David Barton Tells Half-Truth to the Wall Street Journal

David Barton just can’t stop it.
In a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal, Barton says his book, The Jefferson Lies, is “upcoming.” He also falsely says that Virginia state law prohibited Jefferson from emancipating his slaves.
On July 2, Fergus Bordewich wrote a review of two books on Thomas Jefferson. At least one of the books mentioned David Barton by name as an example of an author who elevated Jefferson to counterfactual heights.  Barton was offended and so the WSJ allowed him space to defend himself (might require an account to read it all).
First, Barton defends Jefferson against the charge of having children with Sally Hemings. My reading of that material is that one cannot be sure about the truth. Barton is more sure of himself there than he should be.
It is intriguing that Barton calls The Jefferson Lies “upcoming.” Naturally, he failed to mention that another description of the book would be “removed from the shelves” or “debunked.” I have established that Simon & Schuster is not going to publish it so it is now a mystery who will publish the second coming of the book voted by History News Network readers as the least credible history book in print.
Regarding Jefferson and slavery, Barton sticks to his false claims about Virginia law. He says Virginia limited emancipation starting in 1691. In 1723, Barton says Virginia law prohibited freeing slaves. He is correct that in 1782 Virginia allowed emancipation but then takes us down a rabbit trail. He says slave owners had to provide income for young, old or infirm slaves. That sounds like all of them. However, slaves between 18 (females) or 21 (males) and 45 could be emancipated (see the case of Robert Carter who freed all of his slaves). Jefferson freed exactly two of his more than 200 slaves during that period of time, both members of the Hemings family. It not only was legal to do, Jefferson did it twice, and other slave owners freed some or all of their slaves.
Barton then does what he often does. He pulls out something true but fails to tell us when it was true. Barton said the 1782 law required freed slaves to leave the state. Not true. It was not until 1806 that the requirement to leave the state was added to Virginia law, and even then the legislature could exempt a slave upon request. Thus, there was a 24 year period where Jefferson could have freed his adult slaves to remain in Virginia.
In his WSJ defense, Barton reveled in author Andrew Burstein’s reference to him as a “self-taught historian.” In Barton’s case, self-taught means unable to self-correct. He is still making the same mistakes that caused Thomas Nelson to pull The Jefferson Lies from publication.

New York Times Stands by Claims on Ted Cruz's; Says Book Could Make the List Next Week

The New York Times told me this morning that Ted Cruz’s book could make the best seller list next reporting period if sales warrant. The paper also stands behind the claim that “the overwhelming preponderance of evidence was that sales were limited to strategic bulk purchases.”
Times spokeswoman Denise Rhoades Ha said this morning that “The book could appear on a future list. Every week is a new sales reporting period and could have a different outcome.” Thus, if strong sales have resulted from this dust up with the Times, Cruz might find himself on the list next week.
The Times won’t release or discuss their evidence because those details might lead to further manipulation of the list.  Ms. Rhodes Ha added that the Times stands by their comment on the matter released earlier:

We have uniform standards that we apply to our best seller list, which includes an analysis of book sales that goes beyond simply the number of books sold.
This book didn’t meet that standard this week.
Our goal is that the list reflect authentic best sellers so we look at and analyze not just numbers, but patterns of sales for every book.
In the case of this book, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence was that sales were limited to strategic bulk purchases.

I also contacted HarperCollins earlier today and asked if the company planned to release evidence which would support Cruz’s denial. HC has not replied as yet. Publishers are aware of where bulk orders go and could provide relevance evidence on bulk sales or lack thereof. Last Friday, a HarperCollins’ spokeswoman said the company found no evidence of bulk orders.
See my post from yesterday for more background.
 

Ted Cruz Accused of Gaming the New York Times Best Seller List

HarperCollins has been around this block before.
According to Politico, the New York Times informed HarperCollins that Ted Cruz’s new book won’t be on the best seller list because the reported sales didn’t meet the Times “standards.”
Clarifying, the Times rep Eileen Murphy told Politico that bulk sales kept Cruz’s book off the list.
I asked Times spokeswoman Denise Rhoades Ha if the Times might go back and remove some best sellers now that we know that the authors used strategic sales to elevated their position and she declined to comment.  I have reported on several such books and authors including Mark Driscoll, Les and Leslie Parrott, and David Jeremiah.
Although they won’t say, I speculate that the attention given to the scams perpetrated by Christian authors in the wake of Mark Driscoll’s discovery may have made the Times tighten up their review of sales.
UPDATE: Coming late to this story, I didn’t realize Cruz and the publisher have denied the allegations.  Cruz wants to see the evidence.
H/t to this tweet and this one.

American Psychological Association: APA Reps and Government Officials Colluded on Interrogation Techniques

The American Psychological Association just released the following press release regarding the involvement of psychologists in the Bush Administration’s interrogation techniques. For background, see this prior post (link).

July 10, 2015

Press Release and Recommended Actions: Independent Review Cites Collusion Among APA Individuals and Defense Department Officials in Policy on Interrogation Techniques

APA Apologizes for “Deeply Disturbing” Findings and Organizational Failures; Announces Initial Policy and Procedural Actions to Correct Shortcomings

WASHINGTON — The American Psychological Association (APA) today announced an initial series of policy and procedural steps in response to findings of individual collusion and organizational failures in the group’s activities related to the Bush Administration’s war on terror.
The actions come as the APA released a 542-page report produced by attorney David Hoffman, of the Sidley Austin law firm, detailing the relationship between various activities of the APA and Bush Administration policies on interrogation techniques. Mr. Hoffman was retained by the APA Board of Directors last November to conduct a thorough and independent review, and the APA cooperated fully during the eight-month process.
“The Hoffman report contains deeply disturbing findings that reveal previously unknown and troubling instances of collusion,” said Dr. Susan McDaniel, a member of the Independent Review’s Special Committee. “The process by which the Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS) was created, the composition of the membership, the content of the PENS report and the subsequent activities related to the report were influenced by collusion between a small group of APA representatives and government officials.”
The Hoffman report states that the intent of the individuals who participated in the collusion was to “curry favor” with the Defense Department, and that may have enabled the government’s use of abusive interrogation techniques. As a result, the 2005 PENS report became a document based at least as much on the desires of the DoD as on the needs of the psychology profession and the APA’s commitment to human rights.
“Our internal checks and balances failed to detect the collusion, or properly acknowledge a significant conflict of interest, nor did they provide meaningful field guidance for psychologists,” said Dr. Nadine Kaslow, chair of the Independent Review’s Special Committee. “The organization’s intent was not to enable abusive interrogation techniques or contribute to violations of human rights, but that may have been the result.
“The actions, policies and the lack of independence from government influence described in the Hoffman report represented a failure to live up to our core values. We profoundly regret, and apologize for, the behavior and the consequences that ensued. Our members, our profession and our organization expected, and deserved, better.”
In response to the Hoffman report, the Board initiated several actions and made additional recommendations to the APA’s governing Council of Representatives.  The full list is attached.
The Board recommended that the Council:

  • Adopt a policy prohibiting psychologists from participating in interrogation of persons held in custody by military and intelligence authorities, whether in the U.S. or elsewhere, but allowing training of military personnel on recognizing and responding to persons with mental illnesses, on the possible effects of particular techniques and conditions of interrogation and other areas within their expertise;
  • Create a Commission to evaluate and recommend changes to APA ethics processes;
  • Adopt formal guidelines to ensure that all relevant policies are anchored in APA core values, including promoting human rights, human welfare and ethics;
  • Approve the substitute motion of Council New Business Item #23B, which clarifies the role of psychologists related to interrogation and detainee welfare in national security settings and safeguards against acts of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in all settings.

The Board voted to:

  • Increase the organization’s engagement around human rights activities in collaboration with other organizations;
  • Collaborate with the Council to create governance constraints on elected and appointed APA officials;
  • Evaluate existing conflict-of-interest policies regarding financial, policy or relationship-based conflicts to ensure the policies are understood and followed;
  • Adopt clear procedures for appointing members to APA Task Forces and Commissions;
  • Create specific criteria for emergency action by the Board.

The Hoffman report concluded that some longstanding criticisms aimed at the APA regarding these matters were inaccurate. Most notably, Mr. Hoffman concluded that counter to critics’ claims of APA collusion with the CIA there was “no evidence of significant CIA interactions regarding PENS.”
Mr. Hoffman also said his inquiry “did not find evidence” that supporting the Justice Department’s legal rationale for approving abusive interrogation techniques was “part of the thinking or motive of APA officials.”
Additionally, the report confirmed that the organization’s 2002 change in its Code of Ethics was not the product of collusion. Mr. Hoffman “did not see evidence” that the revisions “were a response to, motivated by, or in any way linked to the attacks of September 11th or the subsequent war on terror. Nor did we see evidence that they were the product of collusion with the government to support torture.” As the organization has repeatedly stated, the ethics code was revised to provide a defense for psychologists when their ethical obligations on client confidentiality conflicted with court-ordered directive ordering disclose of confidential patient information.
“This bleak chapter in our history occurred over a period of years and will not be resolved in a matter of months,” said Dr. Kaslow. “But there should be no mistaking our commitment to learn from these terrible mistakes and do everything we can to strengthen our organization for the future and demonstrate our commitment to ethics and human rights.”

BOARD OF DIRECTORS ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The actions below were approved by the Board or recommended for consideration by the APA Council of Representatives in response to the Report of the Independent Review Relating to APA Ethics Guidelines, National Security Interrogations and Torture.

ACTIONS RELATED TO ETHICS OFFICE

  1. Recommend that Council approves the establishment of a Commission comprised of psychologist members and non-members, as well as experts from other fields, to evaluate and recommend changes to APA Ethics processes (including, for example, the establishment of a Chief Ethics Officer), based on an assessment of current practices and procedures, as well as benchmarking with ethics processes of other professional organizations.
  2. The Board will establish a mechanism for immediate oversight in the processing of filed ethics complaints including review of current adjudication and investigative procedures, and for ensuring transparency and accuracy in the disclosure of current ethics office practices.

ACTIONS RELATED TO PENS/PAST ACTIONS

  1. Recommend that Council adopts a policy to prohibit psychologists from participating in the interrogation of persons held in custody by military and intelligence authorities, whether in the US or elsewhere, but allowing them to provide training to military or civilian investigative or law enforcement personnel on recognizing and responding to persons with mental illnesses, on the possible psychological effects of particular techniques and conditions of interrogation, and on other areas within their expertise.
  2. Recommend that Council approve the substitute motion of Council New Business Item #23B.

ACTIONS RELATED TO ORGANIZATIONAL PROCEDURES

  1. Council and the Board will collaborate to create governance constraints that address boundaries and appropriate oversight of elected and appointed officials, including Council, the Board of Directors, and boards and committees.
  2. Council and the Board will collaborate to establish civility principles and procedures that promote respectful space for all voices and perspectives and define professionalism, including through the establishment of a moderator role for listservs.
  3. The Board will evaluate conflict of interest policies regarding financial, policy or relationship-based conflicts, and other associated processes to ensure that the policy is understood and followed;
  4. The Board will create clear procedures for appointing the members of Task Forces, Commissions, etc., by including a standard conflict of interest assessment and procedure for assuring needed content expertise;
  5. The Board will create specific criteria and procedures for emergency action by the Board in keeping with the authority established in the Bylaws;
  6. The Board will direct the CEO to ensure an appropriate balance of autonomy and oversight in the supervisory process with respect to financial decisions, business processes and standards, and other activities, and if needed, adjustments in the workloads of administrators that may constrain their capacity for oversight and supervision.

ACTIONS RELATED TO CHECKS AND BALANCES

  1. Recommend that Council adopts formal guidelines to ensure that all relevant policies are anchored in APA core values, including promoting human rights, human health and welfare, and ethics.
  2. Recommend that Council charge the Strategic Planning Advisory Committee with considering ethics, organizational restructuring, and human rights.  This will assist in re-setting the organization’s ethical compass, and re-asserting our commitment to “do no harm” as a core value.
  3. The Board will increase APA’s engagement around human rights activities and its collaboration with other organizations regarding these issues.

The full Hoffman report is available (PDF, 2.62MB) on the APA website.
The American Psychological Association, in Washington, D.C., is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States. APA’s membership includes more than 122,500 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students. Through its divisions in 54 subfields of psychology and affiliations with 60 state, territorial and Canadian provincial associations, APA works to advance the creation, communication and application of psychological knowledge to benefit society and improve people’s lives.

Francis Chan: Can You Get Some Answers From Gospel for Asia?

Some time ago I emailed Francis Chan ab0ut his endorsement of Gospel for Asia. Chan says on the video below that he is skeptical and because of that he sent people to check GFA out. I was told by his assistant Chaz that he was getting my emails, but it was unlikely that I would get a personal response from Chan. And as Chaz predicted, I have not heard from Chan in response to concerns I raised in the emails and blog posts.

Watch Chan’s endorsement of GFA.

Rev. Chan, like you, I am skeptical, but unlike you, I don’t have a budget that allows me to send people to check GFA out. However, I have asked GFA multiple times for help understanding why their 2013 audited statement says they sent $58.5 million to GFA-India in 2013 but only $6.5 million shows up in GFA-India’s reports to the Indian government. I can account for another $22 million that GFA in the U.S. sent to Believers’ Church and two other NGOs controlled by K.P. Yohannan but that leaves about $30 million unaccounted for. It seems like a discrepancy like that would make a skeptical person wonder what happened to the $30 million.

If you or your auditors know anything about the unaccounted for $30 million, could you let me know? If there is a reasonable explanation for this, then it seems odd that GFA has allowed the situation to go on without public disclosure. The ECFA is no help either. All the silence makes a skeptical guy like me wonder what is happening. However, it seems like you might know something and perhaps could reassure donors and the public.

Also, there are some other matters which you could really help with:

Rev. Chan, many people trust you, and like you, I am skeptical and don’t believe it is wrong to ask questions. Perhaps, you know something about these matters and could persuade GFA to simply offer additional information and explanation. Or perhaps you, as an endorser, could write and clear things up. We aren’t the only ones who are skeptical, others too want to know what is happening at GFA.

I hope to hear from you.