tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-58198250301581370222024-03-19T17:19:46.276-07:00Canman Canned FactsPurported Facts that are Incorrect Should be Refuted -- Not Ignored or SuppressedMike Dombroskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14722885486530482844noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5819825030158137022.post-14478602276798988852024-03-19T17:19:00.000-07:002024-03-19T17:19:13.772-07:00New Journalistic Business Model: Micro Pricing Articles<p> There is an unmistakably growing trend in journalism from legacy media to blogging. That is subscription based content. Major outlets like the New York Times often allow you to view a number of articles a month before requiring a subscription to view more. Reading posts on blogs has mostly been free at platforms like Blogger and WordPress with options for making donations. The site, Patreon, offers a way for bloggers to accept subscription donations and offer exclusive content. Lately, a new site, Substack, has gained popularity allowing bloggers to charge subscriptions. Typically, a post will have a few summarizing or teaser paragraphs with the rest being available to paying subscribers.</p><p>One of the big complaints about modern media is that there is such a cornucopia of choices that readers get caught up in their own bubble. It is hard to see a subscription model being of any help. One of points of journalism and blogging is to get your ideas and work out to more people. This is bound to get harder with a growing number of writers competing for subscription dollars. I would like to offer a possible solution from the worlds of music and book publishing.</p><p>For a long time the music business sold songs on vinyl records with 45 rpm singles and collections on 33 rpm albums. They then moved on to CDs (compact disks) which were a good fit for albums, but not singles. Then a compressed digital format called MP3 came out and a company called Napster allowed people to share songs in a quasi legal fashion. It's detailed in the forgotten book, <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/All-Rave-Shawn-Fannings-Napster/dp/0609610937/ref=monarch_sidesheet">All the Rave: The Sudden Rise and Fall of Shawn Fanning's Napster</a></i>, by Joseph Menn. Music is now mostly sold as MP3s (or similar format) at iTunes or Amazon. Songs typically sell for about a dollar with albums going for around ten to twenty dollars. Books now also usually include digital versions, most notably on Amazon's Kindle. They usually sell for between ten and twenty dollars, sometimes being discounted for limited time prices of a few dollars.</p><p>How should digital articles or blog posts be priced? I would recommend nickels, dimes and quarters. Someone could literally charge for their two cents worth. An article or post should clearly not cost as much as a song, which can be put on a phone or ipod and played repeatedly forever. Articles have currency or timeliness. They do not have the shelf life of a song. Perhaps a time value could be applied. After some freshness period they could become free for people doing research, although with a low enough price (two cents worth?) this might not matter and offer small residuals for writers. The price could also include comment privileges or more precisely comment submission privileges. Of course, parts of an article can remain free such as teasers, summaries or even the whole article with the fee being for notes or links. This could also be applied to artwork or photography by offering higher resolution for a fee. Also, as someone who writes podcast reports for the blog <a href="https://cliscep.com/">Climate Scepticism</a>, I would be remiss not to mention audio. The fee could include the right to download an MP3 of the article.</p><p>This does not mean there can't also be subscriptions. They could still give a volume discount or offer a way for readers to support their favorite writers. Right now I think digital subscriptions, which typically run in excess of $100 a year, are way too high. I don't think $10 to $20 for a book is too high and I sometimes pay that much for fare from writers I detest so that I can slam them in a review. But subscribing to a lot of writers can get pricey and, frankly, I feel that I'm grossly underpaying for a lot of the stuff that I get for free. There's lot's of paywalled articles I'd probably pay five, ten, maybe even fifty cents for. Right now, I only have one digital content subscription, John Ziegler's <i><a href="https://www.patreon.com/TheDeathOfJournalismwithJohnZiegler/posts">The Death of Journalism</a></i> podcast (please check it out).</p><p>How would the logistics of this work? In this age of digital baloney slicing, I can't imagine this would require AI or bitcoin mining levels of computing power. This could be done with special accounts or even existing accounts. I usually buy music and Kindle books with Amazon gift cards. I always have what I suppose could be called an Amazon gift card debit balance at the ready and a tiny iTunes balance. Media companies could offer specialized accounts and charge for features such as privacy levels. I don't think the digital overhead for micro pricing would be that high and it could be charged for.</p><p>The main benefit to this model is that readers would likely get access to more writers with writers getting access to more readers. Writers would have another metric to evaluate their effort. New writers could take revenue from entrenched writers which may or may not be a bad thing. Quality and popularity would be given a premium. It would be harder for established writers to rest on their laurels. It should definitely benefit newer writers. I think it would have the potential to shake up the stale field with its dreary echo chambers. It might also wrestle some control away from the legacy media and big tech oligarchs. Perhaps a billionaire platform owner who's dissatisfied with the status quo, has ambitious plans for a new landscape and maybe even some experience in online payments might want to take a look. .. Elon, are you listening?</p><p><br /></p>Mike Dombroskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14722885486530482844noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5819825030158137022.post-43616306630688518392019-04-03T13:01:00.000-07:002019-04-03T13:01:50.649-07:00A Mannly Thing that Mann could doI really detest Dr. Michael E Mann, mostly for what I consider to be an attack on the first amendment -- his defamation lawsuit against Mark Steyn, Rand Simberg, <i>National Review </i>and the <i>Competitive Enterprise Institute.</i> He's an incredible intellectual narcissist and tireless self promoter. He's done some really shoddy science (his most notable work, the hockey stick, has been completely discredited at <a href="https://climateaudit.org/">Climate Audit</a>), yet he's managed to cultivate a public persona as one of the worlds leading experts on climate. He's also very vindictive and likes to publicly trash opponents. He's kind of like the Donald Trump of Science. This doesn't mean everything about him is bad, just like with Donald Trump (whom I voted for and will probably vote for again).<br />
<br />
What I would like to suggest for him is that, with his prominence, he could show some support for someone at a low point, who showed some for him, when he was at a low point. Former Penn State president, Graham Spanier is being scheduled for sentencing, and may be facing prison time for a bogus misdemeanor conviction related to crimes that didn't even happen!<br />
<a name='more'></a>Now I want to make it clear, I would not condemn him for not doing this. There is a lot of hysteria surrounding the case and Mann does have his sweet gig as a much quoted, awards bestowed on, documentaries appearing in, editorials writing, expert climate scientist. I know how toxic this topic can be from when I was banned and had some comments deleted from <i>Reason's Hit&Run </i>blog. I blogged about it <a href="https://canmancannedfacts.blogspot.com/2018/04/my-assault-on-reason.html">here</a>. <i>Reason </i>is known for having juvenile, misogynistic commenters who sometimes use handles like "Palin's Butt Plug". Some years back, they caused a stir, by recommending that the judge in the Silk Road case be fed into a wood chipper. Yet, they deleted my comments!<br />
<br />
In his book, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Hockey-Stick-Climate-Wars-Dispatches/dp/023115254X/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=">The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars</a>, Mann has two instances where Graham Spanier gave him some support. On page 174, he says right after receiving the Barton letter, while transitioning to his current job at Penn State, he got a welcoming note from Spanier, assuring him that "he and Penn State were firmly behind" him (I hope that doesn't sound like a double entendre). On page 244, he says he got a "supportive phone call" from Spanier, after some of the Climategate inquiries.<br />
<br />
Now, I want to make clear, that in no way, do I mean to criticize him for not supporting Spanier. He may believe the media narrative that Spanier is guilty. If I hadn't run across the Skeptic.com <a href="https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/trial-by-therapy-jerry-sandusky-case-revisited/">review</a> of Mark Pendergrast's <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Most-Hated-Man-America-Sandusky-ebook/dp/B076XTGLR6?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_dp">book</a>, I'm sure I would too. He also doesn't appear to be a personal friend of Spanier's. But there are plenty of other reasons for Mann and his supporters to consider supporting Graham Spanier. The case against Spanier is ridiculous. He is himself a purported victim of child abuse, and he's been caught up in a case of mass hysteria. John Ziegler has an amazing podcast that you can read about and listen to <a href="https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/there-was-no-cover-up-fed-agent-tasked-with-investigation-of-penn-state-scandal-breaks-silence/">here.</a> It starts out with a description of Spanier's trial, with Zieglers's voice reaching a Gilbert Gottfried pitch. While it may only be his view of the trial, the facts he presents are astounding. If anyone can refute any of them or provide more context, please do. He then interviews Federal Investigative Services agent, John Snedden, who did an investigation into whether Spanier should have his top secret security clearance renewed. He found that he should and it was. At about 25 minutes into the podcast, Snedden talks about political maneuvering by Pennsylvania's governor, who was having a fight with Spanier over founding for Penn State. The governor was republican Tom Corbett. Mann and his supporters would certainly be on Spanier's side.<br />
<br />
If Mann were to give Spanier some public support from his prominent position, he would definitely get some praise from me. Of course, I would go right back and continue excoriating him for just about everything else he's done.Mike Dombroskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14722885486530482844noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5819825030158137022.post-18234156287618539842019-03-23T15:04:00.000-07:002019-03-23T15:04:26.168-07:00Why the Penn State Scandal MattersThe Penn State, Joe Paterno, Jerry Sandusky scandal was a very special, perfect storm, situation. And to be sure, I am coming at it from the position that Jerry Sandusky is almost, with complete certainty, innocent of the things he was charged with. In this post, I want to explain why it matters in the big scheme of things. For those new to this point of view, I'll just have to say that there is a growing list of knowledgeable people who find it credible, including renowned science writer, Mark Pendergrast, former Federal Investigative Service agent, John Snedden, memory expert, Elizabeth Loftus, journalist, Ralph Cipriano, and mainly, journalist, John Ziegler, who's done the most extensive documentation at his site, <a href="http://www.framingpaterno.com/">framingpaterno.com</a>. There are also a lot of journalist who interview him and come away impressed.<br />
<br />
There is a lot of injustice in the world and nobody can focus on all of it. How many victims were there? There were three administrators and an aging, long retired coach. Another legendary head coach was also fired. These people had their hard earned reputations destroyed. This is not a lot of people in the big scheme. The university was scammed out of over $100 million. I suppose it could be argued, using the broken window fallacy, that it was paid for by the insurance company, and that it helped stimulate, among other sectors, the fancy sports car market. A charity that attempted to help at risk kids was also dissolved. Something that should also be recognized is that a lot of people had emotional investments in these institutions.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
That last point about emotional investment should not be overlooked. I'm not really a big sports fan, but my late father was a high school football coach, and I know how important football is in a lot of peoples lives. A lot of fans had their hearts broken. The second mile charity was probably doing a lot of good in a lot of kids lives. Will anyone want to start a similar one now?<br />
<br />
Then there is the question of how important is the truth? It is just an unfortunate reality that writers and editors have biases and sometimes, complete misconceptions. They also can have agendas, even if they don't realize it. Biases and agendas can also become institutionalized and writers have to weigh the real risks of going against them. People can look at the same set of facts, claims or assertions and come to wildly different conclusions, as almost anyone who has read more than one book on a particular subject can attest.<br />
<br />
What really gets me about the whole Penn State situation, is how the press can get what was probably the biggest sports scandal of all time completely wrong! They awarded what is probably the most prestigious prize in all of journalism, the Pulitzer, to reporter, Sarah Ganim. John Ziegler's take is that she was leaked information by the prosecutors in their quest for more accusers. The thing that this reminds me of is the Janet Cooke saga. She was a <i>Washington Post </i>reporter who won a Pulitzer for her story about an eight year old heroin addict, entitled "Jimmy's World", which was found to be fabricated. Ganim's situation looks similar, with perhaps an earnest quest being facilitated with a little corner cutting and then getting out of hand. Since getting her Pulitzer, she has been a consultant to and made a heroine in an HBO movie, "Paterno", starring Al Pacino. I find it hard to believe she still believes the popular narrative about the scandal (of course, not being a psychic, I could be wrong). About the only thing other than Penn State that she's known for is being caught laughing at an abuse victim on camera. This was probably unfair, as analyzed in this <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l02OyuO9iZ8">video</a>. She has NOT written a book, which seems highly unusual. She almost completely stopped tweeting in 2015, which is highly unusual for a journalist in this day and age. If you look back at her tweets about Penn State, you'll see a lot of derisive responses from people skeptical about the popular narrative. You'll also notice a lack of responses from her. Compare this to John Ziegler's Twitter feed, where he usually responds to any Penn State tweets instantly.<br />
<br />
What if Janet Cooke had gotten away with it? We'd probably have a made for TV movie version of "Jimmy;s World" starring Gary Coleman. Then Cooke would've probably just faded under the radar as Ganim appears to be doing.<br />
<br />
How does this all fit into journalism and history? One very fortunate aspect of this story is that its main proponent, John Ziegler, besides being a journalist with serious credentials, is also a documentary film maker and podcaster, so it's documented at his site, <a href="http://www.framingpaterno.com/">framingpaterno.com</a>, as a huge multimedia production. For people who like crime novels and courtroom dramas, this is really great stuff! And it's ongoing. You can follow it on Ziegler's <a href="https://twitter.com/Zigmanfreud?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freespeechbroadcasting.com%2Ffree-speech-broadcasting-podcasts">Twitter feed</a>. Tweet about it and he'll usually respond instantly. I find it a lot like watching those detective shows back in the 70's. He has a boisterous quality, like <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071003/">Carl Kolchak</a>, a sense of fatalism, like <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071042/">Jim Rockford</a>, and a steadfast, logical persistence, like <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1466074/">Lieutenant Columbo</a>. It seems like every other week, some new ray of hope springs up only to get dashed. A while back, a writer named Malcom Gladwell, who wrote an early <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/09/24/in-plain-view/amp">Sandusky piece</a> for the <i>New Yorker, </i>told Ziegler he was thinking of revisiting the story for a <a href="https://twitter.com/Zigmanfreud/status/1013878910801534985">new book</a>. He seems to have <a href="https://twitter.com/Zigmanfreud/status/1069408541205704704">broken off contact.</a> The latest episode appears to be former Penn State president, Graham Spanier's <a href="https://twitter.com/Zigmanfreud/status/1098682007372976128">sentencing.</a> Well, at least all this stuff is being recorded (and hopefully preserved) for history. Then maybe it can be appreciated from a historical safe space.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Mike Dombroskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14722885486530482844noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5819825030158137022.post-45638107076700267302018-04-27T08:51:00.000-07:002018-04-27T08:51:07.205-07:00My Assault on ReasonLate last Friday afternoon I thought I'd try implementing an idea on how to get the latest Penn State scandal revelations into the public discussion. I thought I'd go to <a href="http://reason.com/blog">Reason's Hit and Run blog</a> and post comments to most of their writers recent posts. So I commented on these posts and tried to make them at least tangentially related to the content covered:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/quadruple-uteri-podcast">How To Talk to People Who Think You're Evil and/or Insane: Podcast</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/columbine-national-school-walkout">The Hidden Legacy of Columbine: Ignorance About School Violence</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/some-california-cities-are-making-it-har">Some California Cities Are Making It Harder to Quit Smoking</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/southern-poverty-law-center-scraps-its-h">Southern Poverty Law Center Scraps Its Anti-Muslim Hate List</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-o">CDC, in Surveys It Never Bothered Making Public, Provides More Evidence That Plenty of Americans Innocently Defend Themselves with Guns</a><br />
<br />
When I went back to look at them Saturday, I found that my comments had been deleted and that, while I was allowed to log in, I was not allowed to comment.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmY6o7P336ibxK4ZSGFhOXus7dCnL1h9RpictIIhwc2OS_NQrM6wFBwSrItHe1OkFTcmxPfV4QZti4PMjVh8rKxkzGabfR1rL6teeMDB1ncPoqu1q9bVp9QHCaepTKyrYuscGmMStEhsw/s1600/Reason_Penn_State_004.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="411" data-original-width="745" height="352" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmY6o7P336ibxK4ZSGFhOXus7dCnL1h9RpictIIhwc2OS_NQrM6wFBwSrItHe1OkFTcmxPfV4QZti4PMjVh8rKxkzGabfR1rL6teeMDB1ncPoqu1q9bVp9QHCaepTKyrYuscGmMStEhsw/s640/Reason_Penn_State_004.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<a name='more'></a>While my comments were deleted, I saw that a lot of responses to them were still there. I must say that I was surprised to see my comments deleted. I can understand that they might consider this spamming, but lately, I've noticed that all their comment sections seem to have a few spam comments. These tend to be actual spam with links to pitched products. Since I never expected that Reason would delete my comments, I didn't think to capture them with screen caps or Wayback Machine saves, but one of these posts did have a Wayback save with my comments:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20180420224607/http://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/columbine-national-school-walkout#comment">The Hidden Legacy of Columbine: Ignorance About School Violence</a><br />
<br />
Here's the screen caps of my comments and replys:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGvubf-JiJgN8-wJndg8l0KzqzGmjY0P7NWlFVcu86i1C4mvbTFkfyNHeoA7N-2bhQtn20GfOTAD9zSAPad70-OC2fhFzAkYN2WLXhBlgs5CqAyvpTW1pvwj2M1Vl7hG54MnLITQ6VfKo/s1600/Reason_Penn_State_005.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="677" data-original-width="915" height="472" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGvubf-JiJgN8-wJndg8l0KzqzGmjY0P7NWlFVcu86i1C4mvbTFkfyNHeoA7N-2bhQtn20GfOTAD9zSAPad70-OC2fhFzAkYN2WLXhBlgs5CqAyvpTW1pvwj2M1Vl7hG54MnLITQ6VfKo/s640/Reason_Penn_State_005.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhttLVTbSWAMsrQrlVAI5oundi3g-bPKs1LfeaeX2PCqacwcSvUkOuqvGb_uOdWbEIMCea5kL_Ioj6xUYHDXHvfJzo-uYPuwImyS2UcV3z-xenVGU-c5XcMbRGGAKAcm9b3T9SHbljHZjE/s1600/Reason_Penn_State_006.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="615" data-original-width="913" height="430" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhttLVTbSWAMsrQrlVAI5oundi3g-bPKs1LfeaeX2PCqacwcSvUkOuqvGb_uOdWbEIMCea5kL_Ioj6xUYHDXHvfJzo-uYPuwImyS2UcV3z-xenVGU-c5XcMbRGGAKAcm9b3T9SHbljHZjE/s640/Reason_Penn_State_006.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPV631lWTdvdr9kgnwHlhudldhSzeSR2EmiyMNaU4Z9pKssJhgnkNEWx-dUmV1u8VA0v5si9c1Fp7AErj4K9M9vwz3jQXklkt5FeLsDcCmMtWlqLL_NaXIhmRxD7-6dA3wP9VhPVlU78A/s1600/Reason_Penn_State_007.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="617" data-original-width="917" height="430" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPV631lWTdvdr9kgnwHlhudldhSzeSR2EmiyMNaU4Z9pKssJhgnkNEWx-dUmV1u8VA0v5si9c1Fp7AErj4K9M9vwz3jQXklkt5FeLsDcCmMtWlqLL_NaXIhmRxD7-6dA3wP9VhPVlU78A/s640/Reason_Penn_State_007.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhx6_5PXc-SVhkdGWtmHKNYT3aDsCyn4IMVtV1300FZOieozB3UnlurmOMsaT5mbOCo_yUIokkkbOjZ1Dfj_t9pb1czOgEHChHmXfftgkSkDISC2tWHdxw90oDkoNcQFObN3oEF8vXDVAg/s1600/Reason_Penn_State_008.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="611" data-original-width="911" height="428" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhx6_5PXc-SVhkdGWtmHKNYT3aDsCyn4IMVtV1300FZOieozB3UnlurmOMsaT5mbOCo_yUIokkkbOjZ1Dfj_t9pb1czOgEHChHmXfftgkSkDISC2tWHdxw90oDkoNcQFObN3oEF8vXDVAg/s640/Reason_Penn_State_008.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
As you can see the reactions are mixed. This appears to be the only post where my comments were captured. In some of the other posts, there are commenters trying to be helpful -- like in this one:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/quadruple-uteri-podcast#comment">How To Talk to People Who Think You're Evil and/or Insane: Podcast</a><br />
<br />
I mentioned John Ziegler's stopping OJ Simpson from doing a sports memorabilia show, but couldn't get a couple links to his podcasts to be accepted. Some commenters gave suggestions on how to do it. One of them even posted the links.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMHTwjE_TX94YHc1RNhWxu3mQG1NrpwBVGtAIl35S_mptF_5fj3JuZDB4FpG2Xe5OKF4fy8WJb0SnCU-T5nUVe1YdGc4ZzBmk2jqGCv30AtL5dRTxKhKv424NPdlFTdFEZAT0Kt2gkF9g/s1600/Reason_Penn_State_009.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="455" data-original-width="657" height="221" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMHTwjE_TX94YHc1RNhWxu3mQG1NrpwBVGtAIl35S_mptF_5fj3JuZDB4FpG2Xe5OKF4fy8WJb0SnCU-T5nUVe1YdGc4ZzBmk2jqGCv30AtL5dRTxKhKv424NPdlFTdFEZAT0Kt2gkF9g/s320/Reason_Penn_State_009.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
In another thread I suggested a possible <i>Reason </i>hook. The first <i>Reason</i> post<i> </i>I ever read on the Penn State scandal was by Tim Cavanaugh. He got some derision from a commenter for including this:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Criminal accusations generally, sex accusations broadly and child-related accusations specifically are prone to witchmob kangaroo hunts, and Sandusky has not been convicted of any crime. But the failure to report seemingly credible reports of rape is an institutional problem, and Paterno needs to be held responsible for the institution’s behavior.</span></blockquote>
<a href="http://reason.com/blog/2011/11/10/joepas-legacy-buggery-and-looting-moral">JoePa's Legacy: Buggery and Looting. Moral: Retire At 70</a><br />
<br />
I also mentioned a <a href="https://twitter.com/CathyYoung63/status/981563503482982402">couple</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/CathyYoung63/status/969710763551191040">tweets</a> from <i>Reason </i>writer, Cathy Young. From the <i>Twitter </i>threads:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
From @Zigmanfreud on @newsweek's last-minute spiking of his story on the #PennState sex abuse case.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
https://www.mediaite.com/columnists/newsweek-was-about-to-publish-my-epic-investigation-of-the-penn-state-scandal-and-then-fear-killed-it/ …</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
After reading Mark Pendergrast's book on the Sandusky case, I believe this is a story that needs to be heard.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
...</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
And now for something really controversial: my latest in @NewsdayOpinion looks at a book that argues Jerry Sandusky is probably innocent & convicted on "recovered memories"</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
https://www.newsday.com/opinion/columnists/cathy-young/jerry-sandusky-legacy-1.17001451 …</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Mark Pendergrast makes a surprisingly strong case.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
...</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Am I fully converted to Sandusky revisionism? I wouldn't say that, but at the very least the case deserves another look (and the book deserves more media coverage).</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
...</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Also a shout-out to @Zigmanfreud, who's been a lonely voice on this for a while at significant risk to his career (it's discussed in the book).</blockquote>
</blockquote>
When I went back to these threads on Monday, I couldn't get the Wayback Machine to load any of the saved Reason posts, which left me in something of a panic. But since then I've gotten them to work, I suspect it was just squirrels. I hope I can get <i>Reason </i>to let me comment again in the future.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>List of Links:</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b><a href="http://reason.com/blog">http://reason.com/blog</a></b><br />
<br />
<a href="http://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/quadruple-uteri-podcast">http://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/quadruple-uteri-podcast</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/columbine-national-school-walkout">http://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/columbine-national-school-walkout</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/some-california-cities-are-making-it-har">http://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/some-california-cities-are-making-it-har</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/southern-poverty-law-center-scraps-its-h">http://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/southern-poverty-law-center-scraps-its-h</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-o">http://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-o</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20180420224607/http://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/columbine-national-school-walkout#comment">https://web.archive.org/web/20180420224607/http://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/columbine-national-school-walkout#comment</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://reason.com/blog/2011/11/10/joepas-legacy-buggery-and-looting-moral">http://reason.com/blog/2011/11/10/joepas-legacy-buggery-and-looting-moral</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://twitter.com/CathyYoung63/status/981563503482982402">https://twitter.com/CathyYoung63/status/981563503482982402</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://twitter.com/CathyYoung63/status/969710763551191040">https://twitter.com/CathyYoung63/status/969710763551191040</a><br />
<br />Mike Dombroskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14722885486530482844noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5819825030158137022.post-41130291917414478972018-04-06T17:04:00.000-07:002018-04-06T17:04:07.332-07:00Ziegler's Amazon Review Gone -- Picture RemainsI recently read the book, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Silent-No-More-Justice-Sandusky/dp/0345544161/ref=pd_sbs_14_2?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0345544161&pd_rd_r=SY17QYEDCRVBJ6CJZFBR&pd_rd_w=dgBdR&pd_rd_wg=YrUnT&psc=1&refRID=SY17QYEDCRVBJ6CJZFBR">Silent No More</a>. My local library had it in a digital form that I could download to my computer, where it would remain on my computer until it expired on the due date. I also wrote an Amazon <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R3QAMLP3DAJRSE/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0345544161">review</a>. This is the book by victim number one in the case against Jerry Sandusky. While scrolling down the Amazon page for this book, I was happy to see a picture of John Ziegler waiting to assault the consciences of any of the principals of this case who happen to do the same. I even mentioned it in my review. But I couldn't find any way to click from this picture to the review.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
So I paged through all the reviews, visiting some of the comment sections to administer a little Hitchslapping (at least my attempt at it) to the inanity. I actually found the <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R21GLWRB2Z4EI0/ref=cm_cr_getr_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0345544161">review</a> with the picture, and it was by John Ziegler himself. I congratulated him on his cleverness and clicked on his profile. It did not include this review. It said five reviews, but only showed four. I'm almost certain that he didn't click the show sensitive content button that I did for my review of both this book and my <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R162B191ILEZ7T/ref=cm_cr_getr_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=162006765X">review</a> of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Most-Hated-Man-America-Sandusky/dp/162006765X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1516404113&sr=8-1&keywords=mark+pendergrast">The Most Hated Man in America</a>.<br />
<br />
His very short review reads:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
If I tell the full truth of this book, which I learned via an exhaustive independent investigation, it will be censored by Amazon. Therefore, I will simply say that it belongs in the fiction category and is not even remotely good fiction.</blockquote>
If he'd of written a more detailed review, would it have been censored? I don't know, but it's disturbing that people have to worry about whether certain facts and opinions can be posted on what are supposed to be popular, general forums. The thing that really bothers me in this case, is that there are real important issues involved. It's not about inciting hate or prurience. It's about finding out what happened by reporting hard won facts and putting them out for scrutiny. What kind of traits are we looking for in our journalists? Are we scrutinizing our institutions? It's hard to scrutinize when some topics are off limits.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>List of Links:</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Silent-No-More-Justice-Sandusky/dp/0345544161/ref=pd_sbs_14_2?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0345544161&pd_rd_r=SY17QYEDCRVBJ6CJZFBR&pd_rd_w=dgBdR&pd_rd_wg=YrUnT&psc=1&refRID=SY17QYEDCRVBJ6CJZFBR">https://www.amazon.com/Silent-No-More-Justice-Sandusky/dp/0345544161/ref=pd_sbs_14_2?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0345544161&pd_rd_r=SY17QYEDCRVBJ6CJZFBR&pd_rd_w=dgBdR&pd_rd_wg=YrUnT&psc=1&refRID=SY17QYEDCRVBJ6CJZFBR</a></b><br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R3QAMLP3DAJRSE/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0345544161">https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R3QAMLP3DAJRSE/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0345544161</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R21GLWRB2Z4EI0/ref=cm_cr_getr_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0345544161">https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R21GLWRB2Z4EI0/ref=cm_cr_getr_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0345544161</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R162B191ILEZ7T/ref=cm_cr_getr_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=162006765X">https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R162B191ILEZ7T/ref=cm_cr_getr_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=162006765X</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Most-Hated-Man-America-Sandusky/dp/162006765X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1516404113&sr=8-1&keywords=mark+pendergrast">https://www.amazon.com/Most-Hated-Man-America-Sandusky/dp/162006765X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1516404113&sr=8-1&keywords=mark+pendergrast</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Mike Dombroskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14722885486530482844noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5819825030158137022.post-25445548732348022942018-03-28T13:12:00.000-07:002018-03-29T15:05:56.480-07:00What Kind of Guy is John Ziegler? Ask OJOn the theme of canned facts (facts that are not reported), there are various reasons why relevant facts are canned, which include, being ignored, being suppressed or simply not being believed. Another reason is that they may have been forgotten. Since I've (to use the pejorative vernacular) bought into John Ziegler's narrative of the Penn State scandal, I thought I'd look into some of the other stuff that Ziegler's done in his journalistic career.<br />
<br />
For a number of years, he did a radio talk show with a co-host named Leah Brandon. There's an archive <a href="https://soundcloud.com/freespeechbroadcasting">here</a>, where the episodes are easily downloadable (I like to listen to such things on an ipod). I've found a few of his shows, where he could be said to have achieved a bit of infamy. He was a very avid follower of the OJ Simpson case. He had dated Kim Goldman, sister of OJ victim, Ron Goldman. He interviews her <a href="https://soundcloud.com/freespeechbroadcasting/johnleah-hr2-151005">here</a>, in the second hour of his show. In the next hour, <a href="https://soundcloud.com/freespeechbroadcasting/johnleah-hr3-151005">here</a>, he gives a very entertaining description of how he disrupted a sports memorabilia event attended by OJ. The Goldmans won a civil judgment against OJ and these autograph signing events offered a way for OJ to get around paying cash to the Goldmans. Ziegler found out that there was going to be one of these things very close to where he was living, so he went and told the promoter, "over my dead body!" He successfully managed to prevent OJ from participating in this event and arguable forced him to have to deal with less reputable, sleazy characters, which eventually got him arrested and incarcerated for kidnapping. I highly recommend listening to these episodes.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
There's also an episode, <a href="https://soundcloud.com/freespeechbroadcasting/johnleah-hr3-160501">here</a>, where he describes getting arrested at an event where he has a ticket to hear Matt Sandusky speak. His <a href="http://www.framingpaterno.com/video-documentary-evidence-shows-john-zieglers-arrest-matt-sandusky-event-was-farce-likely-criminal">post</a> at <a href="http://www.framingpaterno.com/">http://www.framingpaterno.com/</a> has several YouTube videos of it. Matt Sandusky is Jerry Sandusky's adopted son who flipped in the middle of his trial and went on to receive a settlement from Penn State.<br />
<br />
What is to be made of such antics? Most of us probably love it when someone on our side of an issue is doing it and detest it when it's done by someone on the other side. But it is possible to respect it on the other side as Cenk Uygur of <i><a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TheYoungTurks">The Young Turks</a> </i>does in this YouTube <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf2BSmRmUGQ">video</a>, where Ziegler badgers the head of the <i>American Conservative Union </i>with some uncomfortable questions.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>List of Links:</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<a href="https://soundcloud.com/freespeechbroadcasting">https://soundcloud.com/freespeechbroadcasting</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://soundcloud.com/freespeechbroadcasting/johnleah-hr2-151005">https://soundcloud.com/freespeechbroadcasting/johnleah-hr2-151005</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://soundcloud.com/freespeechbroadcasting/johnleah-hr3-151005">https://soundcloud.com/freespeechbroadcasting/johnleah-hr3-151005</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://soundcloud.com/freespeechbroadcasting/johnleah-hr3-160501">https://soundcloud.com/freespeechbroadcasting/johnleah-hr3-160501</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.framingpaterno.com/video-documentary-evidence-shows-john-zieglers-arrest-matt-sandusky-event-was-farce-likely-criminal">http://www.framingpaterno.com/video-documentary-evidence-shows-john-zieglers-arrest-matt-sandusky-event-was-farce-likely-criminal</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.framingpaterno.com/">http://www.framingpaterno.com/</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TheYoungTurks">https://www.youtube.com/user/TheYoungTurks</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf2BSmRmUGQ">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf2BSmRmUGQ</a><br />
<br />Mike Dombroskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14722885486530482844noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5819825030158137022.post-65058298573914365002018-03-07T15:05:00.000-08:002018-03-07T15:05:02.936-08:00Institutional Fact Canning at Penn StatePenn State has examples of the institutional ignoring of facts (or at least sources of facts) in both the Paterno/Sandusky scandal and their investigation of Michael Mann.<br />
<br />
Now what most people would think of as ignoring facts in the Paterno/Sandusky case would be coach Joe Paterno, president Graham Spanier, vice president Gary Schultz, and athletic director Tim Curley ignoring sex crimes by Jerry Sandusky and trying to keep them under wraps. But Sandusky got indicted and convicted, Paterno got fired, and Spanier, Schultz and Curley each got convicted of child endangerment. Then Penn State hired a former FBI director, Louis Freeh, to write a report to explain it all (<a href="http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/education/penn-state/jerry-sandusky/article42817758.html">for $8 million</a>). For the public, the monster was caught and the institutional miscreants were punished. It all looks pretty tidy, unless you've been reading John Ziegler's site, <a href="http://www.framingpaterno.com/">Framing Paterno</a>, or Mark Pendergrast's book, <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Most-Hated-Man-America-Sandusky/dp/162006765X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1516404113&sr=8-1&keywords=mark+pendergrast">The Most Hated Man in America</a>.</i><br />
<a name='more'></a><i> </i>If you have, you know there was another investigation of the Penn State scandal that came up with very different results. This was an investigation into whether Graham Spanier should have his top secret security clearance renewed, and it was conducted by John Snedden, an agent of the Federal Investigative Services (FIS). He found no evidence of any cover-up or any crime to cover up, and Spanier's security clearance was renewed. Ziegler has a post and podcast <a href="https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/there-was-no-cover-up-fed-agent-tasked-with-investigation-of-penn-state-scandal-breaks-silence/">here</a>. I very strongly recommend listening to the podcast. It really is John Ziegler at his best. He gives a blow by blow account of Spanier's trial and does an interview with Snedden.<br />
<br />
Freeh ignored Snedden's findings. Snedden interviewed Gary Schultz and Tim Curley. They declined to be interviewed by Freeh on advise of counsel. You'd think Snedden's investigation would be a good resource. The only possible conflict I could find was that Snedden had attended Penn State. Looking at the <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/396512-report-final-071212.html">Freeh report</a>, it's surprising to see that he didn't interview Mike McQueary -- at the request of the Pennsylvania Attorney General (page 12, second paragraph, third sentence). From watching TV cop shows, aren't feds, PIs and local law enforcement always at odds with each other over jurisdiction? He doesn't want to interview the probably most significant witness in the case? Is there something he might not want to find? Well, Ziegler's certainly uncovered a lot of things he might not want to deal with, including, and as Dave Berry would say, I am not making this up, McQueary sending pictures of his penis to a woman, not his wife, over a Penn State phone! The details are <a href="http://www.framingpaterno.com/exclusive-mike-mcqueary-sent-pictures-his-penis-joe-amendolas-former-fiance-nsfw">here</a>, including the pictures!<br />
<br />
Now, about the Penn State investigation of Michael Mann, while I was arguing in the comments of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/RSR2COKLLA7WV/ref=cm_cr_getr_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0231177860">an Amazon review</a>, Jonathan Koomey dropped this <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/much-vindicated-michael-mann-and-hockey-stick-get-final-exoneration-from-penn-state-time-for-some-de0651094784/#.lnktt4bur">link</a> to a <i>Think Progress</i> post by Joe Romm, with the hilarious title, <i>Much-vindicated Michael Mann and Hockey Stick get final exoneration from Penn State — time for some major media apologies and retractions. </i>They supposedly found no substance to these two allegations:<br />
<br />
> “Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to suppress or falsify data? “<br />
<br />
> “Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones?”<br />
<br />
As to the first one, right after McIntyre and McKitrick published their first paper, Mann said the data they used (which he sent them) was wrong. He also lied that it had been requested in the form of a spreadsheet. Email records showed this was a lie. He later repeated this lie to ...the Penn State inquiry! See this <a href="http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/looks-like-steynnrceisimberg-dont-get-their-anti-slap-dismissal/#comment-123164">comment</a> by Steve McIntyre.<br />
<br />
As to the second, Phil Jones email about "deleting emails" was sent to Mann. In it he asked Mann to tell Eugene Wahl to do the same. Mann actually made a reply that included, “I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP”. Wahl was never interviewed by the PSU inquiry, but he "later testified to a federal inspector general that he did receive Mann’s message and complied".<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/06/28/michael-mann-and-the-climategate-whitewash-part-one/">http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/06/28/michael-mann-and-the-climategate-whitewash-part-one/</a><br />
<br />
Well, at least in the Mann investigation, Penn State was looking after its own interest. As Pat Michaels said in <a href="http://industrialprogress.com/power-hour-patrick-michaels-on-global-warming-and-the-ipcc/">this podcast interview</a> with Alex Epstein:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"And why was Mann exonerated? Mann was exonerated according to Penn State because he gets a lot of government money, so therefore he must be OK. That was basically what they said. ... Alex, I'm not smart enough to make that up. Just ask the other guys."</blockquote>
In the Sandusky case, they paid on the order of $100 million in settlements to about thirty former Second Mile kids. If you think this large number of claimed victims means Sandusky must be guilty, note that between the first Grande Jury, which refused to indict and the one where the lurid presentment was leaked, there were only a few, and police were interviewing hundreds of Second Mile kids without success. After that presentment misrepresented McQueary seeing sex in the shower, it was the lawyers who were trolling Second Mile kids. And besides the settlements, Penn State paid tens of millions in fines and penalties. Altogether, it has cost them <a href="http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2685735-jerry-sandusky-scandal-has-cost-penn-state-237-million">over $200 million</a>.<br />
<br />
To finish, I'll just say that the links at <a href="http://and%20why%20was%20mann%20exonerated/?%20Mann%20was%20exonerated%20according%20to%20Penn%20State%20because%20he%20gets%20a%20lot%20of%20government%20money,%20so%20therefore%20he%20must%20be%20OK.%20That%20was%20basically%20what%20they%20said.%20...%20Alex,%20I%27m%20not%20smart%20enough%20to%20make%20that%20up.%20Just%20ask%20the%20other%20guys.">Framing Paterno dot com</a> make for fascinating reading, viewing and listening. I find Ziegler's case completely believable.<br />
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />Mike Dombroskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14722885486530482844noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5819825030158137022.post-32720709598330026202018-02-02T11:36:00.000-08:002018-02-02T11:36:46.083-08:00Twitter EtiquetteWell, I'm learning a lot about Twitter etiquette. I wanted to make a lot of climate bloggers and commentators aware of how what everybody thinks they know about the Penn State scandal is likely wrong, and how it might be related to the climate conversation. So I tweeted my <a href="http://canmancannedfacts.blogspot.com/2018/02/climate-change-and-jerry-sandusky.html">post</a> out with as many Twitter names as I could fit per tweet. When one of these tweets got some responses, it produced a lot of static (tweets to wade through) for the rest of the people listed on the tweet. From now on I'll use single tweets or small specifically targeted groupings. Using a lot of names in one tweet is lazy.<br />
<br />
A couple people pointed out how to mute the conversation. I've also just found out you can mouse over the names in a reply, and it will let you click for a full check off list. I should probably mention that I never use the Twitter app or home page. I can never keep up. I prefer go through bookmarked Twitter profiles in a browser.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
I'll also mention that I did start this blog mostly because I wanted to have a place that was separate from my other blogs to write about the Penn State scandal and how it relates to the climate conversation. I didn't mention it in my <a href="http://canmancannedfacts.blogspot.com/2018/01/introductory-post.html">introductory post</a>, and perhaps, should have. If you think Jerry Sandusky might be innocent, this becomes a very sensitive and emotional subject and I don't know what kind of reaction I'm going to get. The <a href="https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/trial-by-therapy-jerry-sandusky-case-revisited/">review</a> at <a href="https://www.skeptic.com/">Skeptic.com</a>, where I first found out about this story, included a disclaimer. When I wrote an <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/review/R162B191ILEZ7T?ref_=glimp_1rv_cl">Amazon review</a> of the book, Amazon had it hidden from my profile as sensitive. The Washington Post just ran a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/sports/penn-state-six-years-after-sandusky-scandal/?utm_term=.32716f3c623c">retrospective piece</a>, where the reporter who wrote it, was in touch with John Ziegler, yet made no mention of him or Mark Pendergrast's new book! So far, I've just found out how obscure a really am, so I'll dispense with total comment moderation.<br />
<br />
Right now I'm totally engrossed in this story. I don't think it can stay hidden in plain sight forever. I mean it is the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Cooke">Janet Cooke story</a> on steroids. I think there is a lot of potential for it to break. There's a new <a href="http://smokeroom.com/2018/01/20/al-pacino-joe-paterno-hbo-teaser/?utm_campaign=atdailycaller&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social">HBO movie</a> coming out with Al Pacino as Paterno. I've heard Ziegler mention in a podcast that he's working on a new project and that a crime writer is working on a book. If this story breaks, I'd like to see that the climate blogosphere got in early and wasn't fooled.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Mike Dombroskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14722885486530482844noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5819825030158137022.post-69340280093589853452018-02-01T12:28:00.000-08:002018-02-01T12:28:03.802-08:00Climate Change and Jerry SanduskyWhat does Jerry Sandusky have to do with Climate Change? Well, on a very tangential level, Rand Simberg called Michael Mann the "<a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/309442/football-and-hockey-mark-steyn">Jerry Sandusky of climate science</a>". In the wake of the Sandusky scandal, Penn State president, Graham Spanier was convicted of child endangerment. Michael Mann touts a letter of support he got from Spanier in his book, <i>The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars</i>, as I have snickeringly pointed out in a <a href="https://rabett.blogspot.ca/2014/01/mann-vs-steyn-lurches-forward.html?commentPage=2">blog comment thread</a>. Well I've just run across one of the most astounding stories I've ever read and it's been hiding right in plain sight!<br />
<br />
At Michael Shermer's site for his <i>Skeptic </i>magazine, I ran across a <a href="https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/trial-by-therapy-jerry-sandusky-case-revisited/">review</a> of a new <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Most-Hated-Man-America-Sandusky/dp/162006765X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1516404113&sr=8-1&keywords=mark+pendergrast">book</a> by a very respectable science writer named Mark Pendergrast. It is entitled, <i>The Most Hated Man in America -- Jerry Sandusky and the Rush to Judgement,</i> in which he argues that Sandusky is most likely innocent! Now this is a very sensitive subject and Shermer even included a disclaimer for the review. Some prominent skeptic movement skeptics, such as <a href="https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2018/01/07/was-jerry-sandusky-the-most-hated-man-in-america-guilty-of-sexual-child-abuse/">Jerry Coyne</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/danieldennett/status/949675380524355584">Danial Dennet</a> have commented on it. It's also gotten some derision, most notably in a <a href="https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2018/01/06/skeptic-magazine-rots-from-the-head/">couple</a> <a href="https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2018/01/08/hard-to-believe-the-attempt-to-vindicate-sandusky-retroactively-continues/">posts</a> by PZ Myers.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
The review notes that repressed memory was involved. The book is endorsed by repressed memory expert, Elizabeth Loftus. Pendergrast has written past books on repressed memory, and he has a new companion book entitled, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Memory-Warp-Repressed-Arose-Refuses/dp/0942679415/ref=pd_sim_14_1?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0942679415&pd_rd_r=JGYS7XCF7W643KSXW9DK&pd_rd_w=k0vIT&pd_rd_wg=BqY7G&psc=1&refRID=JGYS7XCF7W643KSXW9DK">Memory Warp</a>.<br />
<br />
Now I'm going to have to say that maybe I'm being fooled (wouldn't be the first time and most likely not the last). A lot of Pendergrast's research comes from John Ziegler. He's a commentator, filmmaker and former talk show host. He has a <a href="http://www.framingpaterno.com/">website</a> called <i>Framing Paterno. </i>He's a serious journalist (I think an underrated one). He's interviewed Sarah Palin, been on the <i>Today Show, </i>MSNBC and such. He's conservative/libertarian. He appears to be a never Trumper and to dislike FOX news. Pendergrast notes in his chapter on Ziegler, that his interest in this case has negatively affected his career. Ziegler started out believing Sandusky was guilty, but that Paterno was innocent. After doing a startling amount of research, he's concluded that Sandusky is also innocent. He's documented it all in a huge amount of posts, podcasts and videos. If you like crime shows and miss <i>Breaking Bad,</i> I think you'll find them more interesting than the current fare on TV.<br />
<br />
One blogger I tweeted to, <a href="https://twitter.com/Corpus_no_Logos/status/955236824930140160">said</a> it looked like a conspiracy site and it does with a lot of caps and font coloring. But what would you expect such a site to look like? He has a somewhat boisterous style and when he's agitated, he can sound like Gilbert Gottfried (especially on just audio). But he also comes across as very knowledgeable and I don't think anyone would doubt his sincerity. And if there's one thing more certain than his sincerity, it's the huge volume of shoe leather he's put into this case.<br />
<br />
I'm not going to summarize the case, since I've provided links that can do it better than I ever could. But since this is a blog about facts that get canned by the mainstream media, I am going to provide a list of facts (many unreported or under reported) about the best known episode -- the boy Mike McQueary saw in the shower:<br />
<br />
> Grand jury testimony is secret. We don't know exactly what McQueary said.<br />
<br />
> All accounts say that McQueary heard slapping sounds that sounded sexual.<br />
<br />
> A man named Allen Myers, claimed to be the boy in the shower. He was in his early to mid twenties, had been married, and had been a sergeant in the marines.<br />
<br />
> Jerry Sandusky agreed that that was who it was.<br />
<br />
> Myers and Sandusky both say they were either snapping towels or slap boxing and that nothing sexual was going on.<br />
<br />
> Meyers wrote a letter to a newspaper in his own name supporting Sandusky and saying that police were pressuring him to make accusations.<br />
<br />
> Sandusky went to Myers wedding.<br />
<br />
> Myers submitted a sworn statement to the Pennsylvania state police that he was not abused.<br />
<br />
> Myers was represented by lawyer Andrew Shubin.<br />
<br />
> Shubin represented Myers on a DUI case.<br />
<br />
> Shubin represented other Second Mile clients.<br />
<br />
> Myers did not testify in Sandusky's trial.<br />
<br />
> Meyers' name was not revealed in Sandusky's trial.<br />
<br />
> Sandusky was charged and acquitted of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse in this shower incident.<br />
<br />
> Sandusky was found guilty on four other charges in this shower incident -- indecent assault, unlawful contact with a minor, corruption of minors and endangering a child's welfare.<br />
<br />
> Myers and other Second Mile clients of Shubin got settlements.<br />
<br />
I strongly urge readers to visit Ziegler's site and watch some of his videos or listen to some of his podcasts. There are many other startling facts about the whole Penn State scandal.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>What's all this got to do with climate change?</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
In addition to what I noted at the start of this post, I think there are similarities to the plight of John Ziegler and climate bloggers. As Matt Ridley said in his great <a href="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/01/thank-you-matt-ridley/">Angus Miller lecture</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
By contrast scientists and most mainstream journalists risk their careers if they take a skeptical line, so dogmatic is the consensus view. It is left to the blogosphere to keep the flame of heresy alive and do the investigative reporting the media has forgotten how to do. In America*, Anthony Watts who crowd-sourced the errors in the siting of thermometers and runs wattsupwiththat.com;</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In Canada*, Steve McIntyre, the mathematician who bit by bit exposed the shocking story of the hockey stick and runs climateaudit.org.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Here in Britain,* Andrew Montford, who dissected the shenanigans behind the climategate whitewash enquiries and runs bishop-hill.net.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In Australia*, Joanne Nova, the former television science presenter who has pieced together the enormous sums of money that go to support vested interests in alarm, and runs joannenova.com.au.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The remarkable thing about the heretics I have mentioned is that every single one is doing this in his or her spare time. They work for themselves, they earn a pittance from this work. There is no great fossil-fuel slush fund for sceptics.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Ridley's lecture is about as old as the grand jury presentment, which started all the Penn State hysteria, but it's still well worth reading or rereading. To all you climate geeks and bloggers -- if they can do this to Penn State, Joe Paterno, Graham Spanier and a perhaps innocent Sandusky, think of what they can do to us!<br />
<br />
On a final note, I'll just say that I know that the case of Sandusky is a very emotional issue and that his showering with second mile kids was inappropriate in this day and age, but Pendergrast and Ziegler have uncovered a lot of surprising facts about him. I urge you to read about some of them and if you can refute them, please do!<br />
<br />
<b>[Note: Because of the sensitive subject, I'm moderating all comments]</b><br />
<br />Mike Dombroskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14722885486530482844noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5819825030158137022.post-8400859406482129812018-01-29T07:10:00.001-08:002023-03-01T07:06:23.871-08:00Introductory Post<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed; everything else is public relations." </i>-- version of quote of unknown origin</blockquote>
I'm very interested in climate and energy issues and have been commenting on them for over half a decade in various forums using the handle, Canman. On climate, I have a lukewarmer view, and on energy I advocate for nuclear power and express skepticism of so called renewables. I have a couple of tiny blogs. One is called<i> <a href="https://canmane.wordpress.com/">Canman Climatology</a>,</i> where I explore offbeat ideas. The other is <a href="http://canmancannedcomments.blogspot.com/"><i>Canman Canned Comments</i></a>, where I write about some of my misadventures with comment moderation.<br />
<br />
In this day and age there is a lot of talk about fake news and fake facts. This has got me to thinking about something similar. A lot of things that appear to be pertinent, verifiable facts are often ignored or omitted. This happens not only in blog posts and news stories but also in official reports and investigations. The reason that a fact is omitted is that it does not fit the narrative that is being conveyed. There can be many motivations behind this. It can be deliberate deception, perhaps a half truth. A fact can be thought to be insignificant, irrelevant or simply not believed. Confirmation bias is something that probably all individuals are subject to. It should be obvious that it can become institutionalized and effect official reports. On the issue of climate, I have found a lot of these ignored facts in two subtopics: Michael Mann's hockey stick graph and Climategate.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
While reading through various comment threads in blogs, I would often run across very heated exchanges about the hockey stick. I never gave them that much thought. The main comeback to criticisms of the hockey stick was that there were now a whole bunch of other hockey sticks and it sounded reasonable to me. It also looked like a really boring subject to go into. When Climategate happened, I was just getting started commenting on blogs and the details looked really arcane, so I didn't pay that much attention to it. One thing I did notice was that it was being taken seriously by what I thought were a lot of very smart people. Two of them made a big impression on me.<br />
<br />
The first was Matt Ridley with his <a href="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/01/thank-you-matt-ridley/">Angus Miller Lecture</a>. In it, he talks about the book, <i>The Hockey Stick Illusion </i>by Andrew Montford. He described it as "the moment somebody told me they had made the crop circle the night before". I made a mental note to read it sometime.<br />
<br />
The other was <a href="https://judithcurry.com/2010/09/30/frames-and-narrative-in-climate-science/#comment-4401">this long comment</a> by Willis Eschenbach at Judith Curry's <a href="https://judithcurry.com/">Climate Etc.</a> Here's a few excerpts:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
... </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The problem with claiming the “framing and narrative of the overall scientific argument” is the “main problem” is that it missies the real main problem. The main problem is that far too many AGW supporting climate scientists have lied, cheated, concealed data, massaged data, “hid the decline”, used “Mikes Nature trick”, conspired to successfully subvert the IPCC process, worked to prevent opposing scientific views from being published, made foolish mathematical mistakes and then lied about them, hidden adverse results, claimed that they were the victims of “anti-science witch-hunts”, exaggerated their findings. Meanwhile, the rest of the AGW scientists are pretending to be deaf, dumb, and blind to the transgressions … and you think the “main problem” is how the evidence and arguments are presented? Really?</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
...</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Incompetence? I would welcome incompetence on the part of climate scientists. Instead, we have malfeasance and illegal avoidance of FOI requests. The problem is not that climate is complex. Many of the systems studied by scientists are complex.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br /></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The problem is that far too many people on your side of the fence are outright crooks, and y’all refuse to disown them. ...</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
...</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
For example, it doesn’t matter how well you frame the IPCC assessment reports. An organization that allows Michael Mann to promote his knowingly fraudulent “Hockeystick” and allows the resurrection of the “<a href="http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html">Jesus Paper</a>” is a corrupt, politicized organization, and people have noticed that.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
...</blockquote>
</blockquote>
At the time, I wasn't all that well versed in climate jargon so I couldn't really follow the "Jesus Paper" post. Since then another event finally sparked me to follow up on all this. Michael Mann sued Mark Steyn for referring to his hockey stick as "fraudulent" in an editorial blog post for an opinion magazine! I found this to be disturbing. This was the first I had ever noticed of Steyn and he turned out to be a very good writer. This inspired me to learn more about these issues. Through books, blog posts, articles and even an occasional scientific paper, I've become fairly well versed in the issues of the hockey stick and Climategate, and I often argue about them in blog comments. Here's some links I consider to be classics:<br />
<br />
> <a href="http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html">Caspar and the Jesus paper</a> -- The definitive summary of <a href="https://climateaudit.org/">Climate Audit</a>.<br />
<br />
> <a href="https://climateaudit.org/2008/08/08/caspar-ammann-texas-sharpshooter/">Caspar Ammann Texas Sharpshooter</a> -- Exhibit number one of how bad climate science can get.<br />
<br />
> <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/comment-page-4/#comment-181895">Judith Curry's Comment with Gavin's Inline Responses</a> -- I picture Julianne Moore from the movie, <i>Hannibal,</i> and Joe Pantoliano from just about any role he has ever played.<br />
<br />
> <a href="https://climateaudit.org/2010/07/25/the-team-defends-paleo-phrenology/">The Team Defends Paleo-Phrenology</a> -- Just for the title.<br />
<br />
> <a href="https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/11/08/hello-stan-palmer/">Hello, Stan Palmer</a> -- The reaction of <a href="https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/">Pharyngula</a>, probably the most popular science blog at the time.<br />
<br />
> <a href="https://climateaudit.org/2008/09/08/ian-jolliffe-comments-at-tamino/">Ian Jolliffe Comments at Tamino</a> -- Renowned expert on Mann's PCA.<br />
<br />
> <a href="http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/looks-like-steynnrceisimberg-dont-get-their-anti-slap-dismissal/#comment-123101">Steve McIntyre's comment on R Squared</a> -- The NAS Panel lets Mann skate on R squared.<div><br /></div><div><div><b>>[edited to include this link 3-2-23]</b> <a href="https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/the-case-against-the-hockey-stick">The case against the hockey stick</a> -- Matt Ridley's review of <i>The Hockey Stick Illusion</i>.</div><div><br />
<br />
The blogosphere is an amazing resource where people can discus facts that are ignored by the regular media and institutions. Past archives are at your fingertips. I think it is a precious thing that we shouldn't take for granted.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div></div>Mike Dombroskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14722885486530482844noreply@blogger.com0