Every single person in this world is entitled to their opinion, and to their freedom of speech.  I obviously consider this one of the main tenants of the world as I shoot my mouth off here on my blog on a constant basis.  I feel everyone should have opinions, and they should also feel free to express them, but you know how that old saying goes about “opinions are like …”, you know the one I mean.  Well, Ms. Portman has apparently discovered that orifice on her body.

This story is a couple of days old now, and I have been debating since it broke if I even wanted to talk about it.  I am about to tell someone (believe me, I know I am writing this for myself and no one else) to keep a certain “I’m better than you” attitude to herself when I run a blog where I rant about Scientologists on a regular basis.  However, some things are just so monumentally stupid that you can’t stop yourself from commenting.

You see, Ms. Portman wrote an article for the Huffington Post about how she has converted from being a vegetarian to an out spoken vegan.  I have no problems with vegetarians or vegans in any way, my belief is that is their choice, good for them.  However, just like I won’t wave meat in their face, I prefer the not wave their choices in mine.  I’m willing to have open discussions on the subject so long as they remain civil, but this is one of those subjects like politics that rarely does.  I have known many of both types of people over the years, and we have never once had a problem … course, none of them before have likened me to a rapist.

Yes, you read that right … a rapist.

In her defense of Jonathan Safran Foer’s book,  Eating Animals, which she says is what brought about the change in her views, she postulates a scenario that would be the most awkward dinner conversation ever.

I say that Foer’s ethical charge against animal eating is brave because not only is it unpopular, it has also been characterized as unmanly, inconsiderate, and juvenile. But he reminds us that being a man, and a human, takes more thought than just “This is tasty, and that’s why I do it.” He posits that consideration, as promoted by Michael Pollan in The Omnivore’s Dilemma, which has more to do with being polite to your tablemates than sticking to your own ideals, would be absurd if applied to any other belief (e.g., I don’t believe in rape, but if it’s what it takes to please my dinner hosts, then so be it).

I think there is a small difference between eating, something all humans have to do to live, and an act of violence taken upon another human.

As I said earlier, I have known many vegetarians and vegans over the years, and to see me, you would have no doubt I eat meat.  I have always been able to get along because they know they aren’t going to change me, and I have no desire to change them.  I applaud their convictions to be honest, but when you begin preaching to me, that is when I have a problem with you, no matter what the subject might be.  If I respect your decisions, surely you can do the same for me?  The quickest way to turn me off to your beliefs or causes is to lecture me, which is exactly what it sounds like Ms. Portman plans to begin doing.

This has always struck me as one of the biggest problems with this sort of “debate”: the other party automatically assumes I have made my choice out of some form of lack of education on the matter, and it is now their duty to correct that.  You have no clue how or why I have made the decisions I have made, and you instead of trying to “educate” me, or confronting me at a dinner party about it (Anyone else think Ms. Portman’s dinner part invites just dropped like a rock?), how about you stick to your choices and I’ll stick to mine?

It is a beautiful thing to have convictions and to stand up for them, but if your plan to get your voice heard is to liken people such as myself to being a rapist, well … good luck with how far you’re going to get.

Post from: SeanPAune.com

Shut Up, Natalie Portman

ShareThis

People that fake death reports are not high on my favorite people’s list at the moment.

I have no clue why there has been an uptick in fake reports of celebrity deaths as of late, but it has gotten to the point of being annoying, and it certainly isn’t funny.

The other day I wrote up a post about the passing of drummer Chuck Biscuits.  It has now been revealed to be a hoax, and Mr. Biscuits is alive and well.  While I am thrilled that he is alive, I couldn’t be more annoyed with the person who started spreading this rumor.  Now, I do not blame the original site, JG2 Land, he reported this news in good faith, and he believed himself to be in contact with the wife of Chuck Biscuits from as far back as this summer.  So, just to be clear, I do not feel that blog is at fault for this.

This is just one example of the numerous fake deaths reported this year, and I wish I could figure out what sort of sick and twisted individual gets a thrill out of leading friends, family and fans to believe someone is dead?  Is your life really that sad that you have to get your jollies from depressing other people?

Whatever the case may be, luckily Chuck Biscuits is alive, and I can now just go back to wondering what sort of idiot this person is that started this whole thing.

Post from: SeanPAune.com

Celeberity Death Hoaxes

ShareThis

Paul Haggis wrote Crash (for which he won an Oscar for Original Screenplay), Million Dollar Baby, Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace and many other projects.  It also appears that Mr. Haggis has been a practicing member of the Church of Scientology for the past 35 years.

Long time readers of this blog will be well aware of my bottomless hated for this “Church”, so my extreme pleasure at seeing such a notable figure leaving the organization should come as a surprise to no one.  However, why did he leave?  Well, it seems that Mr. Haggis has become disenchanted with the “Church” over its support of Prop 8 in California, and also over the fact the Tommy Davis, the head of Scientology’s Celebrity Centre, has publicly stated that the “Church” no longer enforces the practice of “disconnection.”

For those unfamiliar with this term, disconnection is the polite term for cutting off all contact and dealings with someone who chooses to leave the “church”.  Mr. Haggis saw Mr. Davis deny that this policy was still enforced on a television interview, but Mr. haggis claims that a mere year and a half ago, he and his wife, actress  Deborah Rennard, were told told to cut off all contact with her parents as they had been kicked out of the “church” for an unknown infraction.  Apparently Ms. Rennard followed the orders, painfully, but Mr. Haggis refused to cut off her parents from their grandchild.  Mr. Davis has since been quoted as saying that Mr. Haggis is wrong about this.

The last straw for Mr. Haggis was that 10 months ago Mr. Davis promised him that something would be done about the “church” vocally supporting Prop 8, but as time dragged on, and nothing happened, Mr. Haggis chose to leave the “church.”

What  follows is Mr. Haggis’ letter to Mr. Davis, which is possibly one of the most embarrassing documents from a former member to ever come to light.  The original source of the letter is the blog, Moving On Up A Little Higher which has details of how they received the letter.  The letter has also been authenticated by Ziggy Kozlowski, a publicist for Haggis, who said the letter was originally intended to be private.

Tommy,

As you know, for ten months now I have been writing to ask you to make a public statement denouncing the actions of the Church of Scientology of San Diego. Their public sponsorship of Proposition 8, a hate-filled legislation that succeeded in taking away the civil rights of gay and lesbian citizens of California – rights that were granted them by the Supreme Court of our state – shames us.

I called and wrote and implored you, as the official spokesman of the church, to condemn their actions. I told you I could not, in good conscience, be a member of an organization where gay-bashing was tolerated.

In that first conversation, back at the end of October of last year, you told me you were horrified, that you would get to the bottom of it and “heads would roll.” You promised action. Ten months passed. No action was forthcoming. The best you offered was a weak and carefully worded press release, which praised the church’s human rights record and took no responsibility. Even that, you decided not to publish.

The church’s refusal to denounce the actions of these bigots, hypocrites and homophobes is cowardly. I can think of no other word.  Silence is consent, Tommy. I refuse to consent.

I joined the Church of Scientology thirty-five years ago. During my twenties and early thirties I studied and received a great deal of counseling. While I have not been an active member for many years, I found much of what I learned to be very helpful, and I still apply it in my daily life. I have never pretended to be the best Scientologist, but I openly and vigorously defended the church whenever it was criticized, as I railed against the kind of intolerance that I believed was directed against it. I had my disagreements, but I dealt with them internally. I saw the organization – with all its warts, growing pains and problems – as an underdog. And I have always had a thing for underdogs.

But I reached a point several weeks ago where I no longer knew what to think. You had allowed our name to be allied with the worst elements of the Christian Right. In order to contain a potential “PR flap” you allowed our sponsorship of Proposition 8 to stand. Despite all the church’s words about promoting freedom and human rights, its name is now in the public record alongside those who promote bigotry and intolerance, homophobia and fear.

The fact that the Mormon Church drew all the fire, that no one noticed, doesn’t matter. I noticed. And I felt sick. I wondered how the church could, in good conscience, through the action of a few and then the inaction of its leadership, support a bill that strips a group of its civil rights.

This was my state of mind when I was online doing research and chanced upon an interview clip with you on CNN. The interview lasted maybe ten minutes – it was just you and the newscaster. And in it I saw you deny the church’s policy of disconnection. You said straight-out there was no such policy, that it did not exist.

I was shocked. We all know this policy exists. I didn’t have to search for verification – I didn’t have to look any further than my own home.

You might recall that my wife was ordered to disconnect from her parents because of something absolutely trivial they supposedly did twenty-five years ago when they resigned from the church. This is a lovely retired couple, never said a negative word about Scientology to me or anyone else I know – hardly raving maniacs or enemies of the church. In fact it was they who introduced my wife to Scientology.

Although it caused her terrible personal pain, my wife broke off all contact with them. I refused to do so. I’ve never been good at following orders, especially when I find them morally reprehensible.

For a year and a half, despite her protestations, my wife did not speak to her parents and they had limited access to their grandchild. It was a terrible time.

That’s not ancient history, Tommy. It was a year ago.

And you could laugh at the question as if it was a joke? You could publicly state that it doesn’t exist?

To see you lie so easily, I am afraid I had to ask myself: what else are you lying about?

And that is when I read the recent articles in the St. Petersburg Times.  They left me dumbstruck and horrified.

These were not the claims made by “outsiders” looking to dig up dirt against us. These accusations were made by top international executives who had devoted most of their lives to the church. Say what you will about them now, these were staunch defenders of the church, including Mike Rinder, the church’s official spokesman for 20 years!

Tommy, if only a fraction of these accusations are true, we are talking about serious, indefensible human and civil rights violations. It is still hard for me to believe.  But given how many former top-level executives have said these things are true, it is hard to believe it is all lies.

And when I pictured you assuring me that it is all lies, that this is nothing but an unfounded and vicious attack by a group of disgruntled employees, I am afraid that I saw the same face that looked in the camera and denied the policy of disconnection. I heard the same voice that professed outrage at our support of Proposition 8, who promised to correct it, and did nothing.

I carefully read all of your rebuttals, I watched every video where you presented the church’s position, I listened to all your arguments – ever word. I wish I could tell you that they rang true. But they didn’t.

I was left feeling outraged, and frankly, more than a little stupid.

And though it may seem small by comparison, I was truly disturbed to see you provide private details from confessionals to the press in an attempt to embarrass and discredit the executives who spoke out. A priest would go to jail before revealing secrets from the confessional, no matter what the cost to himself or his church. That’s the kind of integrity I thought we had, but obviously the standard in this church is far lower – the public relations representative can reveal secrets to the press if the management feels justified. You even felt free to publish secrets from the confessional in Freedom Magazine – you just stopped short of labeling them as such, probably because you knew Scientologists would be horrified, knowing you so easily broke a sacred vow of trust with your parishioners.

How dare you use private information in order to label someone an “adulteress?” You took Amy Scobee’s most intimate admissions about her sexual life and passed them onto the press and then smeared them all over the pages your newsletter! I do not know the woman, but no matter what she said or did, this is the woman who joined the Sea Org at 16! She ran the entire celebrity center network, and was a loyal senior executive of the church for what, 20 years? You want to rebut her accusations, do it, and do it in the strongest terms possible – but that kind of character assassination is unconscionable.

So, I am now painfully aware that you might see this an attack and just as easily use things I have confessed over the years to smear my name. Well, luckily I have never held myself up to be anyone’s role model.

The great majority of Scientologists I know are good people who are genuinely interested in improving conditions on this planet and helping others. I have to believe that if they knew what I now know, they too would be horrified. But I know how easy it was for me to defend our organization and dismiss our critics, without ever truly looking at what was being said; I did it for thirty-five years. And so, after writing this letter, I am fully aware that some of my friends may choose to no longer associate with me, or in some cases work with me. I will always take their calls, as I always took yours. However, I have finally come to the conclusion that I can no longer be a part of this group. Frankly, I had to look no further than your refusal to denounce the church’s anti-gay stance, and the indefensible actions, and inactions, of those who condone this behavior within the organization. I am only ashamed that I waited this many months to act. I hereby resign my membership in the Church of Scientology.

Sincerely,

Paul Haggis

Ps. I’ve attached our email correspondence.  At some point it became evident that you did not value my concerns about the church’s tacit support of an amendment that violated the civil rights of so many of our citizens. Perhaps if you had done a little more research on me, the church’s senior management wouldn’t have dismissed those concerns quite so cavalierly. While I am no great believer in resumes and awards, this is what you would have discovered:

* Founder, Artists For Peace and Justice,
- sponsoring schools, an orphanage and a children’s hospital in the slums of Haiti
* Co-Founder, BrandAid Foundation and BrandAid Project
- marketing the work of artisans from the poorest countries in the world,
* Board Member, Office of The Americas
- supporting peace and justice initiatives around the world
* Board Member, Center For The Advancement of Non-Violence
* Member and active supporter, Amnesty International
* Member, President’s Council, Defenders of Wildlife
* Member and fundraiser, Environment California and CalPirg
* Member and Award Recipient, American Civil Liberties Union
* Member and supporter, Death Penalty Focus
* Member and supporter, Equality For All
* Fundraiser, NPH (Our Little Brothers) – for the children of the slums of Haiti
* Member, Citizens Commission on Human Rights
* Patron with Honors, IAS
And formerly:
* Trustee, Religious Freedom Trust
* Board Member and fundraiser, Hollywood Education and Literacy Project
* Board Member and fundraiser, For The Arts, For Every Child
– supporting art and music in public schools
* Board Member and fundraiser, The Christic Institute
- supporting Human Rights in Central America
* Founding Board Member, Earth Communication Office
* Working Board Member, Environmental Media Association
* Fundraiser, El Rescate – Human Rights for El Salvador
* Fundraiser, PAVA – Aid and Human Rights in Guatemala

Awards for outspoken support of Civil and Human Rights:

* Valentine Davies Award – Writers Guild of America
“for bringing honor and dignity to writers everywhere”
*Bill of Rights Award – American Civil Liberties Union
*Hubert H. Humphrey Civil Rights Award – Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
*Peace & Justice Award – Office of the Americas, presented by Daniel Ellsberg
*Signis Award, Venezia, World Catholic Association
*ALMA Award – National Council of Latino Civil Rights
*Ethel Levitt Award for Humanitarian Service – Levitt & Quinn
*Prism Award – Entertainment Industries Council
*Humanitas Prize (2) – Humanitas
*Legacy Award, for Artistic and Humanitarian Achievement
*Environmental Media Award – EMA
*EMA Green Seal Award – EMA
*Image Award – NAACP
*Creative Integrity Award – Multicultural Motion Picture Association
*EDGE Awards (2) – Entertainment Industries Council
*Artistic Freedom Award – City of West Hollywood
*Catholics in Media Award – Catholics in Media Associates

And many dozens of fundraisers and salons at our home on behalf of Human and Civil Rights, the Environment, the Peace Movement, Education, Justice and Equality.

My hat is off to Mr. Haggis as this is not an easy move to make in Hollywood circles.

I especially would like everyone to note the part of the letter where Mr. Haggis wonders what other lies have been told by the “church” … could this be a reference to the old policy of “the enemies list” wherein the “church” used to keep files and evidence on everyone identified as an enemy to them?  It’s a bit of a stretch, and the “church” claims that policy ended years ago,  you know … sort of like they claim they stopped disconnection.

Post from: SeanPAune.com

Oscar-Winning Writer Paul Haggis Leaves Scientology

ShareThis

Last night I tuned in to the live U2 concert on YouTube with some trepidation.  See, I used to be a major fan of U2 up through the late 1980’s.  I loved their first five albums, and I really enjoyed their concert film, Rattle & Hum to the point I have seen it numerous times, something I have never done with any other movie of the type.

When their next album came out, Achtung Baby, I was not sold on the new musical direction of the band, and I was even less sold on Bono’s increasingly holier-than-thou attitude he was taking with world events such as hunger, poverty, world peace and eventually climate change.  It seemed that no matter what the cause du jour was, Bono felt his opinion on the matter somehow mattered as he was, after all, the lead singer of one of the biggest rock bands in history.

I continually tried to ignore Bono’s antics and pay attention to their music, but I was growing less and less happy with the band with each passing album.  After the latest album, No Line On The Horizon, I gave up as I found it pretty much impossible to listen to.

All this being said, I decided to check out the concert that was being shown for free on YouTube tonight, and I lasted exactly two songs before I turned it off.

I was struck almost immediately by a multitude of things that felt hypocritical for a band that has been annoying in their “save their world” attitudes.  When they launched the 360° world tour, a lot was made of the insanely large stage they were using, and the fact it took a multitude of semi trucks to transport it.  When the tour began in England, the criticism over the carbon footprint of the tour was almost instantaneous, and U2 guitarist The Edge found himself having to defend the band to the media, and also stressing that they had plans in place to offset their carbon footprint for the amount of materials they were transporting between shows.

Fine, but what about all of the other problems?

• The Sunday night show at the Rose Bowl was able to accommodate an extra 30,000 attendees due to the way the stage was set up, bringing attendance into the range of 90,000 people at the stadium.  Did their carbon credits include the number of vehicles used to get that many concert goers to the show?  The amount of water used in stadium bathrooms?
• While being escorted to the stage by numerous people, I noticed that there were spray painted markers on the ground telling the band where to stop and when.  (because the people walking with them wasn’t enough?) Was that eco-friendly spray paint?  was it going to be removed in some way so as not to wash into the sewer system?
• I know Google offsets their carbon emissions for their servers, but was U2 doing anything about the amount of energy being used by the people watching at home on their computers?

Okay, so even I thought I was probably being a bit overly harsh, and I decided to tune back in and give it another try.  As I watched Bono walking around on the outer section of the stage that extended through the crowd, he laid on the floor to sing, and as the song came to an end, the camera went to cut away, but just as it did I saw a stage hand pass a plastic water bottle to him … a plastic water bottle?  Okay, yeah, I gave them a second chance, and they blew it.

Honestly, I am not this concerned about the environmental issues, I do my part, but I don’t condemn others for their choices.  However, when you have been as insanely preachy as this man and his band have been, then you do have a different set of standards for them.  Apparently Bono will champion all of these causes all day long … until it comes time for him to fatten his already considerable wallet.

If this had been any other band up there on that stage I wouldn’t have paid one bit of attention to any of the things I have brought up in this post.  But when your frontman is one of the most holier-than-thou busy bodies in the world lecturing everyone in ear shot about how they should support this, do that, live this way, well, then you bring it on yourself.

Post from: SeanPAune.com

Shut Up, Bono

ShareThis

Over my years in business and journalism, I have been flooded with the predictions of analysts. One thing I have always noticed is that if something is said by an “analyst” people immediately give it credence … no matter how asinine it might be.

I found this headline yesterday:

Shift to e-books to hurt bookstores, analysts say

Really?  You don’t say?  And this was followed up by the first paragraph:

The shift to digital from physical books will ultimately hurt traditional brick-and-mortar book sellers, analysts said Friday…

Wow … that’s some hard hitting analysis there.

This is the kind of hard hitting “analysis” I have always seen from “analysts” that make me wonder how in the world they keep their jobs.  Apparently you can keep your job by making obvious observations about any subject you can think of, and people will think you are some sort of seer.

One of my all time favorites had to be one from Aug. 2008 where an analyst got major headlines for saying that he predicted Apple would release new iPods in Sept. 2008.  Wow, really?  You mean just like Apple has done every Sept. since 2005?  Did you really have to rack your brain to come up with the “analysis” that Apple would do it for a fourth consecutive year?

I think this stems from the fact that people have always wanted to know the future, and, to be honest, I see analysts as nothing more than modern day fortune tellers.  If they’re wrong, oh well, they must have not had a vital piece of information, but if they’re right, well then they have “a track record” of being right.

Most of these people probably go into this line of work with the best of intentions, I highly doubt they think they are going to pull the wool over people’s eyes, but come on, they are nothing special.  I long ago stopped paying attention to anything “analysts” say because a lot of times, like that iPod prediction, I feel like it is some guy sitting in his office on a Friday afternoon going, “Drat, I haven’t released any analysis this week … um … oh, here you go, ‘new iPods this September!’ … okay, I’m off to the Hamptons for the weekend, hold my calls!”

So, I want in on this line of work.  I’ll release “analysis” all day long if you like … here, have a free sample of what I could do for your company!

Based on historical data, and factoring in the current climate in the business community, I feel confident in sharing with your stock holders that the Sun will indeed rise in the East tomorrow morning, local time.

Am I an “analyst” now?

Post from: SeanPAune.com

I Want To Be An Analyst!

ShareThis

Last December I ranted about how Sunday football games were constantly throwing CBS’ Sunday night programming into chaos.  At that time I was complaining about a 32 minute delay to the evening’s programs, but that was nothing compared to tonight’s whopping 71 minute delay.  Thank you New York Jets and Buffalo Bills for throwing the game into overtime and then changing possession 500 times!

So,CBS has opted to play 60 Minutes in its entirety, meaning that Amazing Race, the show I’m waiting on, will not start until 8:11 my time.  Well, my TiVo still shows it as airing from 7 – 8, and that is when it will record, leaving me without one second of the show.

Well, I’m lucky in that I also get West coast channels, so I can still catch the show at its specified time, but since I wrote the original rant, I have learned of something that exists that would fix all of this.  Apparently there are signals that channels can send out in some countries and tell the DVRs that a show is running late and it will shift the schedule on your DVR for you automatically.  So say a show is starting 5 minutes late, the network sends out a signal and your DVR will change the settings from 7 – 8 to 7:05 – 8:05.

Why don’t we have this here?  I can’t imagine it is the complicated to do, and the technology already exists, so why isn’t it here?  Instead, people that watch any show on Sunday night on CBS are totally hosed if they set their DVRs and left their houses for the evening.  DVRs are now accounting for approximately 39 percent of all television viewing, so shouldn’t a bit more concern be given to making sure they record at the right time?

Post from: SeanPAune.com

DVRs Need Time Update Features

ShareThis

For the past four years I have posted a rant about Columbus Day and how it is a farce that this man is still honored by people for his supposed accomplishments. Well, luckily it seems this year I am no longer alone in these beliefs.

According to a new story from the Associated Press, schools are beginning to downplay his importance to the history of the United States.  I would quote more of it, but the AP has very strict rules about what bloggers can quote from their works, so I would recommend you just go and read it for yourselves, it is well worth the time and effort.

For everyone else, here is the annual rant about Columbus, enjoy!

___

Welcome to the fourth annual posting of this entry! Long time readers can skip it, but as I keep adding more readers, it’ll keep getting posted!

Ah, Columbus Day, the day we set aside each year to celebrate a lie. It always warms my heart.

People tend to forget that Christopher Columbus wasn’t looking for North America when he landed here, he was looking for the West Indies. Quite the navigator there. He also believed, until his death, that the entire time he was in this area that he was exploring the Eastern coast of Asia.

Never mind the fact that he also took the indigenous people as slaves and shipped them back to Spain, against the Crowns wishes. Never mind that colonists he brought over here rebelled against him when the New World didn’t come close to what he described. No, no, all those things are just a-ok for a man we should honor with a governmental and banking holiday.

The biggest offense to me is that he was far from the first person to “discover” the Americas. (how does one “discover” a place that is already inhabited?) The Siberians crossed the land bridge with Alaska as early as 70,000 BC, and it was those crossings that gave us the Native Americans. There were numerous other occurrences of people coming to the Americas, but one of the most well documented was Leifur Eircksson in 1005 when he sailed from Iceland to North America and traveled down the coast. Gee, does that come before 1492?

Yet, history textbooks still hail him as the man who “discovered” America. Why is beyond me, but a friend pointed me to a wonderful book called “Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong” (Barnes & Noble link) that spends an entire chapter delving into this very matter. Fascinating stuff.

If you want to credit Columbus with something, just say that he brought the America’s to the attention of Europe, but leave it at that.

Post from: SeanPAune.com

Schools Finally Telling The Truth About Christopher Columbus

ShareThis

I really don’t want to blog daily on this whole Federal Trade Commission (FTC) guideline debacle, but it just keeps getting weirder and weirder.

First off, I finally got a link to the full 81-page document (PDF link) from Steven Hodson, and although I have only read through 51 pages thus far, this is going to be mandatory reading for every independent blogger if you want to make sure to keep yourself from getting in trouble with the FTC.  That being said, be prepared for the extreme ambiguity of the document on many fronts.

So far I have still yet to find anywhere that describes in detail how disclosures are supposed to be written.  It mentions numerous times that you must disclose if you receive a product for free and then give it a positive review (there is some implication that disclosure is not required on negative reviews), but nowhere does it say how are exactly where it is to be placed.

The document also discusses new rules for celebrity endorsements and how they are supposed to disclose their relationship with anything they speak positively of.  The problem with this is that at no time do they define what a celebrity is.  On tonight’s episode of CobWEBs, Mark ‘Rizzn’ Hopkins and I discussed this, and technically you could call iJustine a celebrity, but that is only to a handful of people on the Internet.  Heck, there was even a time when I was working for Wizard magazine that I was being asked for my autograph on a regular basis, would that have qualified me as a celebrity?  I was a celebrity to those people, but not to the other 99.999999999% of the population of the country, but would I have qualified for the FTC celebrity rules?  Who knows, their answers are so vague.

Then to muddy the waters even further, Richard Cleland, assistant director, division of advertising practices at the FTC (and someone Rizzn has been trying to get an interview with for 3 months with no luck) spoke with FastCompany, and made some of the most mind boggling statements ever.

Heather B. Armstrong, author of parenting blog Dooce: “Eleven thousand dollars is a little crazy for a post. Maybe I’m being naïve, but I think a lot of people who are in violation [of not disclosing] just don’t know that they’re supposed to.”

Richard Cleland: “That $11,000 fine is not true. Worst-case scenario, someone receives a warning, refuses to comply, followed by a serious product defect; we would institute a proceeding with a cease-and-desist order and mandate compliance with the law…

Excuse me?  When did the FTC start writing laws?  They are a regulatory body, they are not capable of making “laws”.  Perhaps he was misquoted, but if the FTC really sees this as “law”, we’re in bigger trouble than any of us first thought.

Brian Lam, editorial director of Gizmodo: “Some colleagues of mine just reminded me of how many freelance pro journalists take junkets. In the end, I’m glad these rules are being introduced, but it’s kind of stupid to attach unethical behavior to a particular publishing medium. Look at how shitty TV journalism can be, by and large.”

RC: “It’s not the medium, it’s the message. We want to establish a self-imposed ethical standard so people are aware of the conflicts of interest…

“We want to establish a self-imposed…” um … which part of this sentence makes any sense?  How does person #2 establish SELF-IMPOSED anything on person #1?

This is what we are dealing with folks: vagueness, ambiguity and a regulatory body that seems to have no clue what its actual job is.  If you aren’t scared yet, you aren’t thinking.

Post from: SeanPAune.com

The Full FTC Guidelines Make Your Head Hurt

ShareThis

In all of the hoopla yesterday, Mark ‘Rizzn’ Hopkins, Steven Hodson and myself ran into many instances of being questioned over our vehement hatred of the new guidelines, and also more examples of just how messed up this whole thing is.

“Print media is already under these rules.”

No, they aren’t.

This was the most tired argument I have seen, and it simply isn’t true.  If this was true, I want you to point out to me where movie reviewers disclose that they got into a movie for free or got sent a DVD copy of the movie for free.  We all know it happens, but have you ever seen them disclose it?  Same goes for book, movie and DVD reviews.

Now, under these new FTC rules, if I decide to review anything, and if it was sent to me for free, then I have to write a disclosure every single time I do it.  Tell me how these are the same rules traditional media has been under.

“Facebook and Twitter fall under these rules also.”

Yep, all that fun you have on social media sites?  Well, prepare yourself to always disclose your relationship for any product you speak positively of.

Caroline McCarthy of CNET spoke with a Richard Cleland, associate director for the FTC’s advertising division, and here is the scenario he set up to explain the Facebook scenario:

Here’s a sample scenario: a celebrity or other prominent figure with loads of friends on Facebook receives free hotel says [sic] from Hotel Chain X in exchange for running Hotel Chain X ads on his or her blog. If that person then signs up as a Facebook fan of Hotel Chain X–which, remember, could mean that the person’s name can show up for his or her Facebook friends alongside Hotel Chain X display ads on the social network–he or she could be held liable by the FTC.

“It would be the same thing if you were going to pay the celebrity a thousand dollars to go register as a fan,” Cleland said. “In that case, there wouldn’t be any question about it.”

And as for new media darling Twitter?

As for Twitter, the FTC isn’t letting you get a pass with the excuse that 140 characters–Twitter’s famous text limit–is simply too short. “There are ways to abbreviate a disclosure that fit within 140 characters,” Cleland said. “You may have to say a little bit of something else, but if you can’t make the disclosure, you can’t make the ad.”

So, think you will be exempt from this if you aren’t a blogger.  Too bad.  If you have any sort of relationship with a product, and you make a comment anywhere on the Web about it, you better be prepared to disclose your relationship.

“This is all about going after sploggers.”

No, it isn’t.

In a discussion between Steven Hodson and Matt Cutts of Google on The Noisy Channel, they brought up the discussion of how this will cut out bad marketing:

Steven: “No degree of FTC intervention is going to make any difference to splogs or other such garbage…”

Matt: At a respected search conference last year, I sat in the audience and watched a presenter recommend “sock puppet” marketing by coming up with fake personas to promote products. With this new guidance from the FTC (plus similar recent guidance in the UK/EU against sock puppet marketing), that sort of bad advice will be much less likely to appear at search conferences. That’s one easy counter-example.

No, Matt, it isn’t.  You are talking about advice given at a conference, big deal.  The Sock Puppet marketers will simply start hiring people from Africa and India off of GetAFreelancer or other such sites and have them do that sort of marketing far from the reach of the USA, UK or EU.

And that is one of my biggest complaints about this whole thing is that the unethical people it is supposedly targeting will just find new ways of working around it, while those of us who follow ethical blogging and online presence will be saddled with these idiotic new rules, libing under fear of some little slip up costing us a potential $11,000 fine.  Oh yeah, that makes things so much better.

“This will stop all those fake review sites.”

Are you kidding me?

Lets say that an “unethical” blogger is currently working out of the USA with their web site on servers that reside in the USA.  They want to get away from these new rules so they move their site to servers in another country, they put privacy protection on their domain name and then they sit back.

The FTC finds them lacking disclosure, they will have to get a court order to reveal the name of the person who holds the ownership of the domain.  So the FTC will have to weight taking the time to get the court order, and in some cases they will have to go through a court in another country, is it really worth all of that effort, time and taxpayer money for a possibly undisclosed material relationship?  You guessed it, I would go with “no.”  Of course, that doesn’t mean they won’t try.

All of the “bad” sites will simply move off shore to countries that don’t care about all of this hoopla, and the innocent people will yet again be left to jumping through hoops that should have never been required.

“This system is ripe for abuse.”

Yes, it is.

We have no clue what the investigation process will be like yet, but what is to stop people from reporting you for fun or revenge?  ”Oh, hey, I think so-and-so has a relationship with that company they just posted abut on Facebook.”  Oh won’t that be fun to defend yourself from false accusations?  This is why some people will be better off even disclosing when they purchased something to cut off any possible questioning to avoid any sense in impropriety.

In other words, people will be so annoyed by having to watch their behinds that they simply won’t want to talk any more.

“Aren’t you worrying about this too much?”

No, I’m not.

I have done more reading today, and the tone of the conversations have changed quite a bit in the second day.  Check out SiliconANGLE’s FTC vs. the Blogosphere Day 2 Roundup to get a better sense of what is being said everywhere.  (disclosure: I am linked to in that article and I work for SiliconANGLE … see … won’t that get annoying?)

Also make sure to check out Steven Hodson’s questions that he is still waiting for answers to:

1. Will these same ‘guidelines’ be applied against “traditional media” and if not – why not?

2. What exact form do these disclosure need to take? Per post? Per page? Per comment?

3. Is this retroactive? Does this mean that sites like Gizmodo, TechCrunch, Mashable, – well every single blog past and present will have to go through all their archives and add a disclaimer. Because we all know that posts that are even months or years old can resurface.

4.Will book publishers make signing a disclosure form a part of bloggers doing book reviews and is it really worth the effort at that point?

5. Does the country of origin of the writer matter as to whether a disclosure is included?

6. Does it matter the country of origin of where the blog served from come into play?

7 Does the country of origin of the product, service or book come into play at all?

(disclaimer: I know Steven and make fun of his Canadian citizenship on a regular basis)

The FTC has got to start defining this whole thing better, but somehow I don’t see that coming any time soon.

Post from: SeanPAune.com

The FTC Situation Just Keeps Getting Worse

ShareThis

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has updated its Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in advertising for the first time since 1980.  The new additions to the guides include endorsements by consumers, experts, organizations, and celebrities, as well as disclosing of “material connections” between advertisers and endorsers.  In plain English, this means that if you get paid to talk about an item, or you receive it for free, you must disclose those situations wherever you talk about them online.

Well, that is if you talk about it on the Internet, if you do the same in a magazine or newspaper, then you’re perfectly fine and don’t have to say a word.

You see, for years newspapers and magazines have received free items to review, but they have never been required to disclose the arrangement.  Do you really think movie reviewers pay to go all those movies?  Do book reviewers pay for the books they receive?  No, they don’t, but for some reason it is important that people know that those of us on the Internet who receive similar freebies are obligated to tell you because … well … we’re not really sure why, but if we don’t we could be facing fines of up to $11,000 per incident.

I have already written about this today at Tech.BLORGE.com and StarterTech.com, as well as having just recorded a podcast with Mark ‘Rizzn’ Hopkins and Steven Hodson about it that I will be posting later, and I have never thrilled to reusing a subject, but this is just too important to not be everywhere possible.  The StarterTech article in particular lists my major reservations over this, but it can all be summarized as I fear the precedent it sets.  It starts here, where does it go next?

My father asked me why I was so upset about this today as I don’t do reviews typically and it would have little to no impact on me, and I pointed him to one of my all time favorite quotes:

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

This speaks to First Amendment issues, and is actually why I imagine this could end up being challenged in the courts at some point, but for now it is just frightening.  The FTC thinks they are helping the American people, but this leads to one of Mark Hopkins’ favorite quotes:

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

Ronald Reagan

If you don’t speak out against this, then where will they go next?

Post from: SeanPAune.com

…And There Was No One Left To Speak Out For Me

ShareThis