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

[Gary Crabtree]

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

Now that sounds an awful lot like some of the dreaded "violent rhetoric" 
we have heard so much about lately.

Heaven forbid that anyone make flippant remarks about going a few rounds
with an abstract concept like secularism but, where it comes to real live human 
beings, threatening to dropping large heavy objects on them seems perfectly OK.

What is this world coming to?

g

(yes, I realize that the above comments are absurd. The burning question 
for me is, does the philosophy dept?)




--------------------------------------------------
From: "Joe Campbell" <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 9:18 PM
To: "Paul Rumelhart" <godshatter at yahoo.com>
Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Please Respond to Main Point Re: Installment #2 -Character

> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> =======================================================
> 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
> =======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20101227/c0ac760d/attachment-0001.html