[Vision2020] Dave Budge Violates Internet Ethics

[Tbertruss at aol.com]

All:

Without my consent or even a suggestion that I wanted to participate in his 
web blog, Dave Budge posted on his web blog a private e-mail I had sent only to 
him.  Taking private correspondence and making it available to the public 
without permission by posting it on a web site is certainly a violation of 
Internet ethics.  

First below my text here is my private e-mail as it appears on his web blog 
on the first page when you access his web site.  Below that is the copy of the 
private e-mail I sent him showing the to address as only to him, and revealing 
no consent presented to make the e-mail available to the public.

I had never said or wrote that I intended to or wanted to participate in his 
web blog.  I had never visited his web blog till today, after he informed me 
he had answered the private e-mail in question on his web site.  I at first 
thought he had offered only his insights on these issues on his web site as a 
reply, while keeping my e-mail private, as it was intended.  But then I 
discovered my entire e-mail in question was posted on his web site. 

This was no accident.

I have not am not and will not participate in his web blog.  I firmly request 
that he immediately remove my private correspondence from his publicly 
available web site.

Ted Moffett

http://davebudge.com

The first page of Dave Budge's web site as it appeared today, but only down 
the page as far as needed to reveal my private correspondence was posted there:

Dave Budge .com

2/5/2005

Payment-in-kind

Filed under: 
General— David @ 10:28 am 
I just love this. Idaho state Rep. Tom Trail writes this to his constituents:
> Pay Your Taxes in Silver and Gold – A north Idaho legislator is introducing 
> a bill which would allow taxpayers to pay their taxes in silver or gold. 
> There is a historic precedent – In the early days in the state of Virginia, 
> taxpayers could pay their taxes in industrial hemp. This law was in effect for 
> more than 150 years. I suspect the real problem would be electronically 
> transmitting your silver gold to the tax commission.
> 




I like the hemp idea much better, but hey, paying one’s taxes with an 
inflationed hedged commodity? Sounds good to me. 
Comments (0) 



2/3/2005

Brookhiser the Great

Filed under: 
General— David @ 7:18 pm 

Rick Brookhiser over that the NRO blog points this out:
> ACRONYMS [Rick Brookhiser]
> I became less tired of our modern acronyms–SOTU, POTUS, SCOTUS–when I saw 
> that John Quincy Adams’s diary called the president PUS. 
> 

I wonder why The New York Observer never lets Rick add any humor to his 
columns. I think he’s missed his calling. 
Comments (0) 

Wingnuts and Moonbats

Filed under: 
General— David @ 6:45 pm 

A friend writes me this:
> Dave:
> 
> I sometimes view political systems like ecosystems: the more diversity the 
> more strength and resilience in the system to survive change. So I really don’
> t want to see one party gain too much control, like the Republican’s have 
> right now.
> I particularly dislike the conservative to liberal linear manner of 
> pigeonholing viewpoints. At least we should adopt an XY coordinate system of 
> describing political ideology. One way of doing this is to have four directions of 
> political thought, depending on extent of government regulation of various 
> aspects of life. The current Republican’s would be strong on government 
> regulation of individual freedom, while advocating less regulation of capitalism. The 
> Green party promotes less regulation of personal freedom, similar to some 
> Libertarian views, but much stronger on government regulation of capitalism. 
> Libertarians of course want the least government possible in all respects. And 
> finally, for our fourth political direction on the XY grid we have Socialism 
> in the strong sense, government regulation of much of people’s lives.
> Odd that the current USA Republican party calls people “Socialists” as a 
> dirty word when Republican’s promote Socialist style government control of 
> peoples personal choices and lives. I see the current Republican’s as a fascist 
> oriented party clamping down on individual freedoms similar to a Socialist 
> dictatorship (not there yet but heading that direction), while promoting the 
> capitalist sector at the same time, appealing to some Libertarians,.
> The Democratic party here in the USA currently is a watered down mixture of 
> Libertarian views on personal freedom on some issues, Green party views on 
> Capitalism, and a few Socialist ideas like universal health care, that given 
> the current world political spectrum is really a very middle of the road 
> government program to care for low income people who cannot afford the outrageous 
> costs of medical care in our modern world.
> That a government offers universal health care hardly makes it a Socialist 
> State in the strong sense of this word, which implies government ownership of 
> the major sectors of the economy. Many governments that are accurately 
> described as political democracies today offer some form of universal health care, 
> while maintaining a strong capitalist sector, and protecting rights of free 
> speech, free association and personal freedom for the individual.
> Ted

--------------------------------------------------------------

A copy of my private e-mail to Dave Budge:

Subj:   Re: Ted In Moscow: Re: Just saying "hi"     
Date:   2/3/2005 1:23:06 PM Pacific Standard Time   
From:   Tbertruss   
To: dave at davebudge.com  
    

Dave:

I sometimes view political systems like ecosystems: the more diversity the 
more strength and resilience in the system to survive change.  So I really don't 
want to see one party gain too much control, like the Republican's have right 
now.

I particularly dislike the conservative to liberal linear manner of 
pigeonholing viewpoints.  At least we should adopt an XY coordinate system of 
describing political ideology.  One way of doing this is to have four directions of 
political thought, depending on extent of government regulation of various 
aspects of life.  The current Republican's would be strong on government regulation 
of individual freedom, while advocating less regulation of capitalism. The 
Green party promotes less regulation of personal freedom, similar to some 
Libertarian views, but much stronger on government regulation of capitalism. 
Libertarians of course want the least government possible in all respects.  And 
finally, for our fourth political direction on the XY grid we have Socialism in the 
strong sense, government regulation of much of people's lives.

Odd that the current USA Republican party calls people "Socialists" as a 
dirty word when Republican's promote Socialist style government control of peoples 
personal choices and lives.  I see the current Republican's as a fascist 
oriented party clamping down on individual freedoms similar to a Socialist 
dictatorship (not there yet but heading that direction), while promoting the 
capitalist sector at the same time, appealing to some Libertarians,.

The Democratic party here in the USA currently is a watered down mixture of 
Libertarian views on personal freedom on some issues, Green party views on 
Capitalism, and a few Socialist ideas like universal health care, that given the 
current world political spectrum is really a very middle of the road government 
program to care for low income people who cannot afford the outrageous costs 
of medical care in our modern world.  

That a government offers universal health care hardly makes it a Socialist 
State in the strong sense of this word, which implies government ownership of 
the major sectors of the economy.  Many governments that are accurately 
described as political democracies today offer some form of universal health care, 
while maintaining a strong capitalist sector, and protecting rights of free 
speech, free association and personal freedom for the individual.

Ted

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050205/1e17e2e3/attachment.htm