<div>I am surprised that you were mentioned on Courtney's <a href="http://right-mind.us">right-mind.us</a> in the context of the so called local "Intoleristas." Anyone following your comments on Vision2020 would know you have consistently objected to the extent of the critical focus on Christ Church and its associated businesses and schools. They should regard you as a moderating influence on attacks against their church. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>However, I am not surprised at all that your comment on corporations and profit was taken out of context and its meaning distorted on Courtney's blog. Several of my Vision2020 posts have ended up on Courtney's <a href="http://right-mind.us">right-mind.us</a>, with their meaning distorted and then criticised; and this has happened to numerous others who post to Vision2020. As you roughly stated, you are being lumped in with the "leftists" or "liberals" on Vision2020, stereotyped for the sake of whatever controversial content you offer to jazz up Courtney's blog.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>They "<em>tend</em> to paint with too broad a brush..." you wrote. Tend? They flat out do to the extreme, against those who simply defend a basic US Constitutional principle, the separation of church and state. The fact your comment about Jesus and the presidency became fodder for Courtney's blog is a clear demonstration. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Others on Vision2020 have explored the type of Theocracy advocated; thus a firm defense of a secular state and separation of church and state simply cannot stand. This might explain to you why many are more critical of the point of view involved here than you apparently are. However, sometimes the critics of Christ Church and its associated entities find conspiracy where none exists, it seems to me; and the personalized attacks are an approach I try to avoid on Vision2020. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Of course, I am a total Pollyanna to expect personalized attacks to disappear from public discourse, for discussion to focus on ideas, reason and fact. But faith in the improvability of humanity is an underlying assumption of liberalism, so perhaps my attempts to take the high ground in discussions via avoiding personal attacks reveals my Weltanschauung. Conservatives are more likely to accept that inequality, poverty, war, greed, prejudice and hatred are embedded in humanity, so society should not, indeed cannot, engineer these realities out of existence. The attempt is foolish, and can do more harm than good. Liberals tend to believe in the Utopian ideals of a perfected humanity. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I am inclined to agree with the conservative view on the nature of humanity, at least at this point in human history. But our species is very very young; I think humanity, if we survive the impacts of our ignorance and destructive impulses, will eventually make heaven on Earth. But if we cannot limit the destructive side of our nature, the future is bleak. There is thus no other option but to try, even if futile.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett<br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 11/23/08, <b class="gmail_sendername">Paul Rumelhart</b> <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">I'm kind of in the middle on the Intolerista thing. I'm obviously far<br>more liberal than most members of Christ Church, assuming we are using<br>
the common term and not whatever "classical liberal" term Dale was<br>speaking about. However, I think they have a point in that there does<br>seem to be a large amount of intolerance towards that particular church<br>
by many of those on this list. I've raised my objections before, so I<br>won't really go into it here. Granted, they are taking the term and<br>running with it because it makes for great sound bites.<br><br>I was a little miffed a while back to find out that one of my posts here<br>
on the viz ended up on the "Intolerista Island" section of his blog.<br>Not miffed in a copyright sort of way, but miffed I was assumed to be a<br>card-carrying member. The post, if I remember it right, was discussing<br>
my assertion that corporations don't have a right to make a profit.<br>They, of course, loved the "sound bite" quality of that phrase and ran<br>with it. However, I was miffed because I don't think of myself as an<br>
Intolerista, because I disagree with those on this list about the amount<br>of rancor we should be tossing at that particular group. I think we'd<br>be better off it we just accepted them freely into our community.<br>
<br>I do think they tend to paint with too broad a brush, and they like<br>sound bites too much, in a mean, schoolyard bully sort of way. I have<br>given them at least two they seem to like (the one mentioned above and<br>
"I'm not looking for a Jesus to be President" or something similar to that).<br><br>Btw, if Dale or Doug are reading this, I'd like to know what about that<br>particular random post they thought made me worthy of being included in<br>
the Intolerista community. Not that I really mind the association that<br>much, but I thought I was doing a better job of leaning towards the<br>middle in this particular area. I assumed they were far more favorable<br>
towards the idea of a free market than they apparently are. My point<br>about corporations not having a right to make a profit was meant to<br>convey the idea that they should all compete on a level playing field,<br>and should not be lobbying to make special rules for them to survive<br>
when they otherwise shouldn't. Instead of gaming the system, they<br>should simply die off if they don't have the right qualities to be able<br>to make a profit.<br><br>Paul<br><br>keely emerinemix wrote:<br>> Do I detect the mellifluous dulcet tones of Dale Courtney?<br>
><br>> Keely<br>> <a href="http://keely-prevailingwinds.blogspot.com/">http://keely-prevailingwinds.blogspot.com/</a><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> > To: <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
> > From: <a href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com">thansen@moscow.com</a><br>> > Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 19:39:32 +0000<br>> > Subject: [Vision2020] Who Dat?<br>> ><br>> > Greetings Visionaires -<br>
> ><br>> > On February 27, 2005 KUOI's own Tim Lohrmann aired a 90-minute taped<br>> > interview of a local individual concerning Moscow politics, taxes,<br>> > property rights, etc. etc.<br>> ><br>
> > Linked below is a portion of that interview concerning the origin of<br>> the<br>> > term "Intoleristas".<br>> ><br>> > I could give you a hint as to who this individual is, but I am<br>
> simply not<br>> > of the right mind to do so. So, I leave it to you fine people of the<br>> Viz<br>> > to answer the question . . .<br>> ><br>> > Who Dat?<br>> > <a href="http://www.tomandrodna.com/Sounds/Intoleristas_KUOI_022705.mp3">http://www.tomandrodna.com/Sounds/Intoleristas_KUOI_022705.mp3</a><br>
> ><br>> > Seeya round town, Moscow.<br>> ><br>> > Tom Hansen<br>> > Moscow, Idaho<br>> ><br>> ><br>> </blockquote></div>