One of the fun things about BGGcon (actually, they were all fun things, but allow me a literary meme if you will..) is the ability to demo games (although, in a later episode, we will see that that can be a drawback as well..)

Continue Reading »

It really is impossible to send out an announcement to members about a facebook page without either completely disenfranchising most of your older members or completely patronizing your younger ones. See, this is the fun stuff we spend time on in the Association world. I think I settled on a tone somewhat akin to the stentorian narration of newsreel documentaries from the 30s. Thanks RADAR!

To actually add some value to this post, if you are interested in email marketing and mass communication (especially in the non-profit world – sorry, Bradley) there are some really interesting resources out there. NTEN, the Nonprofit Technology Network, Netwits ThinkTank and the ASAE being a few of my personal favorites.

The Big Money, Slate's companion site about financial issues, is currently running an article about a crackdown on "farms" that claim tax subsidies despite a lack of farming. It is a decent article but not one that I would send anyone off to read. The article hints that there are some interesting underlying complexities that it doesn't explore in depth and it doesn't make fun of Dan Rather even once.

I highlight this article because it is broken up into two pages. Page two is here. You don't have to follow that link, though, because I will reproduce page two in its entirety right here at Popehat:

I wonder how widespread that problem is across the country.

That's it. You click through to the second page and find that the article, which, come to think of it did seem finished, was finished.

I'm sure there is an ad-revenue optimizing reason for this but that is hardly a reasonable explanation. You may as well put an extra page on every article that has only Forrest Gump's assertion "And that's all I have to say about that."

My world has been rocked by the admission that Steven Seagal is a genuine sheriff's deputy in Jefferson Parish Louisiana, and has been (heh) for 20 years. Wait, what? How did I not know this? Was this common knowledge, and I was just in the dark?

Can you imagine being pulled over by Steven Seagal? I wonder if uses the same stilted delivery in issuing tickets as he did in every Under Siege movie?

This was a great way to start my Wednesday!

Though this is not a legal blog, we do from time to time to provide valuable services to the legal community, such as education.  One of our favorite educational topics is the importance of marketing oneself on the internet responsibly.  For instance, don't spam weblogs. In the case of attorneys who spam, we try to educate them by naming them, so that they can see their names through a Google or Yahoo search, branded as spammers.

Often these attorneys don't know the internet from a hole in the ground.  They've hired a marketing company, which claims it can bring them the top ranking on a search for, say, "Seattle Personal Injury Lawyer" and they don't ask questions about how that will be done.  How it's done is by automated spamming of weblogs, internet forums, and other sites with some focus on law.  For instance, "Seattle Personal Injury Lawyer" or "Seattle Criminal Lawyer" will post a bland blog comment along the lines of

Really enjoyed reading your blog post.  I will have to bookmark your site for later.

or

Great post about the law. I found it to be very useful. I will have to bookmark your site for future reading.

with a "trackback" link to the spammer's firm website, in hopes of gaining Google mojo through the magic of page rank.  Of course the attorney has never read, or probably even heard of, the blog in question.  It's all automated.

Here's where the service comes in.  When we name spamming attorneys, we suspect they'll find the post sooner or later, and ask that it be removed.  After all, who wants to be known across the entire internet as a spammer?  Some, such as Denver attorney Steven Hill of Ticketvoid, demand removal or are otherwise unrepentant.  Others realize something's wrong, apologize, and promise to correct their errors.  For these folks, we're happy to help.  We've removed such posts from public view, or removed the offenders' names from the post, when convinced of their sincerity.

One of the firms for which we did that was the law offices of Bradley Johnson, Seattle criminal and personal injury attorney, just 17 days ago, when a representative of Johnson's office contacted us to request we remove a post naming Johnson as a spammer, and explaining that it was all a misunderstanding caused by an overzealous marketer. After an email exchange, we got an apology, and a promise not to spam again.

Bradley Johnson has a nice smile!

So imagine our distress on reading this post at Crime and Federalism.

Evidently Bradley Johnson is a really great lawyer. He found a loophole.  Where we'd been complaining about his spam under the monicker, "Seattle Personal Injury Lawyer," we never asked him not to spam under the name, "Seattle Criminal Lawyer."  So like suckers, we took down our post.  Well it's back now and it will stay.  Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.

So here's my bet, Bradley Johnson.  Since you evidently have so much faith in "black" search engine optimization that you're going to allow your marketer to keep spamming law blogs and not-quite-law blogs, I'll bet you that Crime and Federalism's post naming you a spammer is about to hit page one of a Google search for you, and will stay there for a long time.

We can name the stakes later.

UPDATE: Reader Bennett Michaels, who has never previously graced us with a comment, but who does sell a "money making program through Google by working just 3-4 hours a week", a "money making program that forces money directly out of the internet into your bank account" gives this pertinent observation:

Patrick you are a real a-hole. Why not grow up a little and just not approve the comment like the rest of the world?

He's assessed my character correctly.  My response:

Because I’m tired of people thinking they can shit all over my blog to promote their business Bennett, and I’m especially tired of lawyers doing it. I have to read all of the spam (hundreds a day) because sometimes legitimate comments get caught in the filters.

It isn’t Bradley Johnson’s site. It isn’t your site. It’s mine. And anyone who spams it risks being named if I can identify him.

There is a simple solution to avoid this situation.  Don't leave spam comments.  Don't hire spam marketers.  I don't leave my business cards in other lawyers' lobbies.  Why should lawyers think they can leave their business cards on my website?

If one is inclined to complain, there are many, many things to complain about in our society. For instance, I could write nine or ten paragraphs about ABC's "Find My Family" as a sign of the apocalypse, and how I had to go lie down to stop myself from putting a fist through the wall after three minutes of it. And wives — too many wives forbid husbands to deep-fry the Thanksgiving turkey, even though husbands have achieved a reasonably high level of certainty that the deep-frying can be done without life-threatening injuries. And Mr. Salty Pretzels, which had the precisely, exquisitely perfect balance of pretzel and salt, and just the right texture. Why did those bastards at Nabisco stop making them? Was it because it is so very dangerous to Google image search "Mr. Salty?" I just don't know.

So what I'm saying is that there are a kajillion things you could get upset about. So explain it to me, in short words so that I can understand it — why in the name of that is tender and mild are you so upset that the local K-Mart hasn't festooned every single fucking thing in the store with big neon "CHRISTMAS!!!" labels before anyone's even had a chance to haul the turkey carcas to the curb?

I ask because somebody's created a web site to gather intel to support Christmas. Christmas, you may have heard, is under siege by the dark armies of the Left who are devoted to arresting you if you breathe "Merry Christmas" in public. Or something. Anyway, one grim signifier of the War on Christmas is that some stores — now, you better sit down, this may upset you — didn't have explicitly pro-Christmas decorations up on Black Friday. It's exactly people like that what killed Jesus. Thank goodness that the good folks at StandForChristmas.com are here to meticulously document the Commercial Grinches, those Nabobs of Noel, those Quislings of the Season.

StandforChristmas.com gathers your input about your shopping and advertisement-consuming experiences and compiles your ratings of various retailers. Retailers are rated as Christmas-friendly, Christmas-negligent, or Christmas-offensive. There's no category for Christmas-reckless or Christmas-grossly-negligent or Christmas-strict-liability, though perhaps there should be. What kind of things gets a store on the naughty list? Well, surf over and have a gander:

First thing I notice is that they are only playing non-Christian Christmas songs (Jingle Bells, etc.). Unacceptable. I ask a clerk, "What is the reason for the season?" and I get back "What?". I buy a shirt and when they ask me what kind of wrapping paper, I reply that I want nativity paper or something showing the baby Jesus. They say they only have snowflakes and snowmen and green/red paper. What does green and red have to do with JESUS?

When I paid for my Christmas shopping, I said, "Thank you and have a Merry Christmas!" To which the cashier simply said you too.

I absolutely hate the tv ad that lumps the wiccan holiday of solstice and an agnostic holiday Kwanzaa into the mix of Christmas and Hanukkah. They have lost my business forever. There are too many choices of where to purchase and I will only support business that support our country's founding ideals of Judea Christian values and holidays.

. . . and so on. Pause for a moment to thank God that you are not a retail clerk, faced with people who think that retail clerks are responsible for a store's marketing policies.

You know, I normally associate the religious/social/political Right with people who oppose, and criticize, political correctness. But what is this campaign to defend Christmas, if not an campaign against politically incorrect expression? Is the customer who gets shirty when wished "Merry Christmas" any different — or worse — that the customer who gets shirty because the clerk says "you too" when wished "Merry Christmas?" Is the guy who meticulously counts the number of uses of "Christmas" on a store's web site any different than the guy who meticulously counts the numbers of Asians or women in the store's advertisements to determine adequate diversity?

I love Christmas. I love listening to Handel's Messiah and a CD of Pavarotti singing traditional (religious) Christmas music. I love Christmas Eve service at my church, and paid a ridiculous amount at a fund-raiser for a reserved pew for that service.

But I can't fathom the knuckle-rapping spirit that seeks to enforce Christmas orthodoxy upon civil society at large. I find it annoying enough that there are any Christmas decorations up a month in advance at the stores, never mind whether they are secular or religious. How does it diminish my enjoyment of Christmas if someone says "Happy Holidays" to me — unless I am the sort of person who is offended that some people think differently than I do? So long as I keep Christmas well, why should I care about whether the guy who sells me socks keeps it well?

I'm also suspicious of the notion that retailers are suppressing Christmas and promoting secularism for some evil social purpose. I suspect that retailers, in interacting with the public, are doing things that they believe will make the most money. Can Christians vote with their feet, just like any other consumers? Of course. That's part of free speech. But I think there is a level of unbecoming paranoia in the "War on Christmas" hand-wringing about exactly what words stores use in their advertisements. Accusing stores of being deliberately anti-Christian strikes me as more inquisitorial than rational.

Moreover, I think that the vocal defenders of Christmas and critics of "Happy Holidays" are actually undermining their ostensible point — that Christmas is about Christ, not about presents. To some of us, Christmas is about Christ. But Christmas shopping simply is not. Christmas shopping is a cultural gloss that we have imposed upon the Christmas season, and that has voraciously consumed more and more of our thoughts during the season. As a parent, I know how hard it is to focus kids on the advent of Jesus rather than the toys they will be getting. Why, if people are sincerely interested in the religious message of Christmas, are they insisting that Christ and shopping be as intertwined as possible? Why isn't it a good thing for faith that retailers, through secular Santa symbols and "happy holidays" wishes, promote a chasm between the secular orgy of things and the religious celebration of faith? The current arrangement allows offensive inanities like Bill O'Reilly proclaiming that we must win the War on Christmas because Jesus wants people to spend money.

I'll answer my own question. I think that people want to police retailers for apostasy because the War on Christmas is about promotion of cultural and social dominance by a select group, not about promoting genuine faith. Having Target or K-Mart stick labels saying "Christmas!!" on every damn thing does not signify that Christ holds sway there — it signifies that the social/cultural/religious right holds sway. Hence the proclamation, featured so often in complaints on StandforChristmas.com, that "this is a Christian nation." The message is not of peace on Earth and goodwill towards men — the message is "WE belong — you don't."

Despite the fact that I frequently violate it, I've always been fond of the Third Commandment. And I know that it means more than not incorporating God's name into creative swearing. I've always understood it to mean that we ought not invoke the name of God for our own crass purposes. When Christ's name — and the holiday that celebrates His birth — is treated like a rallying cry to promote cultural orthodoxy, I think that the spirit of the Third Commandment is violated. I just can't fathom that Jesus wants anyone cursing our neighbors for failing to put Him on wrapping paper.

When I was growing up, I had the world's most kick-ass doctor. He made house calls. He could explain to a child or a parent exactly what was wrong and how medicine would help in words that both child and parent would understand and appreciate. He was always on the razor's edge of state of the art meds and techniques. He was friendly but firm and decisive. In his spare time, he traveled to distant and obscure lands to give free health care to local kids and then search for and photograph rare orchids. Dr. Jack Fowlie looked, and acted, exactly how you wanted your doctor to be.

Because of this, he had an enormous amount of influence over me. It would have been childishly simple for him to abuse that influence — to abuse that level of trust that he earned, and my dependence on his judgment — to indoctrinate me with ideas unrelated to my treatment.

Some folks see that as a feature, not as a bug.

England brings us the latest round of let's-use-doctors-to-push-our-social-agenda nanny-statism. Via Nobody's Business, I see that something called the "Climate and Health Council" wants doctors to talk to patients about the health dangers of global warming.

They believe that offering patients advice on how to lower their carbon footprint can be just as easy and achievable as helping them to stop smoking or eat a healthier diet.

. . . .

"Overall, what is good for tackling climate change is good for health. Who better to spell out this message than health professionals? "We have the evidence, a good story to tell that dramatically shifts the lens through which climate change is perceived, and we have public trust."

He said the health service was often “muted” on the subject of climate change and needed to make its voice heard more.

He added: "To maximise our influence, we must be much clearer than we have been to the public, to patients, and to politicians about the risks of doing nothing and the benefits to individual and global health of effective action."

Does the climate impact everyone's health? Certainly. So do a thousand other social and political issues that impact us as a society. If you accept the premise that doctors should lobby us all on global warming, there's no reason they shouldn't lobby us all on war, and government spending on research and health care, and education, and stem cell research, and any number of other things. Before long, a visit to your doctor will be like that endless Thanksgiving dinner with that uncle who got a tattoo of Glenn Beck, or the cousin who won't speak to you because you refused to serve tofurkey.

We've slowly ramped up to such pestering. First we made doctors report all injuries resulting from violent crime. Then we started passing laws making them mandated reporters of types of violent crimes that are of preeminent on our social agendas, such as domestic violence. Then some political groups began to lobby to have doctors interrogate patients about handgun ownership. And, of course, the state can't allow your doctor to assist you to the extent his or her views of pain relief diverge from the received wisdom of the Great War on Drugs.

In short, we've slowly letting the government and various busybody groups wield increasing influence over the conduct of the doctor-patient relationship. That relationship — like the attorney-client relationship — is fundamental to freedom and autonomy. Your doctor is supposed to be looking out for your best interests, not the relatively nebulous best interests of society as a whole. Sometimes you don't like your doctor's advice — and that's fine. But you shouldn't have to be worrying that a doctor's advice is governed by a political and social agenda imposed upon him or her from some interest group.

Could some Swiftian good come from California's ridiculous ballot procedure? A Sacramento man wants to put an initiative on the ballot to ban divorce to protect the sanctity of marriage. It's a nice shot at the yahoos behind Proposition 8.

John Marcotte is behind the idea, and is currently seeking signers for petitions to get the initiative on the ballot. If I see one of those, I will sign it in a second!

His symbol is a bride & groom stick figure chained at the wrist, which is brilliant, and his website is full of fun stuff. Definitely worth checking out. I especialy enjoyed the brief piece he did on China's brief efforts to ban divorce.

This is a money quote to me: "Since California has decided to protect traditional marriage, I think it would be hypocritical of us not to sacrifice some of our own rights to protect traditional marriage even more," the 38-year-old married father of two said.