[Vision2020] Please Respond to Main Point Re: Installment #2 -Character
Joe Campbell
philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Tue Dec 28 05:48:20 PST 2010
"Hello, my name is Gary and I take things out of context."
The house comment was another Wizard of Oz reference.
And tell me how you would have responded to this, Crabtree: "OK. Well, fuck you very much"?
Brutal irony, too, I imagine!
On Dec 27, 2010, at 11:27 PM, "Gary Crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:
> "... 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/20101228/9736cf6a/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list