I wrote a couple of posts last week that didn’t quite make it here to be published. I’ve published them and put the original dates on them because they had relative references to dates (today, yesterday, etc.).

Sorry for any confusion – I just didn’t want anyone to think I was being dishonest and trying to make it look like I was doing more blogging than I had actually been doing.

A questionable election in Iran leads to protests which are mostly peaceful on the part of the protesters and which are responded to with brutal oppressive violence by the government. President Obama’s response is… lukewarm, to say the least. He straddled the fence for days, saying that he supported the “debate” that was going on, before finally protesting the regime’s actions in the weakest terms possible (and even that was apparently only due to the amount of pressure he was getting).

Then, this weekend, the elected President of Honduras wanted that country’s Constitution rewritten so he could serve another term. The Honduran Congress declined to do so, so the President took matters into his own hands, despite multiple Supreme Court rulings that what he was doing was illegal. When the military removed him from office and instated the man who was Constitutionally his successor, President Obama, joined by famed human rights stawarts such as Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, denounced the “military coup.”

On second thought, I guess President Obama’s positions are consistent. He consistently sides with oppressive governments and dictators and, more importantly, against the will of The People. I don’t like it, but it’s not confusing.

I feel kind of silly writing about this, considering the kind of bravery we’ve seen from the Iranian people, who have been standing up to their government against much harsher threats than anything I’d ever face. Still, I think it’s important enough to mention this story.

What some fail to realize, though, is that such reviews can be tainted: Many bloggers have accepted perks such as free laptops, trips to Europe, $500 gift cards or even thousands of dollars for a 200-word post. Bloggers vary in how they disclose such freebies, if they do so at all.

The practice has grown to the degree that the Federal Trade Commission is paying attention. New guidelines, expected to be approved late this summer with possible modifications, would clarify that the agency can go after bloggers — as well as the companies that compensate them — for any false claims or failure to disclose conflicts of interest.

It would be the first time the FTC tries to patrol systematically what bloggers say and do online. The common practice of posting a graphical ad or a link to an online retailer — and getting commissions for any sales from it — would be enough to trigger oversight.

I found that story because of this one, on Outside the Beltway. The author, James Joyner, closes the post (well, technically, he closes the update to the post) with the following statement: “If a blogger engages in payola, though, the penalty should be exposure and loss of journalistic credibility, not fines from the FTC.” I agree completely.

I’m fine with that. I believe that it’s horribly unethical to accept money from a company and then push its products without revealing that you have a financial incentive to do so. On the other hand, I don’t see much of a problem at all with talking about a book or movie and then using an affiliate link to Amazon in order to sell it (since you’re not getting paid by Amazon to promote a specific product, just to point sales their way, there’s less of an ethical issue in my mind). I have little interest in becoming an Amazon affiliate, but if this idiotic rule goes into place, I will do so and I will put a link to an Amazon product in every post I write, even if I have to stretch to do so.

The best part of this idiocy is that the rules would be selectively enforced on those of us who share our opinions online. There’s nothing to indicate that I would be subject to any penalties whatsoever if I mentioned to a friend that I really liked my dentist (even if I didn’t tell this hypothetical friend that the aforementioned dentist once sent me a gift basket for a previous referral). Nor is there any talk, as far as I can tell, of looking at government intervention in the “mainstream” media:

As blogging rises in importance and sophistication, it has taken on characteristics of community journalism — but without consensus on the types of ethical practices typically found in traditional media. Journalists who work for newspapers and broadcasters are held accountable by their employers, and they generally cannot receive payments from marketers and must return free products after they finish reviewing them. The blogosphere is quite different. “Rules are set by the individuals who create the blog,” said Lee Rainie, director of the Pew Internet and American Life Project. “Some people will accept payments and free gifts, and some people won’t. There’s no established norm yet.”

Call me paranoid and cynical, but I just see this as a tool that government officials would use to attack bloggers whose opinions bothered them. I don’t really foresee this blog being attacked (see: my near- total lack of readers), but if a blogger spoke out against the administration (either a conservative blogger speaking out against the current administration, or a liberal blogger speaking out against some future administration), is it really unreasonable to think that blog might be more closely scrutinized for potential “payola” offenses? It wouldn’t even matter if they were true. Bloggers aren’t mainstream media, and for the most part, any of us who hit legal expenses from our blog would be on our own to pay them (well, we might find ourselves depending on the kindness of strangers, at least).

Go back and look at the brief quote I borrowed from James Joyner. Supporting a product in exchange for getting paid is generally unethical, and I fully support the idea that the community can expose and punish someone engaging in unethical behavior. I do not support the idea that the government can punish someone for this, and I definitely don’t support the idea of singling out bloggers.

To be Broken, that is…

Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act was presented to the President on June 16th. It has been “on his desk” five days as of 6/21, and according to Robert Gibbs, he will be signing the bill today:

The President will spend the weekend in Washington and has no scheduled public events. On Monday the President will sign the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act in the Rose Garden. On Tuesday the President will meet with the President of Chile at the White House. On Wednesday the President will hold a town hall meeting here at the White House in the East Room on health care, which will be broadcast on ABC during prime time. On Thursday the President –

When President Obama was just Candidate Obama, he promised not only to wait five days before signing any bill into law (which, to be fair, he has done in this particular case, even if his track record is not great on this issue), but to post the bill online. Granted, he never said where it would be available, and it is available on a few websites, but, as far as I can tell, none of those websites have any relationship whatsoever with the President.

This isn’t even a hard promise to keep. Why hasn’t President Obama kept it? (My theory? He said it to get elected, and never really intended to keep it unless he just felt like it. I could be a horrible cynic, though; I just don’t trust politicians.)

I’m a Crybaby

A cartoon made me cry. I’m not ashamed. There were scenes in Up that had me tearing up a bit.

So did this story:

After a family friend made frantic calls to Pixar to help grant Colby her dying wish, Pixar came to the rescue.

The company flew an employee with a DVD of Up, which is only in theaters, to the Curtins’ Huntington Beach home on June 10 for a private viewing of the movie.

Sadly, Colby died only a few hours after seeing the movie.

I’ve always liked Pixar’s movies, and this story just makes me like the company that much more. Every bit of their involvement in this story gives the impression of a compassionate business. They not only let her watch the movie, but brought her a bag of toys and a movie poster. Then they refused comment on the story and would not name the employees involved.

Among the Up memorabilia the employee gave Colby was an “adventure book” – a scrap book the main character’s wife used to chronicle her journeys.

“I’ll have to fill those adventures in for her,” Lisa Curtin said.

The scene near the end of the movie where Carl looks at Ellie’s adventure book again was one of those scenes that brought tears to my eyes when I saw Up. After reading Colby’s story, I imagine that’ll be even more true for future viewings.

Colby’s family will be in my prayers.