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

[Joe Campbell]

I don't have a next step, Paul.

And take a chill pill, please. Before someone drops a house on you.

On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 7:26 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Joe Campbell wrote:
>>
>> So what? That was the point: whether or not it is appropriate and
>> worthwhile to ask questions about who is funding values.com. That was
>> my point, at least. Read my posts for Christ's sake.
>>
>
> I didn't actually type "so what", I typed "So.  Now what?"  That was
> supposed to be shorthand for "Now that you have discovered who is behind
> this website, what is your next step?"  Try taking your own advice.
>
>> Why is it that whenever folks talk about liberal/progressive issues it
>> comes down to "What is the relevance or importance of the debate to me
>> (Paul) and my life?" whereas when it comes to the claims of radical,
>> insane conservatives it is "Do they have the right to voice whatever
>> radical insane idea that pops into their head?" There is a double
>> standard here. I know, I know you're not a conservative; you're
>> liberal. Whatever. Your political views are irrelevant. You still
>> adopt a wild and inexplicable double standard when it comes to what is
>> and what is not worthy conversation.
>>
>
> It just so happens that no conservatives were on here trying to root out who
> had put up a website listing ways you can be nice to people or whatever, nor
> were any conservatives in a tizzy because some liberal school had posted on
> their website that they were going to take Christianity out behind the wood
> shed and strap it's ass.  I was fighting for the right for someone to post
> anonymously on the web on the one hand and fighting for the right of someone
> to express themselves without being censored on the other.
>
>> Oh well, Dorothy. It's time for me to head off to the Emerald City and
>> for you to get back to Kansas. I'd like to say it's been nice talking
>> but really it hasn't been. It's been rather frustrating and pointless.
>>
>
> OK.  Well, fuck you very much.
> Paul
>
>> On Dec 27, 2010, at 5:14 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>