<html><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>"Hello, my name is Gary and I take things out of context." </div><div><br></div><div>The house comment was another Wizard of Oz reference.</div><div><br></div><div>And tell me how you would have responded to this, Crabtree: "<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); font-size: medium; ">OK. Well, fuck you very much"?</span><br></div><div><br>Brutal irony, too, I imagine!</div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); ">On Dec 27, 2010, at 11:27 PM, "Gary Crabtree" <<a href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com">jampot@roadrunner.com</a>> wrote:</span><br></div><div><br></div><div><span></span></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<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> </font></div><font color="#000000">
</font><div><font color="#000000"><br></font><br><br>--------------------------------------------------<br>From:
"Joe Campbell" <<a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a>><br>Sent: Monday, December 27,
2010 9:18 PM<br>To: "Paul Rumelhart" <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>><br>Cc:
<<a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a>><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
<<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>> 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 <a href="http://values.com">values.com</a>. 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 <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>>
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 <a href="http://values.com">values.com</a> 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
<<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>><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 <a href="http://values.com">values.com</a> 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 <a href="http://values.com"><a href="http://values.com">values.com</a></a><br>>>>>>>>
website to something else that no one is really advocating. I think
it<br>>>>>>>> is worth knowing who is funding the
<a href="http://values.com">values.com</a> 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 <a href="http://values.com">values.com</a> 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 <a href="http://values.com">values.com</a> 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 <a href="http://values.com">values.com</a>
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 <a href="http://values.com">values.com</a>. 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>>>>>>>>
<<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>><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 <a href="http://values.com">values.com</a> 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
<a href="http://values.com"><a href="http://values.com">values.com</a></a><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>>>>>>>>>>
<a href="http://www.values.com/about-us/faq#affiliated"><a href="http://www.values.com/about-us/faq#affiliated">http://www.values.com/about-us/faq#affiliated</a></a><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>>>>>>>>>>
<a href="http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2002/03/710.shtml"><a href="http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2002/03/710.shtml">http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2002/03/710.shtml</a></a><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>>>>>>>>>>
<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_Foundation_For_a_Better_Life#cite_note-FAQS-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_Foundation_For_a_Better_Life#cite_note-FAQS-1">http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_Foundation_For_a_Better_Life#cite_note-FAQS-1</a></a><br>>>>>>>>>>
-----------------------<br>>>>>>>>>> Colorado
billionaire supporting nationwide propaganda
campaign<br>>>>>>>>>><br>>>>>>>>>>
<a href="http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2002/03/710.shtml"><a href="http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2002/03/710.shtml">http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2002/03/710.shtml</a></a><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>>>>>>>>>>
<a href="http://forbetterlife.org">forbetterlife.org</a>,<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 <<a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a>>
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
<<a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com">starbliss@gmail.com</a>><br>>>>>>>>>>>
wrote:<br>>>>>>>>>>><br>>>>>>>>>>><br>>>>>>>>>>><br>>>>>>>>>>><br>>>>>>>>>>><br>>>>>>>>>>>><br>>>>>>>>>>>>
Paul Rumelhart godshatter at
<a href="http://yahoo.com"><a href="http://yahoo.com">yahoo.com</a></a><br>>>>>>>>>>>> Thu Dec 23 19:51:43
PST 2010
wrote:<br>>>>>>>>>>>><br>>>>>>>>>>>><br>>>>>>>>>>>>
<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-December/073399.html"><a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-December/073399.html">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-December/073399.html</a></a><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>>>>>>>>>>>>
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dHUfy_YBps"><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dHUfy_YBps">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dHUfy_YBps</a></a><br>>>>>>>>>>>>
------------------------------------------<br>>>>>>>>>>>>
Vision2020 Post: Ted
Moffett<br>>>>>>>>>>>><br>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 12/23/10, Paul Rumelhart <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>>
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>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-December/073326.html"><a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-December/073326.html">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-December/073326.html</a></a><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>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<a href="https://www.pfaw.org/media-center/publications/citizens-blindsided-secret-corporate-money-the-2010-elections-and-america-"><a href="https://www.pfaw.org/media-center/publications/citizens-blindsided-secret-corporate-money-the-2010-elections-and-america-">https://www.pfaw.org/media-center/publications/citizens-blindsided-secret-corporate-money-the-2010-elections-and-america-</a></a><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 <<a href="mailto:jeffh@moscow.com">jeffh@moscow.com</a>>
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>>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a>
<br>>
<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a></a><br>>
=======================================================</div>
</div></blockquote></body></html>