“What followed then was what invariably follows in the wake of every tortured consciousness.”

–Theodore Dreiser, An American Tragedy

I take no joy in writing this.  In fact, I thought long and hard about whether I should.  Whether I should respect the privacy of the individual.  Whether the wider community has a right to know.  In the end, though, it is about a public figure in the skeptical community, and not just any public figure.   It is, in fact, about a luminary.  A shining light.  A beacon that has brought many of us out from the swamps of superstition into the light of rationality and reason.  The man of whom I write is all of that (and I say this without so much of a whiff of irony), and much more.  He started one of the most popular skeptical podcasts out there, a podcast so influential that it has literally changed lives.  He was instrumental in starting an important skeptical blog.  He has even produced a couple of skeptically themed TV pilots.  And yet, he has fallen.  And because he has put himself out there as a public figure, the public should know about that fall.

I speak of Brian Dunning.    Yes, that Brian Dunning, creator of the Skeptoid  podcast, winner of the best science podcast in the Stitcher awards for 2012.  I have listened to every episode of Skeptoid, and it has made a profound impact on my life.  I like, and respect, Brian Dunning, as many of us do.  And yesterday, April 15, 2013, Brian Dunning walked into a federal courtroom in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose) and pled guilty to wire fraud, in violation of Section 1343 of Title 18 of the United States Code.  Yes, wire fraud.  This is, without any doubt, a horrible tragedy for Brian and his family, and for the skeptical community at large.  One of our leaders has shown that he is not the man that many of us hoped that he would be.

This case has been pending for a long time.  Brian was indicted on June 24, 2010.  The docket history available on pacer.gov (publicly available, but you need to sign up for a password and give them a credit card) shows 60 separate docket entries.  There were trial dates, and continuances, and stipulations, and motions, and responses, and much more.  All leading invariably to where we are now, because once the United States Attorney indicts you, you are pretty much done.  The US Attorney, unlike state prosecutors, gets to pick and choose their cases, and they only indict people that they are sure of convicting.  Recently Brian, his lawyers, and the US Attorney worked out a plea agreement, the exact details of which are not publicly available (when I tried to retrieve a copy of the plea agreement from Pacer, I was denied access, although I can pretty much get access to any other document associated with the case).  Even though the plea agreement is not publicly available, other documents are.

On April 15, 2013, two new documents appeared in a Pacer search for Brian’s case (CASE #: 5:10-cr-00494-EJD-1), a superseding information and an arraignment document (click on the links to view the original documents in .pdf format).  The term “information” is a legal term for a charging document that does not have to go through a grand jury.  The superseding information outlines the factual allegations against Brian.

Here is the arraignment document, which shows that Brian pled guilty yesterday.  Click on the image to make it readable.

As you can see, Brian appeared in court and pled guilty to count one.  What does that mean, though?  For that, we need to review the superseding information in detail (all the facts described below come directly from the publicly available  information on file in the District Court).

According to the information, the wire fraud involved eBay’s affiliate program.   Ebay developed an affiliate program, which was a means by which eBay worked with third-party marketers to drive internet traffic towards eBay.

I will let the information speak for itself.

Background:

3.  Under eBay’s Affiliate Program, it was intended that a third-party affiliate would send visitors to eBay.com from a website associated with an affiliate, and would do so (at least in theory) by suggesting (in some way) that the visitor “click” on the “link” to eBay.com located on the affiliate’s website.  If, within specified time periods, such visitors to eBay.com became new active users, won auctions, or made Buy-it-Now purchases on eBay.com, the affiliate received compensation from eBay.  A “new active user” was defined to include a user who both set up a new eBay.com account and then placed a bid (whether it was a winning bid or not).  For purposes of this Superseding Information, the actions of becoming a new active user, winning an auction, or making a purchase are referred to collectively as “revenue actions.”

4.  The affiliate program defined the rates and amounts of compensation that eBay paid to an affiliate   These rates and amounts of compensation were based on the monthly totals of revenue actions attributable to that affiliate.  For instance, if 1 to 49 of the individuals  the affiliate referred to eBay became new active users within 30 days, eBay paid the affiliate $25.00 per new user.  As another example, if the individuals the affiliate referred to eBay won auctions for items totaling $99.99 in value within seven days, eBay paid the affiliate 50% of the revenue earned by eBay on those transactions.

The Legal Entities.  

The information describes the legal entities and the amount of money involved:

6.  The defendant Brian Dunning (“Dunning”) was an individual who resided in the Central District of California.  Kessler’s Flying Circus (“KFC”) was a partnership that was owned, in part, by Dunning.  Dunning was the sole owner of the company Thunderwood Holdings, Inc., and also did business as BrianDunning.com.  Thunderwood Holdings, together with the company Dunning Enterprise, Inc., did business as KFC.  The non-person entities are referred to collectively as “KFC.”

7.  KFC was a member of the Affiliate Program.  In 2006, KFC received approximately $2,000,000 in compensation from the eBay Affiliate Program in the United States.  Between January and June 2007, KFC earned approximately $3,300,000 in compensation from the eBay Affiliate Program in the United States.  As of approximately June 2007, KFC was the number-two producing account in the Affiliate Program. . . .

 

The Technology Behind The Scheme

8.  eBay used an automated tracking process in an effort to ensure that affiliates received appropriate compensation.  This tracking process utilized “cookies.”

10.  In the eBay Affiliate Program, when a visitor was referred to eBay.com from an affiliate website, eBay dropped a “cookie” on that user’s computer.  This cookie contained information that was used to identify the Affiliate Program member that had directed that particular user to eBay.com.  This information, which included  ”publisher ID,” referring to the affiliate, and/or a “campaign ID,”  referring to a particular program operated by the affilate, is collectively referred to as the “Affiliate ID.”

11.  If and when that user later engaged in revenue action on eBay.com, the Affiliate ID would be transmitted by the user’s computer to eBay.  An automated tracking process performed the analysis to determine whether the revenue action had occurred within the specified time frames.

How the Scheme Worked–Cookie Stuffing.

12.  If a cookie from an affiliate was present on the user’s computer at the time of the revenue action, the affiliate identified by that cookie was credited with the revenue action.  If there was not qualifying cookie on the user’s computer at the time of the revenue action, than no affiliate was credited.

18.  [T]he defendant disseminated on a large number of web pages computer code that, when those web pages were viewed by a computer user, were designed to cause that user’s computer make a request to eBay’s home page merely for the purpose of prompting eBay’s servers to serve up a cookie, which would then be “stuffed” onto the user’s computer.  These cookies contained information that identified an Affiliate ID of KFC.  In such situations, the human user never actually clicked on an eBay advertisement or link on Dunning’s affiliate websites.

19.  [I]n such situations, the computer code prevented eBay’s home page from actually “loading” on the user’s computer screen.  Accordingly, the human user never actually viewed eBay’s home page when an eBay cookie identifying KFC was stuffed onto the user’s computer.  Indeed, the human user never knew that his or her computer had made the request to the website (i.e. eBay.com) that had served up the cookie.   

20.  [T]he defendant provided free applications at two of his websites that users could download and use on their own websites: “ProfileMaps.info,” which showed the physical location of visitor to a MySpace profile, and “WhoLinked.com,” which showed who was linking to a website or blog.  Any visitor to these websites could download either of these applications.  Both applications included code that operated as follows:  when a user visited a website that had installed Profilemaps or Wholinked applications, the code would cause the user unknowingly to receive an eBay and/or CJ cookie with KFC’s Affiliate ID without the user having clicked on an eBay ad or link, without the user knowing that his or her browser had been redirected to the eBay and/or CJ affiliate tracking server and without the user seeing any content of an eBay site.  As a result, KFC would be paid if that user subsequently conducted an eBay revenue action within a certain time frame.

How the money was actually made:

21.  [T]he defendant had the expectation and intention that many of the users whose computers had cookies stuffed on them would thereafter visit eBay and engage in revenue actions.  If these revenue actions were within the time periods specified in the Affiliate Program, KFC would receive compensation from eBay with respect to these events.  The defendant had the expectation and intention that these visits to eBay.com would be of each user’s own accord, and would be separate and apart from any actions taken by the defendant to “drive” those users to eBay.com.

So, according to the superseding information, the wire fraud involved causing cookies to be installed on internet users’ computers without their knowledge.  If, by chance, those users later visited eBay and bought something, then an entity owned by Brian (at least in part) would be treated by eBay as if the entity’s website had driven the customer to eBay by means of a direct referral.  The entity owned (at least in part) by Brian would then get a commission from eBay, as if the entity’s website had actually been responsible for driving the user to eBay.  In reality, the entity’s website would not have driven the customer to eBay, and thus eBay was defrauded.  Thus, wire fraud.

The superseding information charged Brian with wire fraud, occurring between May 2006 and June 2007, and on April 15, 2013, Brian pled guilty to that charge.

Possible sentence and next step in the litigation

It is hard to estimate the actual sentence that Brian is facing, as the terms of the plea agreement are not accessible  on Pacer.gov.  The maximum sentence for a violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1343 is up to 20 years in the Federal Bureau of Prisons.  Federal Judges, though, use sentencing guidelines to guide their decisions in imposing sentences.  I used the publicly available sentencing guideline calculator in order to figure out what Brian is looking at.  Before I reveal the results, I want to give a few disclaimers: (1) The Plea Agreement may make my calculations incorrect, because the US Attorney may have agreed to a downward departure that I do not know about, because the plea agreement is not publicly available; (2) The Plea Agreement may contain a stipulation that the amount of theft attributable to Brian is less than that stated in the superseding information; (3) I could be mistaken in my factual understanding, and thus inputted information incorrectly into the sentencing calculator.  Additionally, I believe that Brian will be statutorily eligible for a sentence to probation, but I do not see that as a reasonable possibility considering the amount of loss, but you never know.  Maybe Brian has a  really good lawyer and will get probation.

Subject to these caveats, the sentencing calculator indicated that Brian is facing a sentence of 70 to 87 months in prison, or between 5.8 years and 7.25 years.  I believe that he would be eligible for early release after serving 85% of his sentence, with time off for good behavior.

If the US Attorney were to do something like stipulate in the plea agreement that the total loss was $1,000,000, the sentencing range would change to 46-57 months.  Again, perhaps there are stipulated downward departures that could reduce it even more.

Additionally, the arraignment document says that there is an evidentiary hearing regarding loss on August 8, 2013.  Perhaps Brian’s lawyer will attempt to show that the losses to eBay were actually much less than my low-ball assumption of $1,000,000 (it would be nice to have access to the plea agreement, which might provide illumination on this point, but I do  not).  If he could get the loss down to, say $100,000, the sentencing guidelines might go as low as 24-30 months in prison.

Whatever the plea agreement says, and whatever happens at this hearing on August 8, I think it is fair to say that Brian is looking at spending a significant amount of time in a very bad place.

When someone does a podcast like Skeptoid, and they speak into our earbuds once a week, we start to think of them as a friend, even though we do no know them.  I am sure that a good many of us feel that way about Brian.  Many of us have looked up to him, and considered him a beacon of reason.  And yet, here we are.  A hero has fallen.

There I was, enjoying my factory-produced, frozen, supposedly low calorie lunch (and total disgrace to the culinary world), when I came across this news story.  Apparently an Illinois state representative, Mr. Ira Silverstein (D), has has introduced a bill called the “Internet Posting Removal Act.”  In summary, the bill would give anyone (presumably they would have to be in Illinois) the power to tell a website owner (presumably also located in Illinois) who hosted anonymous comments to either have the author of the content identify themselves by their legal name, or have the comments removed.

In other words, if certain people did not like anonymous speech, they get a choice to de-anonymize it or get it taken down.  Since anonymous speech is generally protected under US constitutional law , I would bet my Ferrari F12 Berlinetta that the bill would not survive a constitutional challenge, and even it did somehow survive constitutional challenge, it could only be applied against websites based in Illinois.  Still, it is a troubling idea.  Here is the text of the bill:
 

Here, as they say in Hollywood, is the money shot:  “A web site administrator upon request shall remove any comments posted on his or her web site by an anonymous poster unless the anonymous poster agrees to attach his or her name to the post and confirms that his or her IP address, legal name, and home address are accurate.”

Here is how it would work.  I am reading (for some reason) Freethought Blogs, and I do not like a comment to a post made  by some troll named, oh I don’t know, “RadFemFreeThinker”.  I decide that I would like to know who RadFemFreeThinker is, so I send an email over to FtB.  They then send an email to RadFemFreeThinker, asking for the commenter’s name, address, and IP address information.  Either RadFemFreeThinker complies, and her or his name is then appended to the comment, or the comment is taken down.  Either way, I (who after all do not like what RadFemFreeThinker has to say) either get their identity (in which case, were I a nefarious sort of man/woman/other, I could engage in an IRL campaign of harassment and intimidation), or I get the content taken down.  Either way, I win.  The opportunities for mischief are both numerous and obvious.

It seems to me that this bill is really aimed at anonymous commenters and whistle-blowers posting comments on Illinois newspaper and TV station websites.   Such comments often harshly criticize the very politicians who would propose and vote upon such a bill, and I can imagine that politicians such as Mr. Silverstein are none too happy when such comments are made.  So, politicians like Mr. Silverstein want to do what they can to chill anonymous speech that is critical of them.  That’s the intent, it seems to me, but in reality it would go far, far beyond that.  If you don’t like what Mr. X said on a comment on this website (the servers and administrators of which are blissfully located outside the borders of the Great State of Illinois), either get Mr. X to give up his name, or deprive everyone else from getting to read what Mr. X has to say.

Disgusting.  Unconstitutional. Despicable.

It will come as no surprise to any reader of this blog that hold freethoughtblogs.com in very low esteem.  I was very pleasantly surprised then to receive an email from the creator of a spot-on parody site of FtB and Skepchick.  It is called freethought blahgs, and it is spot-on.  I don’t know who the creator is, but they spent a lot of time an energy relentlessly parodying everything that there is to despise about FtB.  They have the smugness down.  The arrogance–100% correct.  The writing styles–I defy you to tell them apart.  And their motto, “thinkin’ so you don’t have to” is exactly the attitude thrown out by PZ, Rebecca, Greta, Stephanie, and the rest.  Of course, if you dare to think a divergent thought over on the real FtB, you get banned, like poor Thunderf00t, who had been promised freedom to write about what he wanted.

They even have a portion that perfectly parodies Thunderf00t’s former place of honor on FtB:

It is wonderful that larger and larger parts of the skeptical community are realizing the truth–FtB and Skepchicks have become a cancer on our movement.  They want to take over–that much is as clear as glass.  Many people, SA included, don’t want that to happen.  It is great to see some real thought going into calling them out.

Here is a great example of some of their work.  It is from a fake blogger called Femagouge.  The post is called:

Why conferences need sexual harassment policies dictated by bloggers

Now let me paint the best-case near-future, if secular and skeptical leaders do the right thing.

1. Feminist bloggers declare the status quo a nightmare, including the trailblazing groups and progressivist leaders. (check!)

2. Failure of any leaders to immediately acquiesce is determined to be unconscionable sexism; disagreement is unacceptable because feminists only want what is right and just and never err in choosing the correct course toward them. (double-check)

3. Fear of being called out pressures secular leaders to comply, as American Atheists has already done. (check)

4. The feminist bloggers promote/author exclusively policies with vague, over-reaching language such as proscribing “unwanted sexual advances” which could mean almost anything. We’ve already largely succeeded in getting to this point. The secular leaders are then exposed to huge new legal liabilities and take on safety responsibilities they have no means to cover, but that isn’t our problem.

5. As time goes on, we push for more and more restrictive, nebulous policies (just as we have done in the last month) which permit us more and more control over the discourse at conferences we do not run. Any resistance to these changes will be taken as overt sexism. Why else would anyone oppose feminists who are trying to make women safer?

6. The new, nebulous policies will be used to “question”, with extreme prejudice, conferences/organizations who have showed inadequate allegiance to the feminist cause. Harassment victims will be located as necessary, and based on their testimony alone, we will conclude the organizers have violated the policies we pushed them to adopt ultimately pressuring leaders to resign, and leaders we like to take their place. This will have the happy side effect of introducing a fear-based atmosphere at conferences. Harassment will markedly decline, as people become terrified of interacting with each other just the way adults are afraid to interact with kids as a result of pedophilia-paranoia. (See, proof that this CAN work)

7. We will use the leverage from harassment policies to influence other key aspects of conferences such as the topics, invited speakers, banned speakers, choice of venue, accessory recreational venues and events, and more!

This is, of course, what I have been saying for quite some time.  And yes, I love the link back to SA!  Thanks freethoughtblahgs.com,

Go check it out.  You won’t be sorry that you did.

The Amaz!ng meeting, otherwise known as TAM, is upon us.  I decided that it would be worthwhile to give everyone some travel tips for the big events.

Getting There.

Here’s a pro tip:  Use the Southpoint’s free airport shuttle service.  The JREF doesn’t mention it in their materials or their website, and even on the Southpoint site, you kind of have to hunt for it, but the hotel runs a free shuttle to and from the airport.  Cab rides are more than $20, so the free shuttle is a good alternative.  You have to make a reservation, and I would recommend doing it as far in advance of the event as possible.  Call 1-866-791-7626. Airport shuttle reservations are required to be at least 24 hours prior to arrival. Here’s the schedule:

Once you get there

1.  Upon check in, you will be given a little booklet of coupons.  Keep it.  Contained therein (if the past three years are any guide) will be two valuable coupons: (1) A coupon for a free meal at the casino buffet and (2) a coupon for a free drink at the Del Mar Lounge.  Even if you don’t like buffets and don’t like bars, you will surely find someone else who would appreciate the coupons.

2.  Head to hotel shop.  I know what you are thinking, that Vegas casino shops are overpriced and sleezy.  That is usually true, but not the case for the Southpoint.  The casino shop has a pretty good liquor store, with a nice selection of wines, beers, and spirits.  The prices are surprisingly good–in fact usually much better than the price I would pay for alcoholic beverages back home at the grocery.

3.  Head to the Del Mar Lounge.  The Del Mar is a smallish bar off the main casino floor.  It is the hub of social life at TAM.  The drink prices are cheap (or free if you use the one coupon you get upon check-in), and the conversation is the best you will ever have in a bar–think of how educated and intelligent you fellow drinkers will be.

4.  Go get your conference registration taken care of before the first morning, if you can.  No line.

Eating

Your conference registration covers breakfast Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, and Lunch Friday and Saturday.  You will probably want to have at least one meal at the Buffet, which is mediocre, but if it is free, it is a good value.

The eating options at the hotel are pretty good:

The Del Mar Deli.  This place is right next to the Del Mar Lounge.  You can take the food back to the Lounge and eat it there.  It is pretty much New York style deli fare.  Good (and freaking huge!) sandwiches.  You can get a nice meal there for about $10 or less.  They don’t post a menu, but here is a list of there daily specials.

Steak ‘n Shake.  No menu posted.  Essentially a burger bar.  Pretty good burgers.  It has always been crowded, but they have carry-out available.

The Big Sur Oyster Bar.  A nice seafood place, I would think about the King Crab plate for $26, but then SA loves King Crab.  The oysters a pretty good, too.  I would plan on having at least one dinner there.

Don Vito’s Italian.  An average-nice Italian restaurant.  The prices are about $30 for an entree, but the pasta is reasonably priced.  Worth a visit.

Primarily Prime Rib.  I think that this place is new since last year, so I have not been.  The menu looks reasonable, and the prices look extremely reasonable.  Probably worth a dinner.

Baja Miguel’s Mexican Restaurant.  Pretty much a typical/nice Mexican restaurant.  If you like Mexican food, I would plan a dinner there.

Coronado Cafe, A nice all around inexpensive restaurant selling casual food.  Open 24 hours.

Micheal’s Gourmet Room.  An old school expensive restaurant.  The food is really good.  The menus they hand to the women don’t have prices!  Plan on at least $100 per person.

The Conference

The Thursday “workshops” are pretty laid back, and a lot of fun.  They are one of my favorite things about TAM.  Based on past workshop attendance, and what I know about the speakers, I would recommend the following workshops as “don’t miss”:

9:00 – 10:45 am

WORKSHOP 1B – From Witch-burning to God-men: Supporting Skepticism Around the World
Presenters: Richard Saunders, Leo Igwe, and Brian Thompson
Belief in pseudoscience and the paranormal can cause harm all over the world. In this workshop, you will learn how you can help promote evidence-based thinking from a distance.
Requires separate ticket or All Workshop Pass.

4:00 – 5:45 pm

WORKSHOP 4A – Investigative Methods for the Skeptic
Presenters: Ben Radford, Karen Stollznow, Blake Smith, Carrie Poppy, and Ross Blocher
Join a panel of seasoned paranormal investigators as they teach you the best methods for examining extraordinary claims.
Requires separate ticket or All Workshop Pass.

For Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, I suggest getting there early.  Breakfast starts at 7:30 a.m., and the events start at 8:00.  SA’s suggestion:  get there no later than 7:15 a.m.  Except for some reserved seating in the first couple rows for speakers and people who pay $1000 for a special ticket, seating at TAM is open.  If past experience is any guide, there will already be people waiting, and the only way you are going to get a seat where you see stuff with your own eyes (as opposed to on a jumbo screen) is to get there crazy early and join the mad rush to get a seat near the front.  Think the Who Concert in 1979 in Cincinnati.  So, stay back from the main group and try to get a good, but not great seat.  You will thank me for it.

Let’s take a look at the schedules for Friday, Saturday, and Sunday and give you some highlights.

Friday Highlights (A few talks of special interest)

8:00 a.m.  Live SGU Show.  The SGU crew has been doing this gig for the past few TAMs, and it is always fun.  Plus, planning on an 8:00 a.m. event is a great way to get there nice and early to get a good seat.

10:00  Eugenie Scott.  The future of creationism.  Eugenie is always a great speaker, and this sounds like a great topic.

12:15  Karen Stollznow  Talking to Tomorrow – Prediction and Language. I am making this my Don’t Miss Talk Of The Day.  Karen is always great, and this sounds like a great topic.  To my memory, she has not given a plenary talk at TAM (has been on panels), so it is also something that will be fresh and new to people like me who have been to multiple TAMs.

2:45 – 3:45 pm PANEL – The Future of Skepticism.  Panelists include Jamy Ian Swiss, Tim Farley, Reed Esau, and Barbara Drescher. Moderated by D.J. Grothe.  What a great bunch of experts.  Not a dud in the bunch.  Should be the best panel of TAM.

5:00 – 6:00 pm FRIDAY KEYNOTE – Carol Tavris A Skeptical Look at Pseudoneuroscience.  A great speaker.  A great topic.  Looking forward to it.

11:00 pm  – ? TAM LATE NIGHT – Penn Jillette’s Rock & Roll, Doughnut and Bacon Party 2: Bring the Stupid Be forewarned: This really is Penn’s private party. He’s paying for everything and JREF has nothing to do with it. Everyone at TAM is invited, and there is a suggested twenty dollar donation to attend, with proceeds going to the JREF.  Penn’s has put out a warning for the faint of heart, and this event was a hoot last year.  I would highly recommend it.

 Saturday Highlights

Compared to the fantastic lineup on Friday, Saturday seems like a vast wasteland.  But here are a couple of thoughts:http://www.skepticalabyss.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=67&action=edit

9:00 – 10:00 am PANEL – Skepticism and the Humanities Panelists include Amy Davis Roth, Miranda Celeste Hale, Robert Blaskiewicz, Eve Siebert, and Hai-Ting Chinn
Moderated by Brian Thompson.  The topic sounds pretty boring, but I am looking to see whether they can make something of it, so I will be there.  It has potential to be really bad or surprisingly good.  I don’t expect much in between.

10:45 – 11:15 am Deirdre Barrett.  Supernormal Stimuli: How Primal Urges Overran Their Evolutionary Purpose.  Topic sounds interesting.

11:15 – 11:45 am TALK – Steven Novella Your Deceptive Mind.  Interesting topic, but we will have a lot of Novella at this TAM, and a little Novella goes a long, long way.

4:15 pm  Lawrence Krauss.  The Future, and Nothing.  Krauss was hands down the best speaker at TAM9, so this should be good.

5:15 – 6:15 pm SATURDAY KEYNOTE PRESENTATION -Penn & Teller. 38 Years of Magic & BS.  Let’s be honest, for the past few TAMs Penn and Teller have called it in.  They have nothing prepared, they just get up and answer questions.  Based on the description in the TAM program, I was expecting more, but Penn said on a recent podcast that this year’s appearance would, once again, consist of a “Q and A.”  If it starts out as a Q and A again without any actual content, SA will not be happy, and may bolt.

9:00 – 11:00 pm  EVENING SHOW: A Carlin Home Companion  Deftly weaving her amusing yet poignant family stories with classic video footage of her father’s career and family memorabilia, Kelly Carlin, the only child of iconoclastic comedian George Carlin, takes the audience on a roller coaster ride of emotions and pulls back the curtain on their life together off stage. Join us for this unexpected, loving and revealing look at the man who constantly redefined himself in order to redefined 20th century comedy. Requires separate ticket.    Growing up on the prairie, watching George Carlin specials on TV was the closest thing to skepticism I was allowed to experience.  Really looking forward to this one.

Sunday Highlights

8:00 – 10:00 am PAPERS – Curated by Dr. Ray Hall.  I’m going to call this my “don’t miss moment” for TAM.  The papers are always the most interesting part.  Brief, interesting, and fresh from the community.  If you were planning on playing hookie for all but one part of the conference, this is the part you need to make.  Seriously.  Don’t miss the papers.

Nap time: 12:15 – 12:45 pm TALK – Lyz Liddell.  Unstoppable Secular Students. This sounds like the most boring topic of any TAM I have ever seen.

2:45 – 3:45 pm  PANEL – How Not To Be a Paranormal Investigator.  Panelists include Karen Stollznow, Ben Radford, James Randi, and Banachek Moderated by Carrie Poppy.  An interesting take on an interesting problem.  Looking forward to it.

3:45 – 4:15 pm TALK – Sean Faircloth. Beware the Religio-Industrial Complex.  If you have never seen Sean before, then by all means go to this talk.  He is a former elected official and a great public speaker.  But every Sean Faircloth talk seems like the exact same speech.  If you have seen him before, it will seem like deja vu all over again.

7:30 – 9:00 pm SPECIAL EVENT – Live Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge Event.  I don’t know what they have planned for this, but if you are a Randi fan, how can you miss a million dollar challenge event.

There has been a lot of discussion of the need for anti-harassment policies at freethought/skeptical conferences/events, but it seems to me that nobody (including myself hitherto) has thought to consult with an actual legal professional about the situation. So I decided to do so. I found a lawyer who was willing to talk to me about it (it was amazing how little time that took once I figured out how to use the Google) and we had a brief conversation (actually an chat over our smartphones). Here is how it went:

SA: Let’s say I come to you as a client, on behalf of a group organizing a freethought or skeptical conference or event, and I want to ask you about setting up an anti-harassment policy.

Lawyer: Okay. I have some questions. First, what does that mean, freethought/skeptical?

SA: Like, Atheist and don’t believe in the paranormal.

Lawyer: Okay. What kind of group. A regular business entity? A not-for-profit corporation? An unincorporated group? Or just one lady calling herself a group?

SA: Does that really matter?

Lawyer: Most definitely.

SA: Call it a not-for-profit corporation.

Lawyer: And I assume that this corporation has actual employees. Not just a bunch of volunteers?

SA: Does that really matter?

Lawyer: I wouldn’t ask if it didn’t matter.

SA: Both employees and volunteers.

Lawyer: Does the employee handbook currently have an EEO anti-harassment policy? Or do you have one outside of an employee handbook that all employees receive and sign a receipt for at the start of their employment?

SA: I don’t know.

Lawyer: Then I am glad you came to me. All employers need a well-drafted anti-harassment policy. This helps protect them from liability in the event that an employee sues for discrimination based on status in a protected class, or a hostile work environment. I have several sample policies I can give you. Any of them should work.

SA: It’s not that kind of policy I am talking about. I am talking about a policy for conferences.

Lawyer: Unless it is really badly drafted, it should apply at conferences too. Why would you want a separate one?

SA: I don’t think you understand. I want a policy that will apply to people attending the conference, so that they don’t harass other people attending the conference.

Lawyer: Why?

SA: To protect the people attending the conference.

Lawyer: From whom? Your employees?

SA: No, from other people at the conference.

Lawyer: Okay. I guess I could draft something, if you really wanted me to, but it seems like a really bad idea from my perspective.

SA: Why?

Lawyer: There are a couple of legal issues at play. One of them is detrimental reliance, the other is assumption of a duty of care. They are both kind of related. Let’s say you put out a policy saying that you will protect people from harassment, and someone goes to the conference after reading that policy, and they are harassed. They might have a cause to sue you, because you assumed a duty to protect them and because they will claim that they would not have even attended the conference without your policy of protection from harassment. Ordinarily a place like a conference is not going to be liable for the actions of third-party attendees. You just could not get sued for what an attendee, or customer, does. You can always get sued for what your employees do, so again an internal policy applying to them is a good idea, but not to third parties. Let me give you an example. You go to McDonalds. Some other customer harasses you. You generally can’t sue McDonalds for that. But if McDonalds had some kind of policy that prevented customer on customer harassment, and that they would actually enforce that policy, well maybe that harassed customer will be able to sue McDonalds for failure to comply with the duty of care that they assumed when they put out that policy. Bad idea. I would say don’t do it.

SA: Lets just assume that we have to do this because a bunch of advocates strongly encourage it.

Lawyer: Is there going to be some type of program distributed at the event? A booklet of some sort?

SA: Assume yes.

Lawyer: Then we draft something and put it in there and distribute it a registration. That way we can be sure everyone gets a copy.

SA: What about posting it on the website in advance?

Lawyer: I would advise against it, probably, depending on why you want to do it. So, why?

SA: Because people are demanding it so that they can feel safe going. At least that’s what they say.

Lawyer: Have these people expressed any antagonism towards your organization or your event? Are they your enemies?

SA: Some of them, maybe.

Lawyer: I ask because it almost sounds like they are trying to set you up to be sued. You see, unless you inform people in advance about a conference policy, it will be almost impossible for them to claim that they relied upon the “safety” that the policy supposedly provides in making their decision to attend. Thus, if you absolutely insist on having a policy, the last thing you want to do is announce it in advance.

SA: Let’s say I want to have a policy, what should it say?

Lawyer: That depends on what you want to accomplish. So, what do you want to accomplish?

SA: Why do I get the impression that is a Socratic question?

Lawyer: Probably because it was. In my view, the only reason for such a policy would be to protect my client (in this case your hypothetical organizers) from liability. You seem to want a policy that will have the dubious value of “making people feel safe.”. So, I would suggest a policy that accomplishes goal one while sounding good for goal two. First, the policy should be part of a “code of conduct” that gives the organizers the right to throw people out. Second the policy should not assume a duty of care. Third the policy should be clear what it’s area of coverage is. Lastly, the policy should allow people to be ejected without a refund.

SA: What would it look like?

Lawyer: You realize that I am typing this chat on my phone? You want me to draft a sample policy off the top my head, on my phone?

SA: If you don’t mind.

Lawyer: With the caveat that this is for educational purposes only, and that anyone thinking about instituting a policy should seek independent legal counsel, I would suggest something lke this: (I have put it in a quote box)

Code Of Conduct: All attendees are expected to comply with all federal, state, and local laws while at the event. This includes laws relating to assault, harassment, and disorderly conduct. Attendees are expected to treat each other with respect and decorum. Attendees may not subject other attendees to unwanted and repeated communications of a sexual nature. This policy applies to the actual event, and not to areas of the venue not under the control of the organizers. If any attendee violates this policy, they may be ejected by the organizers without a refund. The organizers reserve the right to otherwise eject any attendee from the event for any other reason, or no reason, with a refund calculated in a pro rata basis. The organizers do not hereby assume the duty to control or mitigate the behavior of conference attendees toward other attendees, except to the minimum extent required by state and local law, if such a minimum requirement exists. No cause of action may be based upon any duty an attendee believes may be established herein by the organizers.

At least that’s the best I can do on my lunch break. Anything better will cost you $300 per hour.

SA: Plus expenses?

Lawyer: For you, SA, expenses are gratis. Gotta go. Ciao.

(Back to me, SA, again). So there you have it. Actual comments from an actual lawyer, with only a couple of minor edits on my part.

Edit. Apparently the head of CFI is a lawyer and wrote a very long blog post last Friday about his own policy. Note: he’s the same guy who thinks that the use of the word “balls” in the secular/Freethought community is a problem that needs solving (see my previous post)

The light that burns twice as bright burns for half as long – and you have burned so very, very brightly, Roy.

–Dr. Eldon Tyrell, Blade Runner

 

I have criticized Freethought Blogs often over the past month.  In my opinion they were (and are) a group of intolerant leftist ideologues who tolerate no deviation from an overarching philosophy encompassing virtually every fact of modern “progressive” thought.  If you have the temerity not to subscribe to the modern academic feminism found in Women’s Studies programs through North American universities, you are scum.  You get an “F— U!  I hope you die!” in their comments.  If you don’t agree with them on how to combat sexual harassment at freethought/skeptics conferences, you are beneath contempt.  You get called a rape-apologist, or a MRA (I kept seeing that term in the comments to Freethought Blogs and Skepchick and had no idea what it meant–thinking it had to do with some rebel group in Madagascar or something like that, but it is apparently an insult in those places to call someone  a “men’s rights activist” or MRA for short.   I looked it up on Wikipedia, and found this.  Calling someone an MRA appears to be a rather infantile means of an ad hominim attack, or even  poisoning the well, whenever anyone disagrees with their academic feminist ideology–you disagree with me, you are an MRA!  Anything you say is bunk!).  Everyone at FTB appeared either to think the same way on these issues, either by editorial selection or self-selection.

But then things changed.  On June 21, 2012 Freethought Blogs announced their newest blogger, Thunderfoot. Thunderfoot was not afraid to think freely.  He was not afraid to break the ideological straightjacket that hitherto had kept the writers marching in lockstep (I like mixed metaphors, thank you very much!).  Thunderfoot put out post after post after post skewering the current FTB groupthink on issues of sexual harassment in the freethought/skeptics movement.

In his most recent post (today’s date as a I write this), he discussed the current crop of sexual harassment policies that have been released or modified in the past few weeks:

This I think highlights exactly why having incompetent PC doofuses attaching written documents to their conferences (that may have legal consequences) simply makes us all look like a bunch of second-raters.

Yup.  When you have anyone other than a lawyer (one with professional liability insurance coverage) write one of these things, the chances are  pretty good that you are going to come out looking like a moron when the shit hits the fan and a lawsuit is filed.

Thunderfoot even had the guts to take on PZ Myers in a couple of posts.  PZ has been one of the most doctrinaire defenders of the current officially accepted thoughts at FTB, which, as I have said, are based on an unthinking adoption of academic feminist theory.  Over in the little feifdom that is FTB, PZ has a lot of weight.  He does not take dissenting views lightly.  No.  He’s not quite as bad as David Miscavige on the issue of tolerating dissent, but almost.  And it did not take long for PZ to pull the trigger, trow his weight around, blow his whistle, and kick Thunderfoot out of the pool.  And before you start saying that there must have been another reason, that it was not just disagreeing with PZ’s orthodoxy that did it, here’s some proof in the way of a comment PZ made this afternoon:

Outside.  And.  Opposing.  Yes, to PZ Thunderfoot is a wicked heretic. And sure enough, PZ’s comment was followed by an official announcement from freethought blogs that Thunderfoot is out.  Gone.  Sayonara.  Hasta la vista, baby!

Interestingly, blogger Greg Laden is also out, but that is apparently because he sent an inappropriate and threatening email to another FTB blogger.

Apparently the words “free” and “thought” as they are used together in the title of Freethought Blogs is a term of art.    Because it certainly doesn’t mean what it says.  It obviously doesn’t mean freedom of inquiry.  Or thought.  Or ideas.  No, it means “a place for people who think exactly like us on every issue to write blogs.”  Fair enough.  I never had any doubt that was the case over at FTB, except for the glorious nine days where Thunderfoot had the opportunity to be the voice of reason.  Now they can happily go back to their comfortable echo chamber.

Edit– (5 July 2012)

Thunderf00T has posted a video response to getting banned by FtB:

“Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities.”

–Francois Marie Arouet de Voltaire

I, for one, have been transfixed by the trial of Jerry Sandusky, accused of molesting an unmentionable number of young boys.   It has been difficult–very difficult indeed–to read the daily reports of what the witnesses have testified that Jerry Sandusky did.  And yet today, as the jury was deliberating, I saw a little nugget of vileness in a news story that almost made my head explode.  A story from the Washington Post popped up in Google News.

First there was this shock quote from Jerry’s paid mouthpiece and boy-rape apologist defense attorney Joe Amendola:

“He would be shocked and “die of a heart attack” if the former Penn State assistant football coach were acquitted on all counts in his child sex abuse trial.”

I mean, WTF.  What the hell kind of defense attorney talks like that?  Nothing more to say on that point, really.

Then there was this little nugget, really I think you could call it the buried lead in this whole affair [BARF ALERT!]:

Amendola said the Sanduskys were spending a lot of time praying.

A lot.  Of.  Time.  Praying. Yes.  Praying.

Praying for what, I ask.  Praying for his (alleged) victims?  Praying so that their pain and humiliation he (allegedly) caused them will be healed? Praying that justice be done?  Hardly!  No, good old Jerry is (apparently) praying to save his hide.  Praying for an acquittal.  Or at the very least a hung jury.

Apparently Jerry is a deeply religious and pious man.  He believes in God, doncha know.  And he thinks that the creator of the cosmos, the man who designed humanity so superbly (I mean, really God, cancer?  Fucking cancer?  Really?) is going to save his ass and change the jurors’ mind after they heard all of the evidence they heard, after his own adopted son has said he was sexually abused, and after his own scumbag lying sack of shit douche-bag has all but said it is a lost cause.

Prayer.  Last refuge of guilty.  And of Jerry Sandusky.

It is never too late to be what you might have been.
George Eliot

Even thought it has been criticized of late, I think that the lineup of speakers for TAM2012 is just fine.  But I think it could be better.  I think that there is one big name out there that is blatantly omitted from the TAM lineup, and one that I think every person who is planning on attending TAM2012 would love to see, and would be a big shot in the arm for TAM2012 publicity.  It might even sell a few more registrations.  I am talking about Sandal Edamaruku.  He, I think, would be a fantastic speaker to add to the agenda, and might be one of the best TAM speakers ever.

Who is Sandal Edamaruku?  He is a famous skeptic in India.  He has gone on TV in India to challenge people who claim to have magical powers to put up or shut up–on live TV.  He even challenged a so-called holy man who said he could kill him by casting a spell on him to do just that (hint on the outcome–Sandal is still alive).

Lately he exposed a so-called miracle at a catholic church in Mumbai by showing that a particular statue was not miraculously dripping water, but that the water was coming from faulty plumbing. As a result, he has been accused of blasphemy by local Catholics, and there has been an arrest warrant issued for his arrest for violating Indian law for hurting religious feelings.    That’s right, he is accused of blasphemy for exposing the truth, and the local police want him locked up until the legal process plays out.

Facing jail, he has alighted to Finland where he will await the outcome of the legal appeals that his lawyers in India will bring on his behalf.

Here is a man facing jail for exposing a fraud.  I can’t think of a more perfect person to bring to TAM to speak to us.  Perhaps the JREF has already tried, and Sandal either isn’t interested or has a previous commitment.  Even so, a live video feed would still be very interesting and most likely inspirational.  It should happen.  It must happen.  DJ and the JREF, please make it happen.  Bring Sandal to TAM.

If I am right, Thy grace impart
Still in the right to stay;
If I am wrong, O teach my heart
To find that better way!”
― Alexander Pope

The Mr. X saga, or upskirt-gate, or whatever you want to call it, is happily dying a ignoble death (see previous post, “One Alleged TAM Harasser Responds” for the story so far).  The two people whose  Facebook posts Greta Christina used as fodder for her unfair indictment of the JREF and DJ Grothe have now made it clear that there was never any evidence that Mr. X was using his now famous camera on a stick to look up women’s skirts.  Indeed, it appears as if this humble little blog played at least a small part in clearing Mr. X’s name, which makes the whole enterprise worthwhile.

We now have this comment (on the our previous post):

Rob Tarzwell says:

18 June, 2012 at 04:46  (Edit)

I don’t know how to contact the owner of this forum other than this thread, so I wanted to point out that the initial Facebook post has been edited to clarify language which might be read that I saw something when in fact I did not see any of the alleged behaviours. I am a witness to the distress, not to the behaviours which provoked distress. I have not, as far as I know, met the alleged harasser.

My point was and is to register dissatisfaction regarding JREF’s process in handling a serious allegation, *not* an airing of the particulars or outing of individuals.

It displeases and distresses me that individuals not directly witnessing the particulars have named the alleged on my thread, and those comments, once brought to my attention, have been deleted, three in all so far, to safeguard the anonymity of the alleged, who is absolutely *not* required to defend himself in this or any other non-formal forum. I will continue to delete any naming or outing of complainants or alleged harasser by non-involved persons.

The complainants and the alleged harasser deserve: anonymity for both parties, a presumption of innocence for the alleged harasser, and a presumption of good faith from the complainants.

I take these matters very seriously. The particulars are documented but sadly seem, in the most charitable case, to have gone astray or been mislaid. That, at minimum, doesn’t bode well for JREF’s chain of custody for handling complaint documents.

If the alleged harasser does not already have the names of the individuals in my thread who outed him, I will provide him with those as a basic courtesy.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/rob-tarzwell/tam-rebecca-watson-and-female-safety-two-anecdotes/10150932203392412

Lee DeLay, who is the person who allegedly reported Mr. X for the whole thing, wrote a number of comments to this blog including this:

5. saw “mr x” with a camera, on a pole, at ankle height. Was really uncomfortable with it and didn’t feel safe.
6. asked a friend what she thought – she agreed. We asked security to be called.
7. had to ask ‘mr x’ to leave me alone AGAIN. (and again… I am not sure how many times I had to actually. Other people did for us too, in case it didn’t sink in. – which it didn’t as I had to ask the whole time I was there)

So, Lee clarifies and says she only saw the camera on a stick, no up-skirt photos taken.  Apparently nobody now clings to the original meme, which accused Mr. X of taking upskirt photographs at TAM9.  Even Greta Christina has admitted as much.   Greta’s original thesis was his:  (1)  Man was taking upskirt photos at TAM; (2) This was reported to DJ and the JREF; (3) Whatever they did wasn’t enough; (4) They don’t now admit that it happened; (5) This lack of admission shows that they are a bunch of dirty liars.  Even though (2) is now known not to be the case, Greta is still clinging to the underlying truth of her thesis.  She says that she was right, even though she has been proven wrong.  Here’s the money quote: “The point of my post is not altered.”

Not altered, even though the fundamental premise was built on something that, oh let’s be charitable, was not actually true.

One of the comments from Lee that Greta quoted said this:

My report was that he had a camera, facing up, at his ankle on a pole. It made me uncomfortable because the only reason I could think of for that to happen is taking upskirt photos. Do I know he was? No, how could I?

Greta still maintains, apparently, that this was a report of sexual harassment and that DJ was a big fat liar for not admitting that he had been given a report of sexual harassment.  But it isn’t a report of sexual harassment.  It never was.  Greta kind of, sort of, in an obtuse way, admits this.  Yet she still says that the point of her post “is not altered.”  Was still, in other words, true.

I don’t see how Greta’s thinking is any different from a creationist who clings to the biblical story of creation even when shown the overwhelming proof for evolution.  She is engaging in exactly the same type of thinking that skepticism fights against–ignoring evidence, and when confronted with evidence against her position, changing the question and still maintaining that she is right.  But she isn’t right.  She was wrong when she wrote her original post.  And she is wrong now.