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

Mon Dec 27 13:43:19 PST 2010

Again, who in their right mind is going to object to values,
especially the vague, feel-good values that have been posted recently?
(Maybe the question was lost since I framed it in terms of virtues.)

And who is saying anything about whether or not websites should be
funded by anonymous sources, as long as they are not straightforward
political websites? The truth is there is you care to look. So no one
is advocating that websites list their funding sources.

You keep changing the topic, in my mind, from something reasonable to
some strawman topic. In this case, you changed it from the issue of
whether or not it is worth knowing who is funding the values.com
website to something else that no one is really advocating. I think it
is worth knowing who is funding the values.com website and I thank Ted
and others for providing that information. You can't get the
information from the website itself and, as Ted suggests, the website
appears to give misleading information about its funding source. That
itself is kind of interesting. If it really doesn't matter who is
funding it, then why not make the funding transparent?

I think it is fine that you don't care who owns the website but you
don't really seem to care about a whole lot. Again, I care who is
behind the website and some other folks seem to care, as well. Whether
you care or not is irrelevant. Don't care. That's fine.

You ask: "Does the revelation of who is behind it change the message
in any way?" Clearly it does. It changes it from what appears to be a
sincere message to something that appears to be one small part of a
broader political agenda. What's the broader political agenda? I'm not
sure! But I certainly am not going to be able to find out unless I
find out who is behind the website and what broader political agendas
that individual has.

That's WHY it is worth knowing who is behind the values.com website.
Maybe the website is nothing more than the resting place for some
rather inane values that are neither sharply defined nor worth
debating (as is illustrated by the complete lack of discussion after
each post). Maybe it is something more. It would be hard to know which
without at least knowing who is behind the website. Clearly one would
have to know more than that but that would have to know at least that
much. That's why it is worth knowing who is funding values.com. Of
course, it doesn't undermine the value of the vague, feel-good values.
That would be hard to do! What it might do is reveal the purpose of
the website and the purpose of the recent posts of the website (beside
shifting attention away from CC).

On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I haven't seen any of the ads referenced in the indymedia story since I
> don't get TV, I haven't been to a movie in the theater for a while, and I
> haven't noticed any new billboards around here.  They appear to be the same
> content as the values.com website, though, from their description in the
> article.
> Do you have any objections to the content that is displayed there?  At the
> moment, I'm not terribly worried about a billionaire putting up a website
> promoting values and trying to stay somewhat anonymous.  What, exactly, is
> the problem with this?  Does the revelation of who is behind it change the
> message in any way?
>
> I'm for more transparency in government and I'm also for transparency in
> product advertisements, but I also support anonymity when putting up
> websites or for ads that are not selling a product or selling a political
> candidate.  If it's a website encouraging people to post uplifting stories
> related to various values that the website is trying to promote, then I
> really don't care who built it.  Unless there is something really
> underhanded going on there, which I haven't seen, then I respect Anschutz
> for not broadcasting that he's behind it to the world.  He's kind of like an
> anonymous donor to a charity in that regard.  Maybe he knew that if he did
> people who despised his politics would take issue with the values only
> because of who posted them.  Maybe, and I know this is a stretch, but just
> maybe he believes in these values and would like to share them with the
> world.
>
> That's why I ask if there is anything in the ads or on the values.com
> website that you find objectionable.  The Foundation for a Better Life
> appears to care about these values and wants to encourage people to live by
> them.  I really can't see anything wrong with that, nor do I understand why
> people are objecting to it so much.
> I don't object when churches post Bible verses on billboards, despite the
> fact that I don't know who donates to them or who lends them space to put up
> the signs.  I don't really see a difference between the two.
>
> Paul
>
> Ted Moffett wrote:
>>
>> To require advertising to reveal who is funding ads is a non-partisan
>> issue, to encourage transparency in the political process, or in other
>> matters, regardless if it's billionaire progressive George Soros, or
>> billionaire conservative Philip Anschutz.
>>
>> Perhaps this could be termed the value or virtue of full transparency
>> and honesty in the behavior of the wealthy as they utilize this wealth
>> to control the public.
>>
>> The power that billionaires wield, given their immense capacity to
>> influence opinion, behavior and politics, via buying or controlling
>> media exposure, is so great exercising this power indicates full
>> disclosure of the source of the advertising.
>>
>> Why does Anschutz not offer this full disclosure in the Foundation for
>> a Better Life campaign?
>>
>> Consider the answer to the following question from the FBL website,
>> which seems to disingenuously (is being disingenuous a value or
>> virtue?) dodge the fact this effort is funded by Anschutz, though not
>> in all respects:
>>
>> http://www.values.com/about-us/faq#affiliated
>>
>> Where does the money come from to support your public service campaigns?
>>
>> Public service media, by definition, is donated by the television,
>> theatre, outdoor, print, and radio media outlets. Their generous
>> contribution of time and space allow these messages to be seen and
>> heard around the world.
>> ----------------
>> If the following source is correct, why does the FBL website not
>> reveal that Anschutz owns theater chains where the FBL ads are
>> running?
>>
>> http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2002/03/710.shtml
>>
>> His corporate empire includes a majority holding in Qwest
>> Communications and ownership of several sports teams and arenas.
>> Significantly, he also owns the United Artists, Regal and Edwards
>> movie theater chains, where the FBL commercials are being shown.
>>
>> More on Anschutz:
>>
>>
>> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_Foundation_For_a_Better_Life#cite_note-FAQS-1
>> -----------------------
>> Colorado billionaire supporting nationwide propaganda campaign
>>
>> http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2002/03/710.shtml
>>
>> >From website above:
>>
>> Philip Anschutz, who the BBC described as having "a reputation as one
>> of the hungriest of US corporate vultures", is currently using his
>> wealth and power to support a slick ad campaign appearing on 10,000
>> billboards, in hundreds of movie theaters, and on nearly a thousand TV
>> stations across the country. The Foundation for a Better Life
>> (FBL)—the non-profit entity that officially produces and distributes
>> the ads—has no contact information on its website, forbetterlife.org,
>> but a series of posts and comments to the portland indymedia open
>> publishing newswire uncovered the connection between Anschutz and FBL.
>> ------------------------------------------
>> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>>
>> On 12/25/10, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> There was a segment on NPR during the last election that noted several
>>> ads
>>> for Tea Party candidates funded by Democrats, trying to split the
>>> Republican
>>> vote.
>>>
>>> On Dec 25, 2010, at 2:08 PM, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>
>>
>
>