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

Paul Rumelhart godshatter at yahoo.com
Tue Dec 28 09:43:40 PST 2010


Joe Campbell wrote:
> "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!

If my laughingly dropping the "F-bomb" on you in response to your more 
discreet insults offended you in any way, then I humbly apologize.

Paul

>
> On Dec 27, 2010, at 11:27 PM, "Gary Crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com 
> <mailto: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 
>> <mailto:philosopher.joe at gmail.com>>
>> Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 9:18 PM
>> To: "Paul Rumelhart" <godshatter at yahoo.com <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>>
>> Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 
>> <http://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 
>> <mailto: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 
>> <http://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 <mailto: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 <http://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 <http://values.com>
>> >>>>>>> website to something else that no one is really advocating. I 
>> think it
>> >>>>>>> is worth knowing who is funding the values.com 
>> <http://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 <http://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 <http://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 
>> <http://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 <http://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 <mailto: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 <http://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 <http://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 <http://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 
>> <mailto: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 <mailto:starbliss at gmail.com>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Paul Rumelhart godshatter at yahoo.com <http://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 
>> <mailto: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 
>> <mailto: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
>> > =======================================================



More information about the Vision2020 mailing list