[Vision2020] Please Respond to Main Point Re: Installment #2 - Character
Paul Rumelhart
godshatter at yahoo.com
Mon Dec 27 17:14:40 PST 2010
Well, now we know who was funding it. Conservative billionaire Philip
Anschutz. It's a non-profit that he financed himself that neither
solicits nor accepts donations from the public, according to Wikipedia.
So. Now what?
Oh, and if you think I was defending the legitimacy of US slavery, then
we weren't having the conversation earlier that I thought we were having.
Paul
Joe Campbell wrote:
> You are making this more confusing than it has to be.
>
> No one will disagree with the vanilla values discussed so far. No one.
> That should be an indication that whatever purpose one has in posting
> the values, or in having a website describing such values, it has
> little to do with the values themselves.
>
> And the issue is this: Is it worth asking who is behind a website? Is
> that information of value when assessing the purpose of the website?
> The answers are "Yes" and "Yes." As you say, "Whether or not
> sportsmanship, for example, is a good idea is completely divorced from
> who funded the message." That's right. But WHO in their right mind
> would say that sportsmanship is NOT a good idea? No one. Which would
> make someone who is curious and not politically naive wonder: What is
> the purpose behind the website?
>
> Again, if it doesn't make YOU wonder why someone would be stating the
> obvious that's fine. Good for you. Some people wonder.
>
> You ask: " Is it at least possible that there is no nefarious plan and
> they just want to promote those values, no matter how inane they sound
> to you?" Of course it is possible. But how could you assess the
> likelihood without knowing who is funding the website? Thus, it is
> worth knowing who is funding the website.
>
> I'm not saying that knowing who is funding values.com is up there with
> important things like our two wars or the current recession.
>
> On the other hand, both wars as well as the recession were caused by
> the fact that we elected an idiot to office TWICE. He started both
> wars which together ran the country into the biggest recession since
> the depression (or since the recession that Reagan caused). How did
> that idiot win not one but TWO elections? How could idiots with
> absolutely NO experience win seats in congress during this past
> election? How could bigoted idiots with no political experience win
> the local Republican nomination for state office?
>
> Well, maybe just maybe it has something to do with funding by deep
> pockets with little concern for social welfare and lots of concern for
> making their pockets deeper. Maybe just maybe it has something to do
> with diverting our attention away from the political issues that
> matter (to you and to me) and towards inane discussions about values
> and gay marriage. Just a thought.
>
> Not that it is as worthy a thought as the usual ideas that you defend,
> like the legitimacy of US slavery. I can totally understand why you
> would defend that over my CRAZY ideas, which have absolutely no place
> for discussion in a civil society. Unlike slavery.
>
> On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Joe Campbell wrote:
>>
>>> 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.)
>>>
>>>
>> Well, I surely don't object to them. It sounds like you don't, either,
>> though you've never officially answered the question.
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>> Well, good. Then my anonymous Hello Kitty website is safe from discovery.
>> Do you consider the values.com website to be a political website?
>>
>>
>>> 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?
>>>
>>>
>> What's special about the values.com website, except that it's funded by
>> someone I presume you guys don't like? And if it really doesn't matter
>> who's funding it, why go to all the work to try and find out?
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>> I care about a great many things. Eroding personal freedoms, the direction
>> our economy is heading, corporate control of the media, open source software
>> advocacy, the two wars we can't seem to get rid of, Guantanamo, and the
>> ever-widening political divide in this country, just to name a few. The
>> funding history of values.com just doesn't rank that high on my radar right
>> now.
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>> I would answer "clearly it doesn't". Whether or not sportsmanship, for
>> example, is a good idea is completely divorced from who funded the message.
>> Good luck finding the political agenda. Maybe they are trying to make
>> themselves look good by promoting values they know everyone will agree with
>> while simultaneously (and somewhat confusingly) hiding that fact that they
>> are funding it? I don't know. Maybe you'll be able to figure it out.
>>
>>
>>> 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).
>>>
>>>
>> Is it at least possible that there is no nefarious plan and they just want
>> to promote those values, no matter how inane they sound to you?
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list