<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2963" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Ted, apology accepted, and indeed, not
necessary.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>I agree that the debate and media coverage was slanted, in
that it focused on the definition of torture and potential impacts on Geneva
Convention protections without much mention of the prohibition of habeas corpus
rights to non-combatants. I have not read Chomsky's "Manufacturing
Consent." And when I declined to speculate on why the debate/legislation
was so focused, or the legislation was so written, it appears that I
misunderstood your question to me. But I still can't suggest that there is
a conspiracy to omit the habeas corpus part of the story on the part of the
media, when I don't really know that, and deep down I am guessing that they just
think that arguments about torture are more sexy and sell more
papers.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Bruce</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=starbliss@gmail.com href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com">Ted Moffett</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=jeanlivingston@turbonet.com
href="mailto:jeanlivingston@turbonet.com">Bruce and Jean Livingston</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision 2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, October 11, 2006 10:52
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Manufacturing Consent &
Media</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Bruce et. al.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Thanks for your detailed response...</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Perhaps stating in broad terms that you are above "hoi polloi
plebian" speculation was a hasty and ill advised ad hominem oriented
statement, of the sort I usually try to avoid on Vision2020...</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I am sorry! </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But you did not address the primary focus of my earlier concerns, which
dealt with the debate, both in the US Congress and in the news
media, regarding the recent congressional legislation on detainee legal
issues in the "war on terror," which I believe did not aggressively
inform the public about the details of the gutting of habeas corpus, before
the legislation went to a vote, not with reading anyones mind. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Perhaps you have never read "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam
Chomsky...?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>When fundamental issues and facts regarding public decision
making are not prominently discussed and debated in news media, or in the US
Congress, while other issues dominate the conversation, one does not have to
be a "mind reader" to point out the debate was "slanted" a certain way,
that critical facts or information were ignored or marginalized (I
don't think "speculation" is the correct word, because when it can be
determined by a survey of the news media that critical issues or
facts about pending legislation in the US Congress were not
featured prominently in the public debate, this is not speculation, it is
a fact). </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It appears we misunderstood each other?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The "rapscallions" are those who control debate and media information to
serve their ends, misinforming, marginalizing or slanting the
information the public receives in the process. I do not need to read
the actual contents of anyones mind to recognize that this sort of process is
occurring, a process most people recognize, regardless of their political
orientation. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Who doubts this is a critical issue when misinformation, and the
downplaying of critical counter views, is utilized in the process
of bringing a nation to war? I can't read Bush's mind regarding his
intentions in the invasion of Iraq (Was he sincerely trying to bring democracy
and freedom to the Middle East, or just protecting oil resources? Did he
really believe Iraq represented a serious national security threat to the USA
via WMDs, or just using WMDs as a scare tactic to manipulate the public
and the US Congress into buying his "oil war?"), but I can discover
that some of the critical "facts" he presented to the nation to justify this
invasion were seriously in doubt, and that other critical facts and credible
sources that contradicted Bush statements, were not prominently featured in
the media, during the months in the lead up to the war. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>By the way, one of the most interesting subjects in philosophy
regards the existence of other minds. I find it amazing how easily
people assume they know the contents of other people's minds, given the
astonishing complexity of human personality and the human mind (brain?).
In this easy ridiculous assumption we so readily know the contents of
other peoples minds, is perhaps a clue to why people so often do not
understand each other. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Ted Moffett</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=gmail_quote>On 10/10/06, <B class=gmail_sendername>Bruce and
Jean Livingston</B> <<A
href="mailto:jeanlivingston@turbonet.com">jeanlivingston@turbonet.com</A>>
wrote:</SPAN>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<DIV bgcolor="#ffffff">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Ted, you rapscallion! </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Indeed last night's MCA reservoir forum was
an opportunity to "speculate" on what might be done to address local
concerns about water supply, including as a primary focus, trying to address
reservoir issues like where would it be; how many, one or a series;
what would it cost; how would we pay for one; is it a good idea or not;
etc., etc. The short answer for Nils is that everyone seemed to agree
on the need for a feasibility study, and that a site up on the forested,
granite slabs near Moscow Mountain seemed promising for a variety of
reasons -- cleanliness, less silt, less leakage, less expensive land, and
perhaps more recreational opportunity. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Now, for those not privy to my private message to Ted,
in which I declined to "speculate" on whether the real reason
for recent federal legislation that grossly limits the availability of
habeas corpus was to eviscerate habeas corpus (as opposed merely to limiting
torture in the name of fighting the war on terror, [as I try to recall the
question he posed]), let me say this, so that I may try to shed his label
about me being "above" such speculatory "hoi polloi plebian activity."
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Habeas corpus has been grossly limited in numerous
ways and is continually under attack, not only for non-citizens labeled
non-combatants, but for citizens who reside in this country. I
disagree with the various attempts to limit the writ of habeas corpus,
whether it be done to non-combatants or citizens on death row.
Limiting habeas corpus directly correlates to increasing the likelihood that
the innocent languish in prison. Period. It was important enough
to explicitly protect in the Constitution (Suspension clause -- Art. I, Sec.
9, Cl. 2), when the Framers of the Constitution recalled George III and
his tyranny and abuse of the citizenry through extended incarceration
without charges. The writ of habeas corpus is just as important
now. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>I found myself roundly applauding Garrison
Keillor's condemnation of the Senate for caving in on the
afore-mentioned legislation, gutting habeas corpus, and handing President
Bush more tools with which he will cede the moral high ground and bring us
down, closer to the level of our enemies. <A
onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0610040035oct04,1,2100411.column"
target=_blank>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0610040035oct04,1,2100411.column
</A></FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>And Ted, I still don't care to speculate on trying to
discern the reasons of discrete politicians for agreeing to certain
language. I can't read their minds. What matters is the plain
language that gets enacted. But I do agree with the importance of
the topic and appreciate your heartfelt postings on an important subject of
debate. </FONT></DIV><SPAN class=sg>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Bruce Livingston</FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV></SPAN>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><SPAN class=e id=q_10e34051641717a8_3>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4"><B>From:</B> <A title=starbliss@gmail.com
onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com" target=_blank>Ted Moffett</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=jeanlivingston@turbonet.com
onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
href="mailto:jeanlivingston@turbonet.com" target=_blank>Bruce and Jean
Livingston</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Cc:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"
target=_blank>vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, October 10, 2006 12:09 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Is Moscow Ready for
Reservoir?</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Bruce et. al.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The intentions of this MCA meeting sound like speculation about
whether a reservoir is a reasonable solution to the Palouse's future water
needs...</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I thought you did not engage in "speculation" on Vision2020?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Perhaps this post is just advertising a meeting where "speculation"
will occur, so you are not engaging in those lowly thought provoking
perhaps incorrect ideas that come under the heading of "speculation," on
Vision2020. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>You are above that sort of hoi polloi plebian activity, after
all...</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Still respecting your commitment to human rights...</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Ted
Moffett<BR><BR> </DIV></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>