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

Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Tue Dec 28 10:40:53 PST 2010 

I'm from Jersey! I'm no more offended than my mild (for me) ribbing indicates.



On Dec 28, 2010, at 9:43 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 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