<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=unicode" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.7600.16700"></HEAD>
<BODY style="PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 15px"
id=MailContainerBody leftMargin=0 topMargin=0 CanvasTabStop="true"
name="Compose message area">
<DIV><FONT color=#000000>"... take a chill pill, please. Before someone drops a
house on you."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000><FONT face=Calibri>Now that sounds an awful lot like
some of the dreaded "violent rhetoric" </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000><FONT face=Calibri>we have heard so much about
lately.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000><FONT face=Calibri></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000><FONT face=Calibri>Heaven forbid that anyone make
flippant remarks about going a few rounds</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000><FONT face=Calibri>with </FONT><FONT face=Calibri>an
abstract concept like secularism but, where it comes to real live human
</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000><FONT face=Calibri>beings, </FONT></FONT><FONT
color=#000000><FONT face=Calibri>threatening to dropping large heavy objects on
them seems perfectly OK.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 face=Calibri>What is this world coming to?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 face=Calibri>g</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 face=Calibri>(yes, I realize that the above comments
are absurd. The burning question </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 face=Calibri>for me is, does the philosophy
dept?)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><BR></FONT><BR><BR>--------------------------------------------------<BR>From:
"Joe Campbell" <philosopher.joe@gmail.com><BR>Sent: Monday, December 27,
2010 9:18 PM<BR>To: "Paul Rumelhart" <godshatter@yahoo.com><BR>Cc:
<vision2020@moscow.com><BR>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Please Respond to
Main Point Re: Installment #2 -Character<BR><BR>> I don't have a next step,
Paul.<BR>> <BR>> And take a chill pill, please. Before someone drops a
house on you.<BR>> <BR>> On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 7:26 PM, Paul Rumelhart
<godshatter@yahoo.com> wrote:<BR>>> Joe Campbell
wrote:<BR>>>><BR>>>> So what? That was the point: whether or
not it is appropriate and<BR>>>> worthwhile to ask questions about who
is funding values.com. That was<BR>>>> my point, at least. Read my
posts for Christ's sake.<BR>>>><BR>>><BR>>> I didn't
actually type "so what", I typed "So. Now what?" That
was<BR>>> supposed to be shorthand for "Now that you have discovered who
is behind<BR>>> this website, what is your next step?" Try taking
your own advice.<BR>>><BR>>>> Why is it that whenever folks talk
about liberal/progressive issues it<BR>>>> comes down to "What is the
relevance or importance of the debate to me<BR>>>> (Paul) and my life?"
whereas when it comes to the claims of radical,<BR>>>> insane
conservatives it is "Do they have the right to voice whatever<BR>>>>
radical insane idea that pops into their head?" There is a
double<BR>>>> standard here. I know, I know you're not a conservative;
you're<BR>>>> liberal. Whatever. Your political views are irrelevant.
You still<BR>>>> adopt a wild and inexplicable double standard when it
comes to what is<BR>>>> and what is not worthy
conversation.<BR>>>><BR>>><BR>>> It just so happens that no
conservatives were on here trying to root out who<BR>>> had put up a
website listing ways you can be nice to people or whatever, nor<BR>>> were
any conservatives in a tizzy because some liberal school had posted
on<BR>>> their website that they were going to take Christianity out
behind the wood<BR>>> shed and strap it's ass. I was fighting for
the right for someone to post<BR>>> anonymously on the web on the one hand
and fighting for the right of someone<BR>>> to express themselves without
being censored on the other.<BR>>><BR>>>> Oh well, Dorothy. It's
time for me to head off to the Emerald City and<BR>>>> for you to get
back to Kansas. I'd like to say it's been nice talking<BR>>>> but
really it hasn't been. It's been rather frustrating and
pointless.<BR>>>><BR>>><BR>>> OK. Well, fuck you very
much.<BR>>> Paul<BR>>><BR>>>> On Dec 27, 2010, at 5:14 PM,
Paul Rumelhart <godshatter@yahoo.com>
wrote:<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>>
Well, now we know who was funding it. Conservative billionaire
Philip<BR>>>>> Anschutz. It's a non-profit that he financed
himself that neither solicits<BR>>>>> nor accepts donations from the
public, according to Wikipedia. So. Now<BR>>>>>
what?<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> Oh, and if you think I was
defending the legitimacy of US slavery, then<BR>>>>> we weren't
having the conversation earlier that I thought we were
having.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>>
Paul<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> Joe Campbell
wrote:<BR>>>>><BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> You
are making this more confusing than it has to
be.<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> No one will disagree with
the vanilla values discussed so far. No one.<BR>>>>>> That should
be an indication that whatever purpose one has in
posting<BR>>>>>> the values, or in having a website describing
such values, it has<BR>>>>>> little to do with the values
themselves.<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> And the issue is
this: Is it worth asking who is behind a website? Is<BR>>>>>>
that information of value when assessing the purpose of the
website?<BR>>>>>> The answers are "Yes" and "Yes." As you say,
"Whether or not<BR>>>>>> sportsmanship, for example, is a good
idea is completely divorced from<BR>>>>>> who funded the
message." That's right. But WHO in their right mind<BR>>>>>>
would say that sportsmanship is NOT a good idea? No one. Which
would<BR>>>>>> make someone who is curious and not politically
naive wonder: What is<BR>>>>>> the purpose behind the
website?<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> Again, if it doesn't
make YOU wonder why someone would be stating the<BR>>>>>> obvious
that's fine. Good for you. Some people
wonder.<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> You ask: " Is it at
least possible that there is no nefarious plan and<BR>>>>>> they
just want to promote those values, no matter how inane they
sound<BR>>>>>> to you?" Of course it is possible. But how could
you assess the<BR>>>>>> likelihood without knowing who is funding
the website? Thus, it is<BR>>>>>> worth knowing who is funding
the website.<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> I'm not saying that
knowing who is funding values.com is up there with<BR>>>>>>
important things like our two wars or the current
recession.<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> On the other hand,
both wars as well as the recession were caused by<BR>>>>>> the
fact that we elected an idiot to office TWICE. He started
both<BR>>>>>> wars which together ran the country into the
biggest recession since<BR>>>>>> the depression (or since the
recession that Reagan caused). How did<BR>>>>>> that idiot win
not one but TWO elections? How could idiots with<BR>>>>>>
absolutely NO experience win seats in congress during this
past<BR>>>>>> election? How could bigoted idiots with no
political experience win<BR>>>>>> the local Republican nomination
for state office?<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> Well, maybe
just maybe it has something to do with funding by deep<BR>>>>>>
pockets with little concern for social welfare and lots of concern
for<BR>>>>>> making their pockets deeper. Maybe just maybe it has
something to do<BR>>>>>> with diverting our attention away from
the political issues that<BR>>>>>> matter (to you and to me) and
towards inane discussions about values<BR>>>>>> and gay marriage.
Just a thought.<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> Not that it is
as worthy a thought as the usual ideas that you defend,<BR>>>>>>
like the legitimacy of US slavery. I can totally understand why
you<BR>>>>>> would defend that over my CRAZY ideas, which have
absolutely no place<BR>>>>>> for discussion in a civil society.
Unlike slavery.<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 27,
2010 at 2:32 PM, Paul Rumelhart
<godshatter@yahoo.com><BR>>>>>>
wrote:<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>
Joe Campbell
wrote:<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>
Again, who in their right mind is going to object to
values,<BR>>>>>>>> especially the vague, feel-good values
that have been posted recently?<BR>>>>>>>> (Maybe the
question was lost since I framed it in terms of
virtues.)<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>
Well, I surely don't object to them. It sounds like you don't,
either,<BR>>>>>>> though you've never officially answered the
question.<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>
And who is saying anything about whether or not websites should
be<BR>>>>>>>> funded by anonymous sources, as long as they
are not straightforward<BR>>>>>>>> political websites? The
truth is there is you care to look. So no one<BR>>>>>>>> is
advocating that websites list their funding
sources.<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>
Well, good. Then my anonymous Hello Kitty website is safe
from<BR>>>>>>> discovery.<BR>>>>>>> Do you
consider the values.com website to be a political
website?<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>
You keep changing the topic, in my mind, from something reasonable
to<BR>>>>>>>> some strawman topic. In this case, you
changed it from the issue of<BR>>>>>>>> whether or not it
is worth knowing who is funding the values.com<BR>>>>>>>>
website to something else that no one is really advocating. I think
it<BR>>>>>>>> is worth knowing who is funding the
values.com website and I thank Ted<BR>>>>>>>> and others
for providing that information. You can't get
the<BR>>>>>>>> information from the website itself and, as
Ted suggests, the website<BR>>>>>>>> appears to give
misleading information about its funding source.
That<BR>>>>>>>> itself is kind of interesting. If it really
doesn't matter who is<BR>>>>>>>> funding it, then why not
make the funding
transparent?<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>
What's special about the values.com website, except that it's funded
by<BR>>>>>>> someone I presume you guys don't like? And
if it really doesn't matter<BR>>>>>>> who's funding it, why go
to all the work to try and find
out?<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>
I think it is fine that you don't care who owns the website but
you<BR>>>>>>>> don't really seem to care about a whole lot.
Again, I care who is<BR>>>>>>>> behind the website and some
other folks seem to care, as well. Whether<BR>>>>>>>> you
care or not is irrelevant. Don't care. That's
fine.<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>
I care about a great many things. Eroding personal freedoms,
the<BR>>>>>>> direction<BR>>>>>>> our
economy is heading, corporate control of the media, open
source<BR>>>>>>> software<BR>>>>>>>
advocacy, the two wars we can't seem to get rid of, Guantanamo, and
the<BR>>>>>>> ever-widening political divide in this country,
just to name a few.<BR>>>>>>>
The<BR>>>>>>> funding history of values.com just doesn't rank
that high on my radar<BR>>>>>>>
right<BR>>>>>>>
now.<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>
You ask: "Does the revelation of who is behind it change the
message<BR>>>>>>>> in any way?" Clearly it does. It changes
it from what appears to be a<BR>>>>>>>> sincere message to
something that appears to be one small part of a<BR>>>>>>>>
broader political agenda. What's the broader political agenda? I'm
not<BR>>>>>>>> sure! But I certainly am not going to be
able to find out unless I<BR>>>>>>>> find out who is behind
the website and what broader political agendas<BR>>>>>>>>
that individual
has.<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>
I would answer "clearly it doesn't". Whether or not sportsmanship,
for<BR>>>>>>> example, is a good idea is completely divorced
from who funded the<BR>>>>>>>
message.<BR>>>>>>> Good luck finding the political
agenda. Maybe they are trying to make<BR>>>>>>>
themselves look good by promoting values they know everyone will
agree<BR>>>>>>> with<BR>>>>>>> while
simultaneously (and somewhat confusingly) hiding that fact
that<BR>>>>>>> they<BR>>>>>>> are funding
it? I don't know. Maybe you'll be able to figure it
out.<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>
That's WHY it is worth knowing who is behind the values.com
website.<BR>>>>>>>> Maybe the website is nothing more than
the resting place for some<BR>>>>>>>> rather inane values
that are neither sharply defined nor worth<BR>>>>>>>>
debating (as is illustrated by the complete lack of discussion
after<BR>>>>>>>> each post). Maybe it is something more. It
would be hard to know which<BR>>>>>>>> without at least
knowing who is behind the website. Clearly one
would<BR>>>>>>>> have to know more than that but that would
have to know at least that<BR>>>>>>>> much. That's why it
is worth knowing who is funding values.com. Of<BR>>>>>>>>
course, it doesn't undermine the value of the vague, feel-good
values.<BR>>>>>>>> That would be hard to do! What it might
do is reveal the purpose of<BR>>>>>>>> the website and the
purpose of the recent posts of the website
(beside<BR>>>>>>>> shifting attention away from
CC).<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>
Is it at least possible that there is no nefarious plan and they
just<BR>>>>>>> want<BR>>>>>>> to promote
those values, no matter how inane they sound to
you?<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>
Paul<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Paul Rumelhart<BR>>>>>>>>
<godshatter@yahoo.com><BR>>>>>>>>
wrote:<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>
I haven't seen any of the ads referenced in the indymedia story
since<BR>>>>>>>>> I<BR>>>>>>>>>
don't get TV, I haven't been to a movie in the theater for a
while,<BR>>>>>>>>> and
I<BR>>>>>>>>> haven't noticed any new billboards around
here. They appear to be<BR>>>>>>>>>
the<BR>>>>>>>>> same<BR>>>>>>>>>
content as the values.com website, though, from their description
in<BR>>>>>>>>> the<BR>>>>>>>>>
article.<BR>>>>>>>>> Do you have any objections to the
content that is displayed there?<BR>>>>>>>>>
At<BR>>>>>>>>> the<BR>>>>>>>>>
moment, I'm not terribly worried about a billionaire putting up
a<BR>>>>>>>>>
website<BR>>>>>>>>> promoting values and trying to stay
somewhat anonymous. What,<BR>>>>>>>>>
exactly,<BR>>>>>>>>>
is<BR>>>>>>>>> the problem with this? Does the
revelation of who is behind it<BR>>>>>>>>>
change<BR>>>>>>>>>
the<BR>>>>>>>>> message in any
way?<BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>> I'm
for more transparency in government and I'm also for
transparency<BR>>>>>>>>>
in<BR>>>>>>>>> product advertisements, but I also
support anonymity when putting up<BR>>>>>>>>> websites
or for ads that are not selling a product or selling
a<BR>>>>>>>>>
political<BR>>>>>>>>> candidate. If it's a website
encouraging people to post uplifting<BR>>>>>>>>>
stories<BR>>>>>>>>> related to various values that the
website is trying to promote, then<BR>>>>>>>>>
I<BR>>>>>>>>> really don't care who built it.
Unless there is something really<BR>>>>>>>>> underhanded
going on there, which I haven't seen, then I
respect<BR>>>>>>>>>
Anschutz<BR>>>>>>>>> for not broadcasting that he's
behind it to the world. He's kind of<BR>>>>>>>>>
like<BR>>>>>>>>> an<BR>>>>>>>>>
anonymous donor to a charity in that regard. Maybe he knew that
if<BR>>>>>>>>> he<BR>>>>>>>>>
did<BR>>>>>>>>> people who despised his politics would
take issue with the values<BR>>>>>>>>>
only<BR>>>>>>>>> because of who posted them.
Maybe, and I know this is a stretch, but<BR>>>>>>>>>
just<BR>>>>>>>>> maybe he believes in these values and
would like to share them with<BR>>>>>>>>>
the<BR>>>>>>>>>
world.<BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>
That's why I ask if there is anything in the ads or on the
values.com<BR>>>>>>>>> website that you find
objectionable. The Foundation for a
Better<BR>>>>>>>>>
Life<BR>>>>>>>>> appears to care about these values and
wants to encourage people to<BR>>>>>>>>>
live<BR>>>>>>>>> by<BR>>>>>>>>>
them. I really can't see anything wrong with that, nor do
I<BR>>>>>>>>>
understand<BR>>>>>>>>>
why<BR>>>>>>>>> people are objecting to it so
much.<BR>>>>>>>>> I don't object when churches post
Bible verses on billboards, despite<BR>>>>>>>>>
the<BR>>>>>>>>> fact that I don't know who donates to
them or who lends them space to<BR>>>>>>>>>
put<BR>>>>>>>>> up<BR>>>>>>>>>
the signs. I don't really see a difference between the
two.<BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>
Paul<BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>> Ted
Moffett
wrote:<BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>
To require advertising to reveal who is funding ads is
a<BR>>>>>>>>>>
non-partisan<BR>>>>>>>>>> issue, to encourage
transparency in the political process, or
in<BR>>>>>>>>>>
other<BR>>>>>>>>>> matters, regardless if it's
billionaire progressive George Soros, or<BR>>>>>>>>>>
billionaire conservative Philip
Anschutz.<BR>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>
Perhaps this could be termed the value or virtue of
full<BR>>>>>>>>>>
transparency<BR>>>>>>>>>> and honesty in the behavior
of the wealthy as they utilize this<BR>>>>>>>>>>
wealth<BR>>>>>>>>>> to control the
public.<BR>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>
The power that billionaires wield, given their immense capacity
to<BR>>>>>>>>>> influence opinion, behavior and
politics, via buying or controlling<BR>>>>>>>>>>
media exposure, is so great exercising this power indicates
full<BR>>>>>>>>>> disclosure of the source of the
advertising.<BR>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>
Why does Anschutz not offer this full disclosure in the
Foundation<BR>>>>>>>>>>
for<BR>>>>>>>>>> a Better Life
campaign?<BR>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>
Consider the answer to the following question from the FBL
website,<BR>>>>>>>>>> which seems to disingenuously
(is being disingenuous a value or<BR>>>>>>>>>>
virtue?) dodge the fact this effort is funded by Anschutz,
though<BR>>>>>>>>>>
not<BR>>>>>>>>>> in all
respects:<BR>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.values.com/about-us/faq#affiliated<BR>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>
Where does the money come from to support your public
service<BR>>>>>>>>>>
campaigns?<BR>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>
Public service media, by definition, is donated by the
television,<BR>>>>>>>>>> theatre, outdoor, print, and
radio media outlets. Their generous<BR>>>>>>>>>>
contribution of time and space allow these messages to be seen
and<BR>>>>>>>>>> heard around the
world.<BR>>>>>>>>>>
----------------<BR>>>>>>>>>> If the following source
is correct, why does the FBL website not<BR>>>>>>>>>>
reveal that Anschutz owns theater chains where the FBL ads
are<BR>>>>>>>>>>
running?<BR>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>
http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2002/03/710.shtml<BR>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>
His corporate empire includes a majority holding in
Qwest<BR>>>>>>>>>> Communications and ownership of
several sports teams and arenas.<BR>>>>>>>>>>
Significantly, he also owns the United Artists, Regal and
Edwards<BR>>>>>>>>>> movie theater chains, where the
FBL commercials are being
shown.<BR>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>
More on
Anschutz:<BR>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_Foundation_For_a_Better_Life#cite_note-FAQS-1<BR>>>>>>>>>>
-----------------------<BR>>>>>>>>>> Colorado
billionaire supporting nationwide propaganda
campaign<BR>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>
http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2002/03/710.shtml<BR>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>
>From website
above:<BR>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>
Philip Anschutz, who the BBC described as having "a reputation
as<BR>>>>>>>>>>
one<BR>>>>>>>>>> of the hungriest of US corporate
vultures", is currently using his<BR>>>>>>>>>> wealth
and power to support a slick ad campaign appearing on
10,000<BR>>>>>>>>>> billboards, in hundreds of movie
theaters, and on nearly a thousand<BR>>>>>>>>>>
TV<BR>>>>>>>>>> stations across the country. The
Foundation for a Better Life<BR>>>>>>>>>> (FBL)—the
non-profit entity that officially produces and
distributes<BR>>>>>>>>>> the ads—has no contact
information on its website,<BR>>>>>>>>>>
forbetterlife.org,<BR>>>>>>>>>> but a series of posts
and comments to the portland indymedia
open<BR>>>>>>>>>> publishing newswire uncovered the
connection between Anschutz and<BR>>>>>>>>>>
FBL.<BR>>>>>>>>>>
------------------------------------------<BR>>>>>>>>>>
Vision2020 Post: Ted
Moffett<BR>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>
On 12/25/10, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe@gmail.com>
wrote:<BR>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>
There was a segment on NPR during the last election that
noted<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
several<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
ads<BR>>>>>>>>>>> for Tea Party candidates funded
by Democrats, trying to split the<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
Republican<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
vote.<BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>
On Dec 25, 2010, at 2:08 PM, Ted Moffett
<starbliss@gmail.com><BR>>>>>>>>>>>
wrote:<BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
Paul Rumelhart godshatter at
yahoo.com<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> Thu Dec 23 19:51:43
PST 2010
wrote:<BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-December/073399.html<BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
It's also worth noting at the same time that even
if<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> you find out that an
advertisement has been funded by a group
you<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> generally don't agree with,
it's still worth looking at the
actual<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> advertisement itself to
see if you agree with it specifically
or<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
not.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, if I was a
person that wanted to vote for Nader and
I<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
found<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> out that George W. Bush
was funding his campaign to a degree,
so<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
what?<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd think he was a
fool. I would hope I would vote for
Nader<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
because<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
I<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> wanted him in office, and not
vote for someone I didn't want
in<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
office.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
-------------------------<BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why does promoting votes via advertising (by those supporting
G.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
W.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> Bush), for a presidential
candidate who has no chance of
winning<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> (Nader), to take votes
away from a candidate opposing G. W.
Bush,<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
who<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> has a high probability of
winning (Gore), make someone a
fool?<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
This<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> conduct may be ethically
questionable, dishonest, dirty<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
politics...<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> But from the point
of view of winning an election, regardless
of<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> ethics in tactics, it is
smart
politics.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
The fool in this case might be the person who was trying to
decide<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
who<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> to vote for, between Nader
and Gore, who also opposed G. W.
Bush,<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> perceived the ad for Nader
funded by those supporting G. W.
Bush,<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
and<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed this ad to influence
them to vote for Nader, taking a
vote<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> away from Gore, and thus
helped to elect G. W.
Bush.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
My point in this case is so simple I doubt you did not
already<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> consider it, yet your
response indicates
otherwise...<BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
Mind Games - John
Lennon<BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dHUfy_YBps<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
------------------------------------------<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
Vision2020 Post: Ted
Moffett<BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 12/23/10, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter@yahoo.com>
wrote:<BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Even not-so-virtuous people, assuming that's the case here,
can<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>> recognize good virtues
and have the desire to share them
with<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>
others.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As far as advertising, political or otherwise goes, I think
the<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>
more<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>> transparency there is
the better. The more informed a
decision<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>
people<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>> make, the
better. It's also worth noting at the same time
that<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>
even<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>
if<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>> you find out that an
advertisement has been funded by a group
you<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>> generally don't agree
with, it's still worth looking at
the<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>
actual<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>> advertisement itself
to see if you agree with it specifically
or<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>
not.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, if I was a
person that wanted to vote for Nader
and<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>
found<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>> out that George W.
Bush was funding his campaign to a degree,
so<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>
what?<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd think he was a
fool. I would hope I would vote for
Nader<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>
because<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>> wanted him in office, and
not vote for someone I didn't want
in<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>
office.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Anyway, if the devil himself had posted a list of virtues on
his<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>> website, I'd still
suggest actually seeing whether or not
you<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>
agree<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>
with<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>> each individual
virtue.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Also, and maybe I'm way out there in left field on this one,
I<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>
sometimes<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't feel the
need to address every single point made in a
post.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sometimes I have a
thought that's tangentially related to
the<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>
subject<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>
at<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>> hand and just bark it out
like an ignoramus. I'm on what I
think<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>
is<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>
a<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>> mailing list, not in the
midst of a formal debate or a giving
a<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>> deposition in a court of
law.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Paul<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ted Moffett
wrote:<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I did not indicate the virtues being discussed were
not<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
important.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I pointed out that the individual supporting the Foundation
for<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
a<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Better Life has funded
efforts I do not think are
vituous<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(bigotry,<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> junk
science). You may
disagree.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
My main point was objecting to front groups funding
advertising<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
where<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the source of the
advertising is not disclosed. Therefore
I<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
think<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Foundation for a
Better Life advertising should disclose who
is<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> funding
it. I presented data on this issue regarding the
2010<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> election, that
neither you nor Paul R. responded to. I
am<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
including<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this data
again at the
bottom.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Of course sometimes the message can be separated from
the<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
messenger.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But sometimes
in advertising this is definitely not the
case,<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially
political advertising. Some of the front
groups<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advertising is
deliberately deceptive, and disclosing who
is<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
funding<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the advertising
would help reveal this deception to the
public.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think transparency regarding who is funding
advertising,<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
especially<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> politically
oriented ads aimed at influencing elections,
helps<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public make informed
decisions about what is the real
intent<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
behind<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the advertising
in
question.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is not a partisan
issue.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Consider that groups supporting George W. Bush's election
funded<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advertising for
presidential candidate Nader. If people
knew<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ads<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were being purchased
by those seeking to defeat Gore
by<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
promoting<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> votes for
Nader, perhaps the public would not have been duped
by<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
these<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ads.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Again, here is the data from the post you responded to,
data<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
that<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
you<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made no reference
to, on front groups advertising
influencing<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2010<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
election:<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-December/073326.html<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Advertising using front organizations that do not reveal
the<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
forces<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behind the
advertising is a powerful tool to deceive the
public<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
and<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manipulate public
opinion.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This tactic was used successfully to promote the Tea Pary
agenda<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
in<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 2010
election:<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Citizens Blindsided: Secret Corporate Money in the
2010<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Elections<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
and<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> America’s New Shadow
Democracy<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.pfaw.org/media-center/publications/citizens-blindsided-secret-corporate-money-the-2010-elections-and-america-<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>From website
above:<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
While we do not know who is funding such organizations, we
do<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
know<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the groups
which played a significant role in the
2010<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
elections<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
overwhelmingly backing right-wing candidates.
“Outside<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
groups<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> raised and spent
$126 million on elections without
disclosing<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source,” according
to the Sunlight Foundation, which
“represents<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
more<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than a quarter of
the total $450 million spent by
outside<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
groups.”<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Republican
candidates largely benefited from the downpour
of<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undisclosed money, as
pro-GOP groups that did not reveal
their<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
donors<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outspent similar
pro-Democratic groups by a 6:1 margin.
The<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonpartisan Center
for Responsive Politics reports that of
the<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
top<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ten<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> groups which did not
disclose their sources of funding,
eight<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
were<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conservative
pro-GOP organizations.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
------------------------------------------<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Vision2020 Post: Ted
Moffett<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 12/21/10, Jeff Harkins <jeffh@moscow.com>
wrote:<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh Ted at first I didn't get it, but now that you have
shed<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
light<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
on<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the issue, I get
it - you mean people like George Soros
and<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organizations
like the Tides Foundation, the Shadow Party
and<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Open<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Society
Institute.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
One thing I noted about the */Foundation for a Better
Life/*<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
that<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
tends<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to separate
that org from many others was their non-reliance
on<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
outside<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> funding
(they don't accept donations) and they don't
provide<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
grants<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
or<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other funding to
other
agencies.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
For me, Paul R was right on point - the values
promoted<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
transcend<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> politics, the
acrimony and the rhetoric so often a part of
our<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
human<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
dialogues.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hopefully all of the "friends" on the V will appreciate
the<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
posting<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
of<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the values as a
means of self examination and
community<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
enhancement<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing less,
nothing
more.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Happy holidays to all of you - for whatever reason you use
for<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
celebration.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>
<BR>> =======================================================<BR>> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>> serving the communities
of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>>
http://www.fsr.net
<BR>>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>>
=======================================================</DIV></BODY></HTML>