[From nobody Fri Nov 5 10:29:58 2010 Received: from mail-pv0-f171.google.com ([74.125.83.171]) by mail.turbonet.com (Cactus Mail Server v9.4.0) with ESMTP id KCD55850 for <lfalen@turbonet.com>; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 10:53:50 -0700 Received: by pvg11 with SMTP id 11so938539pvg.30 for <lfalen@turbonet.com>; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 10:53:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:subject:references:from :content-type:x-mailer:in-reply-to:message-id:date:to :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=+59jSw+AmRbKzyIw4GndvWCXk21opNsxXX0EEGx81+U=; b=ABKuMuSRzJ7RWfAG1VP8fme106NkNAoXLoZxwAl+hyYYTbgxT1sxPngywZqU8W4xoc x1USN7QmgGIGXt+Jt3lZqR2iGK2h7qn9j31tSdM6J86A/fHigowfb8vr+4yUZ4EfWh17 o0uYDLHY/6ffWt5Neep5G+T3SViBHP/I9qWGY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:references:from:content-type:x-mailer:in-reply-to :message-id:date:to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; b=etuGo1LTfON5zrQLKsKQKJYb+qZ1X/Ay6hAwMJBrE3S5FCPrvvw9cvME1lETjCAfGo eXaDCGS2r9F5Eh3kBbeVj/3aaT5w/nLbTS2DOgtKApvR6BrJR3pIT3tDc6iYBRGNsEZT p1wF/CkQTCewN7H4G+k87b1MGv+R+eLQ443wE= Received: by 10.142.213.3 with SMTP id l3mr5411656wfg.6.1288720430874; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 10:53:50 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: <philosopher.joe@gmail.com> Received: from [10.3.82.139] ([166.205.140.241]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w32sm1335468wfd.21.2010.11.02.10.53.45 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 02 Nov 2010 10:53:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Leonard Pitts Jr: The Triumph of Igorance References: <7c7025ae09f0e8dfae3a1f19340a2dc8@turbonet.com> From: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (8B117) In-Reply-To: <7c7025ae09f0e8dfae3a1f19340a2dc8@turbonet.com> Message-Id: <1E54A49A-2E1E-42E9-A7B1-9A5B60F57A45@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 10:53:23 -0700 To: lfalen <lfalen@turbonet.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 8B117) You are a liar. You are offensive and narrow minded. If your last email can'= t convince you of this, the one with the offensive, misleading comments abou= t democrats, nothing will. I voted for Tom Trail, you vote for inexperienced= bigots who refuse to answer reasonable questions. You give Republicans a ba= d name and would serve them better by keeping your mouth shut. And criticizing your stupid, misspelled comments is not the same as insultin= g you, you jackass. Keep this letter to remind yourself of the difference an= d DO NOT contact me off list again. I'll keep my comments to exposing your n= ever ending string of fallacies. On Nov 2, 2010, at 10:32 AM, lfalen <lfalen@turbonet.com> wrote: > Joe=20 > speak for your self on being offensive. I have tried to carry on a civil d= iscussion. You twist my words to represent me as the opposite of what I said= Apparently any thing that does not agree with your opinion is offensive an= d narrow minded. So much for being an objective philosophy professor. > Roger > -----Original message----- > From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe@gmail.com > Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 15:15:57 -0700 > To: lfalen lfalen@turbonet.com > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Leonard Pitts Jr: The Triumph of Igorance >=20 >> I cut and pasted the sentence, Roger. You reread your own sentences. >> I'm done talking to you. You are offensive and narrow minded, based on >> your last post if nothing else. I want to talk to people who have a >> chance of hearing me. You don't. Sorry but life is short! >>=20 >> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 10:31 AM, lfalen <lfalen@turbonet.com> wrote: >>> Joe >>> Re-read my first sentence where I quoted the 1st Amendment verbatim.I sa= id "exercise".The sentence you referenced was not an exact quote. The differ= ence between exercise and express in the sence in which it was used is a mat= ter of semantics. >>> Your sentence-"The issue is allowing me to partake in my own religious p= ractices, as I see fit: to exercise my religious freedom." is what I have be= en saying all along. No where have I ever said that I favor laws favoring th= e establishment on one religion over another. I would be vehemently opposed t= o any laws doing so. >>> The University is a public place. When I worked there, I shared an offic= e for a time with a Moslem. He asked me if it was alright with me if he said= his noon prayer in the office. I told him that "as long as it did not inter= fere with what I was doing go right ahead." Every day at noon he got out hi= s little carpet, kneeled on it and said his prayers. This was fine with me. I= t did me no harm. >>> Roger >>> -----Original message----- >>> From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe@gmail.com >>> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 15:07:12 -0700 >>> To: lfalen lfalen@turbonet.com >>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Leonard Pitts Jr: The Triumph of Igorance >>>=20 >>>> Well the second amendment doesn't say anything about armor piercing >>>> bullets. And why not just understand "arms" the way the framers of the >>>> constitution understood it, as referring to the kinds of arms that >>>> they had back then? Why assume they meant what we mean by "arms" >>>> today? >>>>=20 >>>> I'm just applying the "fundamentalist" criteria you applied to the >>>> first amendment on your interpretation of the second. Why not be >>>> consistent? I have no problem with the second amendment as you >>>> understand it. >>>>=20 >>>> Of course, let's not forget about Amendment IX: "The enumeration in >>>> the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or >>>> disparage others retained by the people." This blows a hole in the >>>> myth of absolute rights. Sorry it wasn't me who did it but the framers >>>> of our Constitution. >>>>=20 >>>> Also, wrt the first amendment, you wrote: "What it says is that no >>>> state religion is to be established and that every one has the right >>>> to express their religious beliefs or lack there of." But it doesn't >>>> say this at all. It doesn't use the word "express" it uses the word >>>> "exercise." The issue isn't about voicing my religious views, which is >>>> already covered by the free speech portion of the first amendment. The >>>> issue is allowing me to partake in my own religious practices, as I >>>> see fit; to exercise my religious freedom. Kind of hard to do if we >>>> make laws favoring one religion over another. Your radical religious >>>> friends are no fans of the first amendment, correctly understood. >>>>=20 >>>> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 11:03 AM, lfalen <lfalen@turbonet.com> wrote: >>>>> Joe >>>>> 2nd Amendment >>>>> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free S= tate, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."= >>>>> That is what the Constitution says, which I support. >>>>> Roger >>>>> -----Original message----- >>>>> From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe@gmail.com >>>>> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:47:53 -0700 >>>>> To: lfalen lfalen@turbonet.com >>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Leonard Pitts Jr: The Triumph of Igorance >>>>>=20 >>>>>> No where in the constitution does it say that individuals have a righ= t to bear semi-automatic rifles. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> So you must be for gun control, Roger! >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> On Oct 25, 2010, at 11:56 AM, lfalen <lfalen@turbonet.com> wrote: >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> The First Amendment >>>>>>> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,= or prohibiting the free exercise there of; or abridging the freedom of speec= h,or of the press,or the right of people peaceably to assemble, and or to pe= tition the Government for a redress of grievances." >>>>>>> No where is there any thing said about the separation of church and s= tate. What it says is that no state religion is to be established and that e= very one has the right to express their religious beliefs or lack there of. T= he "separation of church and state" comes from an article written by Thomas J= efferson in which he said "There should be a wall of separation between chur= ch and state" ,but it no where in the Constitution. >>>>>>> Roger >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> -----Original message----- >>>>>>> From: "Art Deco" deco@moscow.com >>>>>>> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 10:24:30 -0700 >>>>>>> To: "Vision 2020" vision2020@moscow.com >>>>>>> Subject: [Vision2020] Leonard Pitts Jr: The Triumph of Igorance >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> LEONARD PITTS JR. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> We don't deserve this >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion= , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> - from the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States= That's for Christine O'Donnell. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> "Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?" she a= sked last week, drawing gasps and astonished laughter from an audience of la= w school students. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Chris Coons, her Democratic opponent for a Delaware Senate seat, re= plied that in asking the question, O'Donnell shows "fundamental misunderstan= ding of what our Constitution is. ... The First Amendment establishes the se= paration ..." >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> O'Donnell wasn't buying it. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> "The First Amendment does? ... >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> So you're telling me that the separation of church and state, the p= hrase 'separation of church and state,' is found in the First Amendment?" >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> It was a bizarre exchange that permits but two conclusions. One, O'= Donnell is frighteningly ignorant, particularly for a woman who claims const= itutional expertise and aspires to the Senate. Or, two, assuming you buy her= after-the-fact explanation (she was merely observing that the phrase "separ= ation of church and state" is not in the First Amendment), she is terribly d= isingenuous. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> After all, the framers' intention to isolate church from state and v= ice versa is evident in the amendment's wording and is a matter of long-sett= led law, besides. The phrase "freedom of expression" doesn't appear in the Fi= rst Amendment, either. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Would O'Donnell question that right, too? >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Maybe I shouldn't ask. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> While one is appalled by O'Donnell's ignorance and/or disingenuousn= ess, one is not surprised. The capacity to be surprised by her died long ago= , victim of revelations that she once "dabbled" in witchcraft. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> And was the subject of an IRS lien. And said people with AIDS broug= ht the disease upon themselves. And was sued for nonpayment by her college a= nd mortgage company. And was cited eight times by the Federal Elections Comm= ission And thinks scientists have created mice with human brains. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> That this woman is a major party candidate for national office, tha= t she is among the brightest stars of a constellation of like-minded cranks -= some of them already in office - tells you all you need to know about this m= oment in our political life. Welcome to the United States of Amnesia. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Somehow we have forgotten the lesson we spent most of the last deca= de learning at ruinous cost: that faith-based governance, foreign policy by g= ut instinct, choosing leaders on the basis of which one we'd most like to wa= tch television with, simply does not work. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Some say this is a conservative revolution, but this is no conserva= tism Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater would have recognized. At least their i= deology adhered to an interior logic. This ideology adheres to a perverse "i= llogic" that posits that the less you know, the more authentic you are. So w= hat triumphs here is not conservatism, but rather, mediocrity. The Know Noth= ings and Flat Earthers are ascendant. But intellect matters. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Knowledge is good. And what's it tell you that that point even need= s to be made? >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> In a recent debate, O'Donnell was asked to name a modern Supreme Co= urt decision to which she objects. "Oh, gosh," she said. "Give me a specific= one, I'm sorry. ... Right off the top of my head, I know that there are a l= ot, but I'll put it up on my website, I promise you." >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Some of us are reminded of how candidate George W. Bush kept callin= g Greeks "Grecians." >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Some of us remember how the electorate shrugged off that evidence o= f looming gaps in his basic knowledge because he had a folksy way and twinkl= ing eyes. Some of us remember how that came out. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Others apparently don't. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Others are ready to travel that road again. It brings to mind an ol= d saying: we get the leaders we deserve. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> You and I better hope that's not true. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Leonard Pitts Jr. is a columnist for the Miami Herald. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >>>>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet, >>>>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. >>>>>>> http://www.fsr.net >>>>>>> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com >>>>>>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >>>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>=20]