<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
All:<BR>
<BR>
Without my consent or even a suggestion that I wanted to participate in his web blog, Dave Budge posted on his web blog a private e-mail I had sent only to him. Taking private correspondence and making it available to the public without permission by posting it on a web site is certainly a violation of Internet ethics. <BR>
<BR>
First below my text here is my private e-mail as it appears on his web blog on the first page when you access his web site. Below that is the copy of the private e-mail I sent him showing the to address as only to him, and revealing no consent presented to make the e-mail available to the public.<BR>
<BR>
I had never said or wrote that I intended to or wanted to participate in his web blog. I had never visited his web blog till today, after he informed me he had answered the private e-mail in question on his web site. I at first thought he had offered only his insights on these issues on his web site as a reply, while keeping my e-mail private, as it was intended. But then I discovered my entire e-mail in question was posted on his web site. <BR>
<BR>
This was no accident.<BR>
<BR>
I have not am not and will not participate in his web blog. I firmly request that he immediately remove my private correspondence from his publicly available web site.<BR>
<BR>
Ted Moffett<BR>
<BR>
<A HREF="http://davebudge.com">http://davebudge.com</A><BR>
<BR>
The first page of Dave Budge's web site as it appeared today, but only down the page as far as needed to reveal my private correspondence was posted there:<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=6 PTSIZE=20 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
<P ALIGN=CENTER><B><A HREF="http://davebudge.com/">Dave Budge .com</A><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=5 PTSIZE=16 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></B><BR>
<P ALIGN=LEFT><B>2/5/2005<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></B><A HREF="http://davebudge.com/index.php?p=143">Payment-in-kind</A><BR>
<BR>
Filed under: <BR>
<A HREF="http://davebudge.com/index.php?cat=1">General</A>— David @ 10:28 am <BR>
I just love this. Idaho state Rep. Tom Trail writes this to his constituents:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Pay Your Taxes in Silver and Gold – A north Idaho legislator is introducing a bill which would allow taxpayers to pay their taxes in silver or gold. There is a historic precedent – In the early days in the state of Virginia, taxpayers could pay their taxes in industrial hemp. This law was in effect for more than 150 years. I suspect the real problem would be electronically transmitting your silver gold to the tax commission.<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
<BR>
I like the hemp idea much better, but hey, paying one’s taxes with an inflationed hedged commodity? Sounds good to me. <BR>
<A HREF="http://davebudge.com/index.php?p=143#comments">Comments (0)</A> <BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=5 PTSIZE=16 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
<BR>
<B>2/3/2005<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></B><A HREF="http://davebudge.com/index.php?p=142">Brookhiser the Great</A><BR>
<BR>
Filed under: <BR>
<A HREF="http://davebudge.com/index.php?cat=1">General</A>— David @ 7:18 pm <BR>
<BR>
Rick Brookhiser over that the NRO blog points this out:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">ACRONYMS [Rick Brookhiser]<BR>
I became less tired of our modern acronyms–SOTU, POTUS, SCOTUS–when I saw that John Quincy Adams’s diary called the president PUS. <BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
I wonder why The New York Observer never lets Rick add any humor to his columns. I think he’s missed his calling. <BR>
<A HREF="http://davebudge.com/index.php?p=142#comments">Comments (0)</A> <BR>
<BR>
<A HREF="http://davebudge.com/index.php?p=141">Wingnuts and Moonbats</A><BR>
<BR>
Filed under: <BR>
<A HREF="http://davebudge.com/index.php?cat=1">General</A>— David @ 6:45 pm <BR>
<BR>
A friend writes me this:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Dave:<BR>
<BR>
I sometimes view political systems like ecosystems: the more diversity the more strength and resilience in the system to survive change. So I really don’t want to see one party gain too much control, like the Republican’s have right now.<BR>
I particularly dislike the conservative to liberal linear manner of pigeonholing viewpoints. At least we should adopt an XY coordinate system of describing political ideology. One way of doing this is to have four directions of political thought, depending on extent of government regulation of various aspects of life. The current Republican’s would be strong on government regulation of individual freedom, while advocating less regulation of capitalism. The Green party promotes less regulation of personal freedom, similar to some Libertarian views, but much stronger on government regulation of capitalism. Libertarians of course want the least government possible in all respects. And finally, for our fourth political direction on the XY grid we have Socialism in the strong sense, government regulation of much of people’s lives.<BR>
Odd that the current USA Republican party calls people “Socialists” as a dirty word when Republican’s promote Socialist style government control of peoples personal choices and lives. I see the current Republican’s as a fascist oriented party clamping down on individual freedoms similar to a Socialist dictatorship (not there yet but heading that direction), while promoting the capitalist sector at the same time, appealing to some Libertarians,.<BR>
The Democratic party here in the USA currently is a watered down mixture of Libertarian views on personal freedom on some issues, Green party views on Capitalism, and a few Socialist ideas like universal health care, that given the current world political spectrum is really a very middle of the road government program to care for low income people who cannot afford the outrageous costs of medical care in our modern world.<BR>
That a government offers universal health care hardly makes it a Socialist State in the strong sense of this word, which implies government ownership of the major sectors of the economy. Many governments that are accurately described as political democracies today offer some form of universal health care, while maintaining a strong capitalist sector, and protecting rights of free speech, free association and personal freedom for the individual.<BR>
Ted</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
--------------------------------------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
A copy of my private e-mail to Dave Budge:<BR>
<BR>
Subj: <B>Re: Ted In Moscow: Re: Just saying "hi" </B> <BR>
Date: 2/3/2005 1:23:06 PM Pacific Standard Time <BR>
From: <A HREF="mailto:Tbertruss">Tbertruss</A> <BR>
To: <A HREF="mailto:dave@davebudge.com">dave@davebudge.com</A> <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Dave:<BR>
<BR>
I sometimes view political systems like ecosystems: the more diversity the more strength and resilience in the system to survive change. So I really don't want to see one party gain too much control, like the Republican's have right now.<BR>
<BR>
I particularly dislike the conservative to liberal linear manner of pigeonholing viewpoints. At least we should adopt an XY coordinate system of describing political ideology. One way of doing this is to have four directions of political thought, depending on extent of government regulation of various aspects of life. The current Republican's would be strong on government regulation of individual freedom, while advocating less regulation of capitalism. The Green party promotes less regulation of personal freedom, similar to some Libertarian views, but much stronger on government regulation of capitalism. Libertarians of course want the least government possible in all respects. And finally, for our fourth political direction on the XY grid we have Socialism in the strong sense, government regulation of much of people's lives.<BR>
<BR>
Odd that the current USA Republican party calls people "Socialists" as a dirty word when Republican's promote Socialist style government control of peoples personal choices and lives. I see the current Republican's as a fascist oriented party clamping down on individual freedoms similar to a Socialist dictatorship (not there yet but heading that direction), while promoting the capitalist sector at the same time, appealing to some Libertarians,.<BR>
<BR>
The Democratic party here in the USA currently is a watered down mixture of Libertarian views on personal freedom on some issues, Green party views on Capitalism, and a few Socialist ideas like universal health care, that given the current world political spectrum is really a very middle of the road government program to care for low income people who cannot afford the outrageous costs of medical care in our modern world. <BR>
<BR>
That a government offers universal health care hardly makes it a Socialist State in the strong sense of this word, which implies government ownership of the major sectors of the economy. Many governments that are accurately described as political democracies today offer some form of universal health care, while maintaining a strong capitalist sector, and protecting rights of free speech, free association and personal freedom for the individual.<BR>
<BR>
Ted<BR>
<BR>
</P></P></FONT></HTML>