[Vision2020] Please Respond to Main Point Re: Installment #2 - Character

[Ted Moffett]

Paul Rumelhart godshatter at yahoo.com
Thu Dec 23 19:51:43 PST 2010 wrote:

http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-December/073399.html

It's also worth noting at the same time that even if
you find out that an advertisement has been funded by a group you
generally don't agree with, it's still worth looking at the actual
advertisement itself to see if you agree with it specifically or not.
For example, if I was a person that wanted to vote for Nader and I found
out that George W. Bush was funding his campaign to a degree, so what?
I'd think he was a fool.  I would hope I would vote for Nader because I
wanted him in office, and not vote for someone I didn't want in office.
-------------------------

Why does promoting votes via advertising (by those supporting G. W.
Bush), for a presidential candidate who has no chance of winning
(Nader), to take votes away from a candidate opposing G. W. Bush, who
has a high probability of winning (Gore), make someone a fool?  This
conduct may be ethically questionable, dishonest, dirty politics...
But from the point of view of winning an election, regardless of
ethics in tactics, it is smart politics.

The fool in this case might be the person who was trying to decide who
to vote for, between Nader and Gore, who also opposed G. W. Bush,
perceived the ad for Nader funded by those supporting G. W. Bush, and
allowed this ad to influence them to vote for Nader, taking a vote
away from Gore, and thus helped to elect G. W. Bush.

My point in this case is so simple I doubt you did not already
consider it, yet your response indicates otherwise...

Mind Games - John Lennon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dHUfy_YBps
------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

On 12/23/10, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Even not-so-virtuous people, assuming that's the case here, can
> recognize good virtues and have the desire to share them with others.
>
> As far as advertising, political or otherwise goes, I think the more
> transparency there is the better.  The more informed a decision people
> make, the better.  It's also worth noting at the same time that even if
> you find out that an advertisement has been funded by a group you
> generally don't agree with, it's still worth looking at the actual
> advertisement itself to see if you agree with it specifically or not.
> For example, if I was a person that wanted to vote for Nader and I found
> out that George W. Bush was funding his campaign to a degree, so what?
> I'd think he was a fool.  I would hope I would vote for Nader because I
> wanted him in office, and not vote for someone I didn't want in office.
>
> Anyway, if the devil himself had posted a list of virtues on his
> website, I'd still suggest actually seeing whether or not you agree with
> each individual virtue.
>
> Also, and maybe I'm way out there in left field on this one, I sometimes
> don't feel the need to address every single point made in a post.
> Sometimes I have a thought that's tangentially related to the subject at
> hand and just bark it out like an ignoramus.  I'm on what I think is a
> mailing list, not in the midst of a formal debate or a giving a
> deposition in a court of law.
>
> Paul
>
> Ted Moffett wrote:
>> I did not indicate the virtues being discussed were not important.
>>
>> I pointed out that the individual supporting the Foundation for a
>> Better Life has funded efforts I do not think are vituous (bigotry,
>> junk science).  You may disagree.
>>
>> My main point was objecting to front groups funding advertising where
>> the source of the advertising is not disclosed.  Therefore I think the
>> Foundation for a Better Life advertising should disclose who is
>> funding it.   I presented data on this issue regarding the 2010
>> election, that neither you nor Paul R. responded to.  I am including
>> this data again at the bottom.
>>
>> Of course sometimes the message can be separated from the messenger.
>> But sometimes in advertising this is definitely not the case,
>> especially political advertising.  Some of the front groups
>> advertising is deliberately deceptive, and disclosing who is funding
>> the advertising would help reveal this deception to the public.
>>
>> I think transparency regarding who is funding advertising, especially
>> politically oriented ads aimed at influencing elections, helps the
>> public make informed decisions about what is the real intent behind
>> the advertising in question.
>>
>> This is not a partisan issue.
>>
>> Consider that groups supporting George W. Bush's election funded
>> advertising for presidential candidate Nader.  If people knew the ads
>> were being purchased by those seeking to defeat Gore by promoting
>> votes for Nader, perhaps the public would not have been duped by these
>> ads.
>>
>> Again, here is the data from the post you responded to, data that you
>> made no reference to, on front groups advertising influencing the 2010
>> election:
>>
>> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-December/073326.html
>>
>> Advertising using front organizations that do not reveal the forces
>> behind the advertising is a powerful tool to deceive the public and
>> manipulate public opinion.
>>
>> This tactic was used successfully to promote the Tea Pary agenda in
>> the 2010 election:
>>
>> Citizens Blindsided: Secret Corporate Money in the 2010 Elections and
>> America’s New Shadow Democracy
>>
>> https://www.pfaw.org/media-center/publications/citizens-blindsided-secret-corporate-money-the-2010-elections-and-america-
>>
>> >From website above:
>>
>> While we do not know who is funding such organizations, we do know
>> that the groups which played a significant role in the 2010 elections
>> are overwhelmingly backing right-wing candidates.  “Outside groups
>> raised and spent $126 million on elections without disclosing the
>> source,” according to the Sunlight Foundation, which “represents more
>> than a quarter of the total $450 million spent by outside groups.”
>> Republican candidates largely benefited from the downpour of
>> undisclosed money, as pro-GOP groups that did not reveal their donors
>> outspent similar pro-Democratic groups by a 6:1 margin.  The
>> nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics reports that of the top ten
>> groups which did not disclose their sources of funding, eight were
>> conservative pro-GOP organizations.
>> ------------------------------------------
>> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>>
>> On 12/21/10, Jeff Harkins <jeffh at moscow.com> wrote:
>>
>>>   Oh Ted at first I didn't get it, but now that you have shed light on
>>> the issue, I get it - you mean people like George Soros and
>>> organizations like the Tides Foundation, the Shadow Party and the Open
>>> Society Institute.
>>>
>>> One thing I noted about the */Foundation for a Better Life/* that tends
>>> to separate that org from many others was their non-reliance on outside
>>> funding (they don't accept donations) and they don't provide grants or
>>> other funding to other agencies.
>>>
>>> For me, Paul R was right on point - the values promoted transcend the
>>> politics, the acrimony and the rhetoric so often a part of our human
>>> dialogues.
>>>
>>> Hopefully all of the "friends" on the V will appreciate the posting of
>>> the values as a means of self examination and community enhancement -
>>> nothing less, nothing more.
>>>
>>> Happy holidays to all of you - for whatever reason you use for
>>> celebration.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>