different things. I only have a layperson's understanding of such tests and the Rorschah.com site said very little

The test itself, as well as the book, are too well known to require any detailed commentary here,

Rohrschach.org was full of typos that didn't give me much confidence in that site. (revealing one of the ways I 'know' what I think I can trust on the internet.)

uk.tickle.com had what they purport to be an actual Rohrschach test. I went through the eleven inkblots, but at the end I had to 'skip' eight or nine ads to get to a page where I could pay £8.95 to get my results. But if you just go through the test pages, you'll get the point I'm making here about interpreting what you see. The questions they ask give a sense of the different things people see. Here's one of their inkblots.




I think the inkblots - and the space activity - are good examples of seeing how people take their own knowledge, experiences, and emotions to interpret the identifical 'facts'.

One part of improving public discourse is for people to become more aware of how they know things - the stories in their heads with which they interpret the 'facts' of the world. Also, explicitly seeing how different people 'see' different things in the same set of 'facts' is also instructive.

Attending the corruption trials also emphasized the way people take in evidence and determine guilt or innocence. Clearly the jurors saw things differently than the defendants.

And, of course, some people's interpretations of facts, are a closer match to reality. My basic test for good interpretation is how successful one is in using that interpretation to predict outcomes. Sometimes this can be done - which fishing hole is most likely to yield fish? - sometimes it can't be done - which is the most beautiful painting?

Kott Trial Day 3 - Jury seated, Trial Resumes Monday

U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska
Court Calendar for Friday, September 7, 2007

9:00 AM 3:07-CR-00056-01-JWS

Judge Sedwick Anchorage Courtroom 3
USA vs. PETER KOTT
TRIAL BY JURY - DAY 3

I didn't get to the courtroom til 11:15am today. By then there were twelve or thirteen people sitting in the jury seats - just two two men, one African-American, a few who might be Alaska Native or Hispanic or Asian, most white - and twenty five more sitting in the audience. They were selecting the alternates. The basic questions they were answering were about where they lived, jobs, hobbies, bumper stickers, have they written letters to the editor, kids, prior jury duty, education level.

When they were done, each side had two peremptory challenges left. They gave them to the clerk who then showed the opposing attorneys. My notes are confusing here. I think four names were read. Two people sitting in the jury box were excused and two who had just been interviewed as alternates. Of the later two, the older woman with the GED was excused and the truck driver with the Marine Corps stickers was excused. Then three or four more names were picked randomly to fill in the 12 jurors and 4 alternates. A lot of the jury pool had been eliminated before I got there. It appeared to me that woman who said yesterday that shea nd her husband were friends of Ben Stevens was gone.

Then the judge gave an overview to the jury. This is a criminal case brought by the government. The indictment is only a set of charges and does not indicate guily.

Government must prove its case byond a reasonable doubt. Not beyond all possible doubt. The jury must be convinced by the evidence or lack of evidence.

The government has the burden to prove that the defendant is guilty.

The defense has no obligation to prove innocence - they need not present any evidence if they so choose.

There will be opening statements - Monday. These are not evidence, but rather they will describe what evidence they will show and why it is relevant. The government will will direct examine the witnesses, the defense can cross examine, and possibly more.

After the government, the defense may present, but is under no obligation.

Then closing arguments. Again, this is not evidence. Since the government must prove its case, it goes first, then defense, and the government last.

The decision of the jury must be unanimous. You are the sole determinants of the facts. The law will be given by the court, you determine the facts. And only from the evidence given, not from other sources. Don't consider anything heard outside the courtroom. Avoid contact with the news media. If you want to read the sports section, have someone else go through the paper and pull out anything about the trial. The media are doing their job, but it isn't what they think, but what you think that matters. Don't do any other research, all must make their decisions based on the same evidence.

You can judge what the witnesses say based on their ability to see, hear, or know things they talk about, their memory, their manner, their interest in the outcome, whether they contradict themselves or are contradicted by others.

No remark I make should be interpreted as my opinion. If I admonish a lawyer, you should have no prejudice against the lawyer.

Don't worry about the sentence, only whether the defendant is guilty or not. My job is to deal with the sentence.

Don't discuss the case with anyone, even the other jurors, until you begin deliberations.

We'll run from 9am to 4:30pm, with 10-15 minute breaks in the morning and afternoon. We'll break for lunch as close to noon as we can. Jury should be back at 1:15 and we resume at 1:30.

Pay close attention. There is no written transcript. You must rely on your memories. You may take notes, but keep them to yourself until you're in the jury room. You'll leave your notes in the court when you go home. We'll provide paper and pens.

(I'm sure I left some minor details out, and I hope this fairly represents what the judge said.)

Q: I live in Kodiak, can I go home this weekend? A: Yes [My question - who pays for transportation and housing for jurors who have to travel to Anchorage?]
Q: How long will the trial take? A: At longest, til the end of the month. My estimate is two weeks or less.

At 11:50 am the jury was excused til Monday morning.

After the jury left, there was discussion among the attorneys and the judge.

The government is going to provide evidence that Dave Dittman conducted political polls for Kott that were paid for by Bill Allen and/or Rick Smith. The defense wants to present as evidence that Allen and Smith paid Dittman for polls about a number of other candidates they were interested in and this was a legitimate business interest of theirs. They did this as individuals and not as Veco. The government argued this was irrelevant. They are supposed to either resolve this or submit motions.

As best as I could tell, some of the tapes have been 'minimized' which from the discussion, I understood to mean, the recordings were turned off and there are missing portions. There was already a stipulation that FBI agents who did the recording would be available to the defense. But the defense wanted them to be there for six or seven sections so they could explain why the tapes were turned off, what rules they had for what to record or not record. It was suggested by the judge, I think, that the defense was free to call them as witnesses for the defense. Attorney Wendt said he did not want to call the FBI as witnesses. The judge said he couldn't tell the government whom to call as witnesses. They will file motions tonight and tomorrow so the judge can rule before the opening statements on Monday.

The court recessed around 12:20pm until Monday at 9am. After I asked Lisa Demer if the government had said whether they were going to call Bill Allen and Rick Smith of Veco as witnesses. She said, no, they have until 4:30 to file that.

Prepare For The Coming Fall Of Trump

Trump's past has been glossed over for many, but it seems to be bubbling up in the Justice Department.  If you want to understand how Trump got where he is and why that is soon to undo him, you need to dig deeper than social media and mainstream media.

I'd recommend a few sources of information to get you up to speed if you aren't already there.

This New Yorker article by Adam Davidson steps back then steps forward to explain why even Trump supporters will start having doubts when all the facts about his business dealings come out.  He talks about how, as a reporter in Iraq, he saw the inevitable, but it took the American public much longer to realize we weren't winning there.  Then he talks about studying the Collateralized Debt Obligations and realizing that the banking world was going to come crashing down.  Again before the public did.

"I thought of those earlier experiences this week as I began to feel a familiar clarity about what will unfold next in the Trump Presidency. There are lots of details and surprises to come, but the endgame of this Presidency seems as clear now as those of Iraq and the financial crisis did months before they unfolded. Last week, federal investigators raided the offices of Michael Cohen, the man who has been closer than anybody to Trump’s most problematic business and personal relationships. This week, we learned that Cohen has been under criminal investigation for months—his e-mails have been read, presumably his phones have been tapped, and his meetings have been monitored. Trump has long declared a red line: Robert Mueller must not investigate his businesses, and must only look at any possible collusion with Russia. That red line is now crossed and, for Trump, in the most troubling of ways. Even if he were to fire Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and then had Mueller and his investigation put on ice, and even if—as is disturbingly possible—Congress did nothing, the Cohen prosecution would continue. Even if Trump pardons Cohen, the information the Feds have on him can become the basis for charges against others in the Trump Organization.
This is the week we know, with increasing certainty, that we are entering the last phase of the Trump Presidency. This doesn’t feel like a prophecy; it feels like a simple statement of the apparent truth."

Essentially, when the remaining Trump faithful see behind the curtain, they too will realize they've been swindled.  Eventually it happens to all frauds.  Watch as Toto pulls down the wizard's curtain.



Next, for those of you who have Netflix, the documentary series Dirty Money  ends with an episode on Donald Trump.  For those who have been paying attention there isn't that much new, but as names like Michael Cohen start getting more airtime, this gives some background on them and their relationship with Trump .  Just search for Dirty Money on Netflix, then go to the last episode of that series.  [I don't think I can link you straight to the movie within Netflix since you have to put in your passwords, so the link just goes to Netflix and you have to find Dirty Money episode six yourself.]

If you have more time, Netflix also has a four episode series called Trump: The American Dream.  This one gets much deeper into the Trump story.  (The use of superlatives to describe everything he does goes back a long time.)

Watching these videos will be like reading the program at the opera.  Soon the names and stories of Trump's henchmen and cronies will flash by in the news.  If you read the program now you'll know the backstories of these folks.

Just like with Nixon, there was a majority of Americans who stood by the President, simply because he was the President.  But slowly the circle around him got smaller and smaller as people in his administration were indicted.

At that time the Vietnam War also had the country polarized and those who held onto their belief in the President's innocence the longest were those who didn't want to believe these things about the president who was waging the war they so strongly believed in.

The details will be different this time round, but I suspect the end will be similar.  Nixon was much more traditional, much better informed about how Washington worked (he'd been a member of Congress and Eisenhower's vice president for eight years.)  Trump, I guess, believed that saying  "if you can make it in New York, you can make it anywhere."  He's in way over his head. And he has no self-control.   So his decline will  probably much more volatile.


And here are some posts I did to understand who Trump was back in 2016 that give background into his father and his mentor:

March 13, 2016:  To Know The Son, Know the Dad - So What Can We Learn From Trump's Dad?

June 24, 2016 -  "Roy Cohn was one of the most loathsome characters in American history, so why did he have so many influential friends?"] Roy Cohn was important in Trump's rise to power and appears in the videos.

November 6, 2016:    What A Trump Presidency Would Look Like   -  If you do your homework, some predictions aren't that hard.  I suspect many of you would have made similar predictions.  I'm comfortable pointing out what I said before we knew who won the election.

Is Terrorism a Hate Crime?

People get upset over anti-American attacks, like the consulate attack and deaths in Libya.  There's something about terrorist attacks against Americans that adds, literally, insult to injury for most Americans.  Terrorist attacks take, collectively, a minor toll on American lives compared to many other causes of death we pay little attention to.  But they get media attention far out of proportion to their actual impact.  From the Cato Institute, for example:

Any violent crime is terrible, but terrorism is extremely rare in the United States. The risk that any given American will be killed by a terrorist is about the same as the chance that a randomly selected high school football player will one day be a starting quarterback in the Super Bowl. One's chance of being killed in a terrorist attack is many times less than one's chance of drowning in a bathtub or being killed by a fall from scaffolding or a ladder. We would not adopt the "if it saves one life'' theory to justify a ban on bathtubs, even though hundreds of lives would be saved each year. Accordingly, America should reject terrorism legislation that will probably not save any lives and that demands that Americans give up things far more important than bathtubs.

But emotionally, we are far more affected by terrorism than other causes of death.  We've been willing to compromise basic freedoms to prevent terrorism and punish terrorists  (ie, assassinations, habeas corpus violations, 'extraordinary rendition').   We've been intimidated by terrorists (or manipulated by politicians using terrorist attacks as an excuse) to spend huge amounts to invade the privacy of every airline passenger.  We've committed violence to our justice system to punish those we call terrorists.  The Obama administration's attempt to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a New York federal court instead of a military court, for example, caused sharp protests.  From the Carnegie Council:

The response of prominent members of the Bush administration and other leading Republicans to the announcement was swift, as they accused the Obama administration of failing to understand the danger of trying a terrorist on US soil. A secondary concern, expressed at Attorney General Holder's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on November 18, was that the trial would give the accused the chance to avoid conviction. The protections of a legal team and the vagaries of juries, it was argued, could result in a suspected terrorist escaping justice. 

There is no presumed innocence until proven guilty for terrorists here.  Somehow these crimes are different, are more heinous, are less deserving of the American justice system.
 
The Patriot Act was passed, in part to increase the penalties for terrorists.
From the Department of Justice website:

4. The Patriot Act increased the penalties for those who commit terrorist crimes. Americans are threatened as much by the terrorist who pays for a bomb as by the one who pushes the button. That's why the Patriot Act imposed tough new penalties on those who commit and support terrorist operations, both at home and abroad. In particular, the Act:

• Prohibits the harboring of terrorists. The Act created a new offense that prohibits knowingly harboring persons who have committed or are about to commit a variety of terrorist offenses, such as: destruction of aircraft; use of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons; use of weapons of mass destruction; bombing of government property; sabotage of nuclear facilities; and aircraft piracy. 
• Enhanced the inadequate maximum penalties for various crimes likely to be committed by terrorists: including arson, destruction of energy facilities, material support to terrorists and terrorist organizations, and destruction of national-defense materials. 
• Enhanced a number of conspiracy penalties, including for arson, killings in federal facilities, attacking communications systems, material support to terrorists, sabotage of nuclear facilities, and interference with flight crew members. Under previous law, many terrorism statutes did not specifically prohibit engaging in conspiracies to commit the underlying offenses. In such cases, the government could only bring prosecutions under the general federal conspiracy provision, which carries a maximum penalty of only five years in prison.
• Punishes terrorist attacks on mass transit systems. 
• Punishes bioterrorists.
• Eliminates the statutes of limitations for certain terrorism crimes and lengthens them for other terrorist crimes.

There is something different about a lone angry man shooting up a theater and a terrorist who does the same thing.  The latter apparently commits a crime that is even worse than the former.  It's murder plus. One difference seems to be intent.

Here's how the US Congress has defined terrorism 18 USC §2331 from Cornell Law:

As used in this chapter—

(1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that—

(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended—

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;

These are acts as 1(A) tells us, that are already illegal and now are getting the extra label of terrorism added to them.  

The Justice Department defines Hate Crimes on its website :

Hate crime is the violence of intolerance and bigotry, intended to hurt and intimidate someone because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, religious, sexual orientation, or disability. The purveyors of hate use explosives, arson, weapons, vandalism, physical violence, and verbal threats of violence to instill fear in their victims, leaving them vulnerable to more attacks and feeling alienated, helpless, suspicious and fearful. Others may become frustrated and angry if they believe the local government and other groups in the community will not protect them. When perpetrators of hate are not prosecuted as criminals and their acts not publicly condemned, their crimes can weaken even those communities with the healthiest race relations. 

What the two acts - hate crimes and terrorism - seem to have in common are:

• Violence
• Intent to intimidate (and I think coerce plays a role in hate crimes too, though the word isn't used in the definition above.)

If you read white supremacist or white nationalist websites, there is also a clear  goal to change government policies related to race (usually separate the races to save whiteness)  and there is talk of inevitable civil war in the US.  I won't link to those sites, you'll have to find them on your own.

Given the similarity between terrorism and hate crimes, why is there opposition to hate crimes laws by people who support anti-terrorism laws?  

For instance a statement by House Majority leader Boehner (from CBS News):

All violent crimes should be prosecuted vigorously, no matter what the circumstance," he said. "The Democrats' 'thought crimes' legislation, however, places a higher value on some lives than others. Republicans believe that all lives are created equal, and should be defended with equal vigilance."

To be fair to Boehner, CBS contacted his office to see if he objected to all hate crime legislation or just adding gender and sexual orientation:

In an email, Boehner spokesman Kevin Smith said Boehner "supports existing federal protections (based on race, religion, gender, etc) based on immutable characteristics."

It should be noted that the current law does not include gender, though the expanded legislation would cover gender as well as sexual orientation, gender identity and disability.

"He does not support adding sexual orientation to the list of protected classes," Smith continued.

Of course, religion is NOT an immutable  characteristic.  People choose to change religions all the time and while individual sexual acts may be choices, sexual orientation surely isn't.  But that's besides the point here.

Another legislator also saw the idea of hate crimes as creating "thought" crimes:

Rep. Tom Price, who heads the GOP conservative caucus, also complained last week that the expansion of hate crimes legislation amounted to "thought crimes," and he labeled the bill's passage – tied to a defense bill – an "absolute disgrace."

But contacted about his position on hate crimes legislation overall, Price took a different position than Boehner. According to Price communications director Brendan Buck, the congressman opposes all hate crimes protections, including existing ones.

"We believe all hate crimes legislation is unconstitutional and places one class of people above others," said Buck.

Intent, of course, is the basis for finding someone guilty of murder.  No one cries "thought police" there.  And despite the law, despite Boehner's assertion that "all lives are created equal, and should be defended with equal vigilance,"  the ACLU points out that some murder victims get less vigorous legal attention than others. 

While white victims account for approximately one-half of all murder victims, 80% of all Capital cases involve white victims. Furthermore, as of October 2002, 12 people have been executed where the defendant was white and the murder victim black, compared with 178 black defendants executed for murders with white victims.

The emotional attachment of the public and of officials affects how they react to events.

The hatred of a specific group of people makes a normal crime into a hate crime.  It's not  just about the criminal and victim, but about all people who share the targeted characteristic of the victim, whether it's race or religion or gender.

In terrorism, we have the same reaction - it isn't about what the victim did, but who the victim was - an American.  I'm an American, so I too could be randomly victimized if I'm traveling abroad.    The impact is wider and stronger because of the intent of the terrorist to use violence to intimidate anyone who is a member of the group American, just as in hate crimes.

Where's this all going?

I would hope that at least some of the readers can see where this is leading.  For some people - especially those who live in a society in which they are among the dominant population (ie a white male Christian in the US) and are never victimized because of their personal characteristics - it is hard to understand the effect of hate crimes on individuals within that group and on the group collectively.  (Though some people who call themselves Christians claim they are discriminated against.)

It seems to me that when the idea of America is attacked - as when the world trade center was destroyed - Americans react the same as members of traditionally victimized groups (racial and religious minorities, women, gays, etc.).

Even if they can't feel  what an African-American feels when seeing a Confederate flag, perhaps they can understand it's the same way they feel when they see video of planes crashing into the World Trade Center.  It doesn't diminish their feelings to know that the Confederate flag can cause the same feeling to many African-Americans.  It's like translating an emotional context from one culture to another. 

That, of course, assumes logic and consistency, and a real desire for the ideals of democracy and freedom.  There are many who are too fearful to be concerned about anyone else.  There are many whose goals are simply personal benefit and for whom American ideals are merely tools to use to get their own way. (Using American slogans to convince people to vote for them.)

And, there are some who, while emotionally impacted by crimes against the US, would advocate that terrorists deserve no more and no less punishment than those who commit similar crimes without an ideological or political motive.

But deep down, we're all humans who should be able to understand all this.   Even Clarence Thomas spoke up when the Supreme Court considered a cross-burning case and convinced his black robed colleagues that cross burnings were more than free speech, they were acts of intimidation.

Symbolic acts can intimidate and cause other real harm, beyond any direct physical harm to the victim. 

Link Clickers Beware - But You Can Opt Out

[Update, August 12]:  An anonymous comment provided a link to the FTC guidelines covering endorsements and testimonials. You can see the relevant section for bloggers in the third comment at the end of this post. It sure looks to me that this totally violates those guidelines.]

BloggerBuzz had a post recently announcing a new way to 'monetize' one's blog:

. . . Any time you write about a product or service, you're connecting your audience to that product. If someone makes a purchase, the seller benefits from your written word—you influenced a purchase. There are thousands of websites that will pay you a fee for any business you bring them through a form of online advertising called affiliate marketing. With affiliate ads, web publishers are compensated for driving online actions.

VigLink is a content monetization company that makes affiliate marketing very easy for bloggers. We offer a simple snippet of code you can install in your blog that automatically and transparently does all the work for you. We've catalogued and signed up for more than 12,500 affiliate programs and we collect all the performance information and deliver you a single integrated payment. In return, VigLink takes 25% of the incremental revenue you earn. [emphasis added].

There's also a two minute video.




What's wrong here?    Most might say, nothing at all.  This is the American way of life.  Nothing has value unless it has a price.  Unless we can make a buck off of it.  People who blog for free are losers.  Well, here are the problems I have:

1.  The reader doesn't know the blogger is being paid and thinks the endorsement is uninfluenced by a payoff.


When I was a cab driver in LA, a fare once wanted to go to a strip club.  When I dropped him off, the club guy came to my window and gave me $5 and told me it was always $5 per person I dropped off.  So if someone asked me if there were any good clubs around, you know where I'd take him.

This is the same sort of problem these unmarked links set up.  The reader thinks it's a genuine endorsement uninfluenced by the promise of a payoff. Currently, there are ads in some blogs, but they are labeled as such.   Readers suspect or know that the blogger gets a commission on these. 

In their FAQ's, the company writes this about reader awareness:

Will my users notice?

Likely not. VigLink does not change the user experience one bit. No links are inserted or removed on the page, there are no double-underlines or pop-ups, and mousing over a link looks "clean."

But, it's really dirty is what they seem to be saying.

This is like tv shows and movies that pay film makers to embed their products in their shows.  So buying Full Circle Farm produce no longer is an integral aspect of the character, but rather they wrote that in because FCF has paid them for this stealth ad.

I've gotten emails offering me payments if I plug a product on my blog and they will pay more if I don't say that I'm getting paid.  The advertisers believe that if the readers don't know the bloggers are getting paid, they are more likely to believe.

In the FAQ's, they even tell merchants:

Additionally, VigLink increases confidence, click-through rates and conversions by making the links to your site appear to be "natural" links instead of obviously embedded affiliate codes. [Emphasis added]

They are selling the fact to merchants that they are deceiving viewers into thinking these are natural links.

As a viewer, YOU CAN OPT out.  There's a page where if you click on the button, it says

If you'd like to disable VigLink on sites that you visit, click the button below.

I'm not sure what that means.  I have no idea how the average viewer would ever find the page, or even know there is something to opt out of.  Does it mean they won't collect data on you?  Does it mean that the blogger doesn't get his payoff if you purchase something through his link?  There's a link there to a long privacy policy which includes statements like:

We do not knowingly collect personal data from children under the age of 13. If you are under 13, please do not give us any personally identifiable information.  [Emphasis added]

How many kids read privacy policies?  How many adults read privacy policies?  How many people even know this company exists? 


2.  The blogger starts pushing products, not because he really likes them, but because they will make him money.

Behavioralism is a school of psychology that tells us, among other things, that people repeat behaviors that are rewarded.  So, if bloggers get paid for writing posts that get people to click on links and buy products, they will start writing more such posts.  And eventually, some bloggers will recommend products they don't really believe in because they know they will get rewarded.  


3.   Trust in Blogs Will Turn to Suspicion

Before this new company arrived, readers knew that if they clicked on an ad, the blogger would get some small amount of reimbursement, but if they clicked on a link in the post, there was no compensation.  They could reasonably assume that the blogger put in the link because he believed it was in the reader's interest to click on the link.

Now though, as surfers begin to understand this new system, they will become suspicious of all blogs and bloggers (and probably the websites of newspapers and everyone else will do this as well.  Maybe they already do.)

Even if bloggers, like me, post announcements saying that we do not have paid links, there's nothing to stop people who DO have paid links from putting up the same announcements. 

Note:  People should be skeptical about what they read on blogs.  But there has been a sense of innocence in many blogs that are written by people who just enjoy sharing their ideas and without the corrupting influence of money. 

4.   Bloggers are probably also being ripped off

So, if VigLinks is willing to hide from the viewer the fact that the blogger is getting paid, why should we be surprised that they are also snookering the blogger?

• Blogger pay is probably pretty tiny.  One reason putting up ads is not even a temptation is that I know I would get so little revenue from the ads anyway.  If I'm going to sell out it's going to be for a lot more than $50.   I looked into google-ads  when I first started blogging and learned that only blogs with at least thousands of daily hits are likely to make any real money.  The ads for this company don't talk about how much a blogger would actually get.  I looked through more of the links on the website.  You get vague things like:

How does payment work?

VigLink will pay by check in the United States and PayPal anywhere it is available. We are expanding our payment options over time. VigLink will ask for payment information and pay publishers as soon as their balance reaches $25. VigLink typically takes 25% on commission earned by publishers. Often publishers still receive higher payouts due to collective bargaining and high volume commission levels. We will issue an IRS Form 1099 to any publisher who makes more than $400 in a fiscal year.

What percent of bloggers will even earn that $25?  If they don't, what happens to the money?  So, we don't really know how much you get per click.   Actually, another FAQ says you get paid if someone makes purchase only.  It doesn't say how much.  Instead it says,

How does VigLink make money?

You earn a commission for every sale made on a linked site. VigLink takes a small fee from that commission and then passes on the rest to you.

Small fee?  It's true it will be a small fee in absolute cents.  But it is 25% of what the blogger earns.  Gryphen at Immoral Minority said that Tank Jones and Rex Butler's commission from Levi Johnstons' earnings is only 20%.  I don't know if that's true, but Gryph seemed to think that was a significant chunk.  This company takes 25%.

But if the blogger doesn't make much money at all, what's 25% of nothing?  Well, there's something called the salami technique:

Employee embezzles large amount of money by stealing small sums from many different accounts.

This linking scheme isn't stealing because they tell the blogger and the blogger agrees to it. Though they intentionally do not want the viewer to know what is happening.   But, the vast majority of bloggers who might sign up for this probably wouldn't make much money.  It's possible a lot won't even reach the $25 threshold necessary for them to write the first check.  And as I asked earlier, what happens to this below threshold accumulation?  Why don't I think they'll donate it to decrease our national budget? 

I'm guessing, based on talking to people who have google ads, most people won't make more than, say, $50 a year, and that's probably high.  A few of the very big blogs with  thousands of hits a day, might do well.  But if this company got a million blogs to sign up - and it's really easy to add the code - and they get 25%, and if that amounted to about $10 per blog, that would be $10 million per year. (Hatrickassociates claims there are 400 million active English-language blogs in 2010, so my estimate is probably way low.)

So a scheme like this would

• pollute general trust in blogs with 
• minor benefit to most bloggers who sign up, 
• cause deception for readers, and 
• cause companies to pay a salami slice commission for links that they had in the past for free. 

The main beneficiary would appear to be this new company, and, probably Blogspot, WordPress, and TypePad also get a cut.  I couldn't find any mention of that.  


It seems to me that blogs with stealth links like this should post a notice at the top of the blog:

"This blog may receive kickbacks from merchants if you click from here and our reviews of products may be biased because of that."