[Vision2020] What is Jeff talking about? (was something else)

[Joe Campbell]

Thank you, Ted.

For any philosophical problem one always comes back to the question of 
whether or not it is a pin-question. 

Most of my work is on free will, and this is often thought to be a set of pin-
questions. Or it is thought that the answers are obvious. The three views are:

1. Duh! We obviously have free will, control, moral responsibility, etc.
2. Duh! We obviously don't have free will, etc.
3. Duh! This is a set of pin-questions (followed by laughter).

One of the things I like about the free will problem is that the split is pretty 
equal as to the number of folks who endorse any of these options.

Matt: I never did get the note you mentioned.

Best, Joe

---- Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote: 

=============
All-

Simple minded slogans/labels to unflattering stereotype the opposition in
politics works.  If the label sticks, it places those it has stuck to on the
defensive.  Those who devise the labels and the connotations have set the
terms of the debate, at least in the mind of the public.  Witness how
"liberal" (automatically meaning big government wasteful tax and spend baby
killer gay lover gun hater) is now a derogatory term.  You have to give
those Republican strategists credit.  They employed the most sophisticated
marketing and advertising psychological strategies to manipulate public
opinion to gain control of government.  From Reagan onward, the Republicans
have mostly won the propaganda war.  The Bush/Kerry election cycle was
mostly about God, Guns and Gays?  Please!

The MCA is "anti-growth."  This simple minded label (of course the MCA
favors growth with certain limits, just as the GMA, though with differences
about what those limits exactly are.  I doubt the GMA or the MCA would
support a thriving porn video business to move into downtown Moscow, even
with big money and lots of jobs provided) has placed some on the defensive.
Where/what is the simple minded label for the GMA that will place them on
the defensive?  I must have missed it.

Anyway, not that anyone really cares, but the "angels dancing on heads of
pins" reference refers to debates among medieval "philosophers" (or rather,
theologians who helped to give philosophy a bad name, I should say) about
how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.  I can answer this
question easily, if flippantly: As many as want to.

http://www.historicaltextarchive.com/books.php?op=viewbook&bookid=64&cid=33

Conclusion: the basic concerns of medieval philosophers regarding the nature
of reality have not been resolved. We simply ignore the basic questions they
raised and chuckle to ourselves that they spent their time disputing about
how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.
-----------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

On 10/30/07, Joe Campbell <joekc at adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the post, Matt.
>
> I don't think that I've made anything up. If you could give a specific
> example,
> I'd appreciate it. Nor do I think I insulted Jeff or anyone, other than
> Crabtree,
> as much as you might think. Read the posts carefully – some of the points
> are
> conditional, borrowing some of Jeff's own tricks, some of them are just
> more
> explicit forms of what I perceived as similar insults directed toward me.
>
> I have a nasty habit of treating people exactly how they treat me. If they
> are
> nice to me, I'm nice to them; if they are rude to me, I'm rude to them; if
> they
> insult me, I insult back. I won't make fun of Crabtree's job, say, or call
> him
> names over an extended period of time -- say more than a week -- so I have
> my limits. Nonetheless, the strategy is unfortunate since often it plays
> into the
> hands of a bully like Crabtree. He insults me, I insult back and my insult
> shows up on Dale's website. And for whatever reason, conservatives can get
> away with insults in a way that liberals cannot.
>
> I'm glad that you think that people shouldn't say that the MCA is
> anti-growth
> but the fact is that a LOT of GMA folks are saying it and extending it to
> apply
> to MCA supported candidates. I see it everywhere. Jeff is just one
> example.
> Even though I've pointed out the fallacy -- 'no' means 'not any' thus 'no
> growth' is false; what is true is 'some but not all growth,' so 'any and
> all
> growth', the laissez faire approach, is the extreme one. Yet Jeff still
> suggests
> that MCA candidates are anti-growth. Even Area Man Dan has said as much in
> response to questions about water issues, where he claimed that the
> current
> council has used water as an excuse to prevent growth. I don't see why I
> should let those attacks go unanswered. It would appear to put our side at
> a
> disadvantage.
>
> Jeff thinks I called him a liar. What I said was that he is spreading a
> lie, which
> is a bit different. Still, it is false to say that MCA candidates are "no
> growth,"
> as I point out above. To continue to say it, or to suggest it, while
> knowing that
> it is false is spreading a lie. Maybe this offends Jeff but I am just
> telling it like
> it is.
>
> Also, you are mixing up two different things in your post. Am I a jackass
> to
> Crabtree and to Jeff? Yes. Are they jackasses to me? Yes. On this score
> we're
> equal. I treat folks like they treat me.
>
> What I think is interesting is that you don't see Jeff's insults to me, or
> at least
> you didn't say anything about them. Just to use one example, he made a
> standard reference to philosophies other than is own as being nothing more
> than discussions of angels dancing on the heads of pins. This is a
> dismissive,
> insulting response often directed at philosophers and other academics, in
> this
> case intended to undermine my comments and intelligence with one full
> swoop. Likely it is something that you would not note but, in the context
> of a
> political debate, it is jackass politics at its best. He doesn't have to
> respond to
> my questions, my concerns because I'm just talking about angels dancing on
> the heads of pins! Isn't it lovely!
>
> In a way I can understand how you might spot my being a jackass sooner
> than Jeff's, since what I say to him might dig deep, might hurt you but
> what
> he says to me you might not notice. It might even seem funny to you. I had
> an exchange off list with Roger Falen where he told me that he thought
> that
> Crabtree's posts to me were funny. Making fun of my name, my job, etc. was
> funny to him. I understand why you might not notice how offensive Crabtree
> and Jeff are to me. We are each a bit blind when it comes to insults
> directed
> toward the other side.
>
> If you had noticed that Jeff insulted me, you might have said something
> like
> "Yeah, Jeff was a jackass to you but that doesn't mean you should be a
> jackass to him, so stop." And, in fact, folks like Bruce Livingston have
> said
> just that to me off list. Also, if you read Bruce's post to Jeff you'll
> note a not
> so subtle jab at me suggesting agreeing with Jeff name-calling has no
> place
> on V2020.
>
> Herein lies the second issue that you conflate with the first. There have
> been
> numerous occasions when progressives have criticized other progressives on
> V2020. As I noted, there was a recent, subtle instance in which Bruce
> criticized me -- which, as you point out, I deserved. A while ago, before
> I
> came to hate him, I stuck up for Crabtree when people said that his
> business
> should be boycotted and said that this is out of bounds. There are other
> examples, too, and I've seen Sunil, Keeley, and others do the same.
>
> But I have NEVER seen Jeff, Crabtree, or Donovan, or any conservative
> openly criticized by another conservative in public. I have never even
> seen a
> conservative criticize the rhetoric of Doug Wilson or Dale Courtney. It is
> as if
> conservatives think that, when other conservatives are speaking, anything
> goes.
>
> Yesterday a man from NSA ran around town with a sign that read "VOTE FOR
> BIGOTS" mentioning the names of the three candidates supported by the
> MCA. Yesterday in the Daily News Shelly Bennett implied that the MCA
> council
> has "persecuted a religious organization." (The timing of these two events
> is
> interesting but I won't go there.) Thus far NO conservatives have said
> that
> these actions are out of bounds. I'll bet none do after this post. I
> challenge
> you and others to prove me wrong.
>
> I believe that in politics your opponents make up the rules. Until I hear
> some
> criticism of the above antics, it seems like I have a lot further to go
> before
> I'm out of bounds.
>
> Thus, in response to your question -- When will I stop being a jackass? --
> the
> answer might be: Next Wednesday.
>
> Again, I really do appreciate the post! I think it is ironic that you sent
> it after I
> already stopped posting to Jeff! I left some questions unanswered but,
> honestly, it is hard for me to engage with folks who think that my job
> consists
> of talking about angels dancing on the head of pins, so perhaps he'll
> forgive
> me.
>
> Best, Joe
>
> ---- Matt Decker <mattd2107 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> =============
>
> Joe,
>
> About a week ago you confronted me about G. Crabtree. How much of an ass
> he is and how I don't "pipe down on him". I told you I don't condemn his or
> your actions(name calling that is). Then I saw you do it to me in private.
> Oh well, hey I have thicker skin. Now you, again are doing it to Jeff. I
> have closely watched this whole thing unfold and again it is you my friend,
> with the nasty tones. When will your little pompous antics end?
>
> If you want to attack me again, well go for it. Let me spare you though.
> Last week, I had mentioned that I had a client who had a 10K yard and I
> mentioned that he was a customer of mine. A MCA member as well. This member
> I called a hypocrite because of his water usage on his yard, or future
> usage. Ringing a bell? ANyways, I was out of line. This man has done nothing
> to improve Moscow. We can all improve our lives and better this world, but
> for me to come down on this man was unjust. A moment I am not proud of.
>
> However, I still don't condone calling the GMA candidates water hoards.
> These men are also trying to better our community. If you don't want to vote
> for the GMA guys then don't. Just don't make shit up. Just like the fact
> that MCA is isn't anti growth.
>
> Matt
>
> > Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 02:26:55 -0700
> > From: joekc at adelphia.net
> > To: jeffh at moscow.com
> > CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] What is Jeff talking about? (was something
> else)
> >
> > Jeff,
> >
> > I wanted to run for election but I didn't. Why? I'm unable to get into
> it with
> > attack dogs like Crabtree. I might run one day but right now I'm not
> ready.
> >
> > Likewise, you are not ready to be treasurer for a campaign.
> >
> > I asked you an honest question: How are you going to keep Moscow from
> > smelling (and looking) like Lewiston? This is what you wrote:
> >
> > After considerable thought, and given the
> > constraints in real estate that exist in Moscow
> > (no need to preclude businesses that couldn't
> > locate in Moscow because there is no room for
> > them or they require infrastructure that we don't
> > have), heavy manufacturing (large heavy
> > equipment, aircraft, large-scale auto) would
> > probably not be a good fit.  That said, a custom
> > manufacturer - say manufacturing small hybrid
> > cars, wind turbines, solar energy systems, ATV's,
> > bicycles, garden power tools, farm implements to
> > serve Palouse farming specifically could fit very
> > nicely.
> >
> > This is not an answer to the question. It was an answer to some other
> > question but not this one. I asked the question again and you just
> repeated it.
> >
> > Telling me that certain businesses won't fit doesn't answer it. Your
> laze faire
> > economic views won't allow you to prevent it from happening either. Why
> not
> > just move to Lewiston instead of moving Lewiston here?
> >
> > You can say what you want about me but my name is not on any candidate's
> > sign. And if you are going to continue to evade questions and respond in
> a
> > condescending manner -- making fun of people's occupations (the oft
> noted
> > "angles dancing on pins" comment about the topic of LOGIC no less) --
> when
> > voters are trying to find out information about your candidate.
> >
> > If Krauss does not fire you, then clearly he must think that this is a
> fine way
> > to do politics: Respond nicely to the folks you like and flip the
> liberals and
> > academics off. This is a bad campaign strategy!
> >
> > I will not vote for Krauss in part because you are his treasurer, his
> > spokesman and you seem unable to speak nicely or in an informed way to
> > anyone who does not share your opinion.
> >
> > This is exactly one of the fears of the GMA that I expressed in my town
> crier.
> >
> > --
> > Joe Campbell
> >
> > ---- Jeff Harkins <jeffh at moscow.com> wrote:
> >
> > =============
> > Joe,
> >
> > Yes, it is a busy time of year.
> >
> > Unusual post.  Perhaps in your own words - you close with a
> > fallacious argument.
> >
> > Good night Joe
> >
> >
> > =======================================================
> >  List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >                http://www.fsr.net
> >           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > =======================================================
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Boo!Scare away worms, viruses and so much more! Try Windows Live OneCare!
>
> http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/purchase/trial.aspx?s_cid=wl_hotmailnews
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================