Popular right wing blog targets readers with misleading investment "opportunity" in the currency market.
Surf on over to Power Line and you'll see an interesting business opportunity tucked in among the sidebar blogads. BetonIraq.com offers the savvy investor a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to purchase the Iraqi Dinar (IQD) at rock-bottom prices and invest in the future of a free and democratic Iraq at the same time.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Pete Blackwell
Indeed, the irony. This is why I don't have ads on my own site (I don't own Blogcritics, nor do I have any ownership stake in it).
I certainly wish those silly Google ads weren't appearing at the top of this post. I would say that BC.org is as responsible for its ads as Power Line is, and I don't owe anyone an apology.
Of course, the major difference here is that these are fully automated Google ads based on word recognition and Power Line has a huge frickin BetonIraq.com ad in their sidebar. If BC.org had a dinars ad where the Orientalist ad is, then maybe you'd all be justified in your "anger". The owners of this site certainly have a say in what goes there.
What fascinates me is this: In the midst of all your guffawing over the admittedly embarrassing fact of these Google ads, no one has really found time to defend the BetonIraq scam, or Power Line for promoting it. And that's what my article was about, and it stands on its own merits. Want to talk about the BC.org ads? Talk to the site ownership. They're responsible, after all.
27 - mikem
"Talk to the site ownership. They're responsible, after all."
I give you kudos for acknowledging the irony, Pete. But are you claiming to have no role (other than authorship) in your post appearing at Blogcritics (as "m" more directly implies)? You didn't make any effort towards it being posted here? Their "aggregator" just picked it, and your other posts, off the internet as an interesting post?
28 - Pete Blackwell
Oh, no, I have every responsibility in getting published here, I just don't have the ability to weed out fraudulent ads that pop up since I don't have access to edit templates or sidebars. I certainly didn't know that these dumb-ass ads would appear and I feel stupid about it.
Unlike the Power Line guys, I can't control it. I can talk to the BC owner, but that's the best I can do. "M" was basically right except that I did post to BC as a member of the group. It did start out on my little, ad-free blog, where it casts less of a shadow but also leaves less of a stain, if you will.
29 - Christopher Rose
I barely understand the arcane nature of this little squabble but I don't think BC has an aggregator. I'd certainly like to find it if we do!
And what is Power Line? I thought it had something to do with pyramid marketing?
30 - Pete Blackwell
Power Line is the #4 blog in the world, according to the Truth Laid Bear. They are a blog of the right-wing variety and they have minions, can't you see?
31 - Pete Blackwell
To clarify:
Which means they can censor their ads if they so choose. They simply choose not to in this case. John then goes on to say they don't endorse the ads on their site. So what? They're still responsible for what's up there. They own the site.From the Power Line post that brought most of you here:
That's why I don't owe Power Line an apology. I will apologize to readers of this site for writing something that caused dinar ads to pop up on Google ads. If I had my druthers, those ads would be gone.
32 - mikem
Oh come on, Pete. You sign off your post with "I guess they're counting on the fact that a lot of fools read Power Line", and then refer to Powerline readers as minions? As if they (we) are just ass kissing defenders of Powerline and not reacting to your ad hominem? Please.
You were doing so well.
Any comments on the higher percentage of fools who read Blogcritics or your posts that Google is counting on, seeing as how I now count six dinar ads associated with your post? Hmm?
33 - Tryptic
Being a Powerline reader, I think Pete Blackwell took a disingenuous cheap shot with the original post. Confidential to Pete ... stick to bashing them for their content; only a knucklehead would try to smear someone for a blogad.
Like many Powerline readers I am sure, I've not previously been exposed to blogcritics.org. Not sure I care one way or the other to return.
I did read comment #23 and wonder if it's true (it certainly sounds plausible), but here is my question. If Pete Blackwell's original post was cached here and innocently attracted an Iraqi dinar add of its own ... then where and why did that ad just 'poof' disappear? Frankly, sounds a little fishy ...
Insofar as the underlying ad is concerned, folks with $1,000 to burn stand a better chance of getting something for their money than those who sent it to Kerry/Edwards or MoveOn.
34 - Nicelady
Ok veering back to topic, Dinars.
Yeah i bought some dinar but i already knew the risk.
so i hedged my portfolio by setting up funds to enter the Iraqi Stock Market Iraqi Stock Exchange(ISX) to better position my return.
Once the cabinet is elected they complete their foreign investment laws enabling the new electronic exchange due to be operational within the next few months.
Anyone with ME, NA, AP financial research knows that emerging markets have great potential.
so i am either going to make a little or a lot of money.
Did you know that Iraq's honorable Central Bank Governor Sinan Al-Shabibi made a recent announcement?
Iraqi debt bonds are at the highest rate of any emerging economy in history, were just upgraded
?
They have thus far achieved all the mandated International Monetary Funds requirements.
Did you happen to attend the Rebuilding expo 2006?
this is only a tiny sample of my knowledge thru my research for US, Canada, UK and Australia companies...
Iraq has my full support in their journey to success.
35 - Pete Blackwell
The dinar ads were up at the top last time I checked. They didn't "disappear", although I'd like them to.
An ad hominem attack is one that ignores the issues and goes personal instead. My article is about the issues. Speculating that an advertiser is targeting a certain site (or sites) because they think the readers to be fools is not an ad hominem attack. Not even close. It might be false, a prospect I'm always willing to entertain, but it's not unfair.
It's no different from the kinds of dumb-ass adds that litter the lefty sites. I hate them all (the ads, that is), but this one is particularly insidious. To say so is not an ad hominem attack or a "smear". Whether or not I'm a knucklehead is a separate discussion.
36 - Eric Olsen
Pete has nothing to do with Blogcritics advertising policy, so don't blame him.
This is all pretty hilarious: like Power Line (is that a website?), we don't "censor" our ads as they come through Adsense, anyway. We have not accepted Blogads before, but I am sure we would have accepted this one.
Editorial and advertising are separate functions, which is as it should and must be. Sometimes you will have resultant ironies and absurdities. Such is life.
37 - drjohn
Dinars r us too.
What's the frequency, Kenneth?
38 - Specter
What a bunch or MAROONS. Criticizing a blog when you have the same thing....Gaaawwwwwd. Pretty Dumb.
39 - Eric Olsen
this is called irony: it's no reflection on Pete's story, however.
I don't read Power Line - is it a good site?
40 - Dawn
No offense to Pete, but truly PL's ad acceptance policy is no different than BC. Like Eric said we don't sensor Blogads - we just graciously accept their funding.
I don't like PL's tone and inference about Blogcritics readers, or Blogcritics as a whole. Sure it was silly to pick on them for an ad, but political blogs are a dime a dozen. Nothing special there - BC is an entirely different (and better) ballgame.
41 - nonny
Dude ... trolling on your own site?
42 - Leeotis
Guys,
When you get caught with your pants down, you don't do your credibility any good by pretending that you're still fully clothed. Mea culpas really aren't that painful when you compare them to the valid criticism that you continue to receive for refusing to acknowledge an error.
Of course, if you care more about ad hominem attacks on your political opponents than you do about your credibility, then you can ignore this post and continue to come up with artificial distinctions between what you do and what Power Line does.
43 - Tryptic
##36, 39 ... sure it reflects on Pete's story. You yourself said that if this site accepted blogads, it would accept the dinar speculation advertisement. Moreover, the dinar thing appears to be a full court advertising blitz, since it shows up on google ads too. Great.
But Pete wasn't trying to be ironic. He was not trying to be fair. This was no great comment on blogads in general; it was a cheapshot against a site with which he disagrees. And contained therein was a cheap shot against me, as a reader ... being lumped as a 'fool' (see also #35). Great, Pete. Who's the fool now? The guy who gives dinar speculators all sorts of free publicity?
All that being said, good for you for pointing out problems with 'BetonIraq'. That's all well and good. But you could have done it in a way that wasn't personal ... and your protests aside, you went over the top.
44 - Pete Blackwell
My longer-form response to all of this fallout can be found here, for those who are interested.
I disagree with Dawn on this one. A site is responsible for the ads found on it. Period. If BC.org chooses to use Google Ads, so be it. It means they/we are giving a platform to the same unethical ads.
As for the "ad hominem" hooey, give it a rest. I accuse BetonIraq of targeting PL readers because THEY must think you're fools. I never said I thought you were.
Yes, I disagree with much on PL. Respectfully so. I think it's a travesty for them to run this ad. I would say the same thing if BC had a big graphic ad on the sidebar, too. As it stands, I'm not happy with the Google Ads. I'm certainly not happy with the whole "looking like an idiot" angle. Alas.
45 - Phillip Winn
I'm the technical director here, and I'll explain a few things about Blogads and AdSense for those who clearly don't understand what's happening.
BlogAds is a program in which individual advertisers buy ads on individual sites one at a time. Each site has a chance to approve or reject each ad before it runs. Minimum run-time is one week.
Powerline accepted an ad that Pete Blackwell thinks is bad, and he said so. Fine.
AdSense is a different sort of program. Every page on this site has the same AdSense code in place, and Google automatically determines which ads to fill the space in based on the text of each article. We have no control over what AdSense puts there, and it can put something different there for every person based on things like geography and time of day, so we don't even necessarily *know* what they've put there after they've put it there!
For example, someone earlier suggested that we had "removed" AdSense, but in fact that must have just been Google deciding not to show ads to that one person, because we've done nothing to change anything.
There is a distinct difference between BlogAds and AdSense, and there is the delicious irony. Not hypocrisy, mind you, since Pete couldn't possibly have known what ads would appear, but irony. If you had seen an ad matching Powerline's over on our BlogAds sidebar, that would have been hypocrisy. Pete has asked if we can do anything to filter out the dinar ads, and my answers is: Sorry, no. Rather, there is a process to block individual advertisers, but I've never used it and don't know how well it works, and it appears that there is quite a list to block, so I'm not going to try.
I'll let the ads stand as they are and see how many people can identify the difference between irony (the world playing a trick on Pete Blackwell) and hypocrisy (Pete playing a trick on the world).
Sorry, Pete! At least people on this page are warned against clicking on the ads, and they should appear *only* on this page, since only this page has the content to drive AdSense to list those ads.
46 - Pete Blackwell
Phillip, thanks for the important distinction you draw. If there's nothing we can do on these Google ads, there's nothing we can do.
On the plus side, some of these Power Line readers are getting some red meat with their breakfast. Welcome! Check out the site. We're not all liberals cursed by cruel irony.
47 - Teaparty
Soooo...The Powerline ad is bad as opposed to the one here because it has "graphics?"
I hope Blackwell can find peace with his "looking like an itiot angle." If this comment section is any indication, it is one that will return again and again.
48 - Leeotis
Having read your longer piece on your own blog, Pete, I am left with the inescapable conclusion that the only principled thing for you to do at this point is to demand that this blog stop accepting google ads and, if they don't, to withdraw your membership from it. If you don't do that, then you are a hypocrite, and the only conclusion that I can draw on your criticism of PowerLine is that you singled them out because you don't like their politics. That might not be "ad hominem" in the dictionary sense, but it is still hypocritical and leaves you with nary a shred of credibility.
49 - Matthew T. Sussman
"Editorial and advertising are separate functions, which is as it should and must be. Sometimes you will have resultant ironies and absurdities. Such is life."
Since I see this every day at my job, it bears repeating.
50 - Pete Blackwell
Phillip just explained the difference, Teapot.
Leeotis, I singled PL out because that's where I saw the ad. It's neither ad hominem in the dictionary sense or any other sense imaginable.
The owners of a site can do what they want. I can comment on it if I want. It doesn't mean I have to stop reading them or writing for them, even if I disagree with some of their policies. I just won't write any exposes on dwarf sex clubs for fear of what ads will appear.
51 - Pete Blackwell
Magazines & newspapers regularly reject ads for various reasons. Editorial and advertising can be separate, but that doesn't mean you can run any old ads you want with no responsibility for what they say or what they're advertising.
52 - Leeotis
Pete,
You've now seen the ad here, though, and not only will you not single it out, you apparently plan on remaining a member and continuing to write pieces for them. I can accept the fact that, at the time you wrote the piece, you did not intend to act in a hypocritical way, but now that all of the facts are in, if you continue to refuse to act on them, then you are behaving in a hypocritical fashion.
Phillip's "distinction" is a distinction without a difference. His statement - that the blog has no control over what adsense puts here - is demonstrably false, because if adsense puts things here that he doesn't like, he can stop using adsense. That's his call, and I don't criticize him for it, but if you disagree as strongly with the substance of the ad as your pontifficating suggests, well, the only conclusion I can draw is that you have the most selective outrage I've seen in quite some time.
53 - Matthew T. Sussman
What about classifieds, Pete?
54 - LMAO
Lets see, It's bad and it's a scam to hype Iraqi dinars but you're doing it.
P.S, you can ask google to remove the ad, since you didn't it points out your rabid hypocrisy.
Nice try Pete, better come up with better excuses.
55 - Pete Blackwell
I can't ask Google to do anything about BC.org because I don't own it, LAMO. Pay attention.
Leeotis, I did single BC out after I became aware of it. I wrote a whole post on how I hate Google Ads and mentioned this whole stupid situation. The difference Phillip points out is extremely significant.
56 - Leeotis
So, form trumps substance.
That's what usually happens when people are wrong and won't admit it.
The ad is the ad is the ad.
57 - Eric Olsen
#50 - nice one - I am very pleased that Pete is taking this with good humor.
Leeotis, your sense of proportion seems to be off a few orders of magnitude: Pete wrote the story independently of Blogcritics ad relationships + Blogcritics cannot afford to sever ties with Adsense + We don't want Pete to leave = ironic situation.
Laugh about it - you'll live longer.
58 - Leeotis
Eric,
Believe me, I am laughing about it, and I laugh louder and longer the deeper Pete digs himself into his little hole. Presumably, PowerLine can't afford to sever ties with its advertiser either?
I'm not the one standing on principle here; Pete, and Pete alone, is standing on principle. I'm only pointing out that if Pete is going to stand on principle, there is a logical, and inescapable conclusion to that principle. He wants to have it both ways.
59 - Eric Olsen
okay, but what you are refusing to see is that there IS a genuine difference between Blogads -- which come in one at a time and can be accepted or rejected individually -- and Adsense, which is all or nothing.
60 - Pete Blackwell
Leeotis, I do understand where you're coming from. However, there is a very real difference between the ad that's on Power Line and the ads that are on this page. In prominence, yes, but more importantly, in the involvement of the site owners. As Phillip points out, either you have Google ads or you don't. What comes up is what comes up. I don't like it. I don't have it on my blog. The PL ad is not like that. They can individually choose to run a certain ad, or choose not to. They chose to run it. Hence, greater responsibility.
Now, go over to my personal blog. Same article, slightly different headline, but I look like much less of a tool there.
61 - Shaun
"They say a fool and his money are soon parted. I guess they're counting on the fact that a lot of fools read Power Line."
Does that mean that they also think blogcritics readers are fools, too? How does that foot taste, Pete? Need some ketchup?
62 - Dawn
I have no issue with PL's ads - unless they are presenting something illegal or immoral, but what I don't like is their editorial implication that BC is a lesser site than theirs.
Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact that implication itself is the richest irony.
We have over 1400 writers on this site contributing viewpoints of varying degrees of political affiliations. We talk about culture, music, video and everything in between. We are a community of many - they are a community of three.
In what way are they better than any other conservative blog - and more importantly how are they better than Blogcritics?
Other than of course they have more rabid readers.
63 - Leeotis
Pete,
I don't think you look like a tool on your own site at all. In fact, I agree with the sentiment that you are expressing over there. The only problem that I have is that you belong to, and are expressing your opinion on, a site that runs a substantively identical ad to the one being run here.
I have a basic understanding of the nuances between the ads, as expressed by Phillip, but I am underwhelmed by the significance that you and he seem to attach to them. Ultimately, it seems to me that your gripe with Power Line, not unreasonably, is that they have voluntarily chosen to associate themselves, through their web site, with the Iraqi Dinar ads. Nuances between the ads aside, you have chosen to associate with a site, and to place your story on a site, that is running the same ad -- it's still a voluntary act on your part.
I think there are only three ways for you to resolve this dilemma in accordance with the principles that you have espoused: either talk these folks into disassociating themselves from adsense, resign your membership from this group weblog, or withdraw the article altogether and say "never mind."
64 - Pete Blackwell
Leeotis, how can I dig myself deeper into a "little hole"? Wouldn't that make it a big hole? Now who's the hypocrite?
(n.b. that's a joke, PL readers. and yes, ketchup is fine but I prefer honey mustard.)
65 - Shelli
Dawn, where did PL editorialize that their site is better than BC's?
66 - Dawn
I said it was an inference, subtle, but clear.
like everyone else--even the readers of sites like Blogcritics--have every right to make up their own minds about investments.
67 - Pete Blackwell
Well, I can't withdraw the article. Yeah, I agree that BC does something vaguely similar to what PL is doing. I will say this: I wish BC didn't run these silly ads. For this reason, and because they end up pointing to something irrelevant to the article more often than not. But, as they say, you can wish in one hand...
That doesn't mean I should stop writing for BC. I have another solution: I offer my services to Power Line. I will write for them as well, and they could really use a liberal voice. Problem solved. Will someone let John know?
68 - Leeotis
Dawn,
Please read Pete's comment #64 and tell me how that differs from the PowerLine comment to which you take offense?
I don't take either the PL comment or Pete's seriously. I think they are both intended to tweak people's noses rather than as literal expressions of the writers' opinions. I think you're reading way too much into it. My reaction to Pete's comment is to say "touche." I think that should be your reaction to PL's as well.
69 - Constant
#45: internal contradiction:
a) "We have no control over what AdSense puts there"
b) "there is a process to block individual advertisers, but I've never used it and don't know how well it works, and it appears that there is quite a list to block, so I'm not going to try."
According to (b), (a) is in fact false.
#28: falsehood:
"Unlike the Power Line guys, I can't control it."
Yes you can (going forward), by removing yourself from blogcritics if they refuse to block the dinar ad, which they can do according to quote (b) above.
And now for a contradiction across article and comments, all written by Pete Blackwell.
Original article: expression of contempt for Power Line Readers:
"They say a fool and his money are soon parted. I guess they're counting on the fact that a lot of fools read Power Line."
The phrase "the fact that a lot of fools read Power Line" implies the claim "it is a fact that a lot of fools read Power Line."
#30: expression of contempt for Power Line Readers:
"They are a blog of the right-wing variety and they have minions, can't you see?"
#44: denial that one has expressed contempt for Power Line Readers:
"As for the "ad hominem" hooey, give it a rest. I accuse BetonIraq of targeting PL readers because THEY must think you're fools. I never said I thought you were."
Yes he did.
70 - Shelli
It's so subtle that I can't even see it, Dawn. Unlike reading that PL readers are fools, as Pete put it. That one was pretty clear.
71 - Leeotis
Pete,
A sublime solution, especially since all you have to do is offer. The little hole is no longer becoming a bigger little hole.
You're a good sport.
72 - Dawn
My issue is that one writer in 1400 said something, wrong or right, about PowerLine, but no one on the editorial staff of BC has spoken word one about the quality of Powerline's site or its readers.
Boy, I am so glad I don't read politics-only blogs anymore. I forgot how wacky people get.
73 - Shelli
Dawn, wacky is taking offense to the fact that PL said that everyone, even the readers at the site that Pete's blog was posted and also had dinar ads, can make up their own minds on whether or not to click on the ads and invest their money. You take that as meaning what?
74 - Dawn
You know what Shelli, you are absolutely right. I am too sensitive. Have an excellent day.
75 - Pete Blackwell
Constant, a "minion" is a follower or underling. Certainly the PL readers who found their way here did so because they read about this on PL and felt compelled, because of their alliegance to PL, to come comment here. You guys would not otherwise be reading this post. Am I wrong?
To say someone is "counting on the fact that..." doesn't mean such a thing is an established fact. It means whoever's doing the counting on thinks it is a fact. What I said is equivalent to "you guys are being taken for fools." There's nothing disparaging about that.