<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18999">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY style="PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 15px"
id=MailContainerBody leftMargin=0 topMargin=0 bgColor=#ffffff
name="Compose message area" CanvasTabStop="true">
<DIV><FONT size=2>Beliefs have behavioral consequences.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>For emphasis, <STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000>beliefs have
behavioral consequences</FONT></STRONG>. That includes political,
economic, social, religious, scientific, experience based inductions,
philosophical, etc beliefs.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Beliefs are not the only factor that determine behavior, but
they appear to be a significant determinant.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Not all beliefs are true; the probability of the truth of many
beliefs are difficult to determine. Some beliefs are syntactical
nonsense. To this point in history, methods of determining the truth
outside an assumed context for values and super natural religious beliefs do not
exist. This list also includes political philosophies and
viewpoints.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Some beliefs have very high probabilities such as those found
in the subjects of applied sciences such as physics, chemistry, engineering,
etc.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Large parts of the science of psychology are not well
confirmed, many areas do not have agreed upon answers at all. We do not
know how to accurately predict the behavior of all individuals, or even the
behavior of a given individual in certain contexts.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>That does not mean we are totally without a clue.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Almost all of us experience/are bombarded with claims, rants,
opinions, etc everyday. Some of these alter or affect our beliefs in some
way. New beliefs are created, old ones weaken or
strengthened.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Beliefs have different levels of intensity: intensity
about their "truth" and intensity about how one could/should act given their
"truth."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Since beliefs have behavioral consequences and various
organizations and pundits spend time and much money trying to influence our
beliefs in the hope of affecting our behavior, it would be a folly to say that
what is being expressed today does not affect the behavior at least to some
extent of almost all of us, including all but the incomprehensibly mentally
ill. Hence, claims that what any individual said directly caused the
shooting and/or claims that what some individual said had nothing to do
with the shooting are equally folly.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>The problem, and one which we have yet the knowledge to
accurately predict for many instances and especially in the present
instance, is to determine how a set of information/opinions/presentation of such
affects a given individual.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>It would be foolish then to believe that shooter at issue had
not been influenced to some extent by current political rhetoric. What
might be very difficult to determine is how, in what way, and how much this
rhetoric influenced the behavior of the shooter, especially given his apparent
mental instability/irrationality.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>However, despite this difficulty and given the state of
civilization at present, I think it important to at least try to answer some of
these questions. In the present instance hopefully accurate information
can be gathered and disbursed about the shooter.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Humankind is far from being a rational animal. We all
act in accordance with partially emotionally based beliefs such as
values. Most of us do not have the knowledge or take the time to think
every issue of importance through carefully before we act.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Most advertising appeals and political appeals are designed to
appeal more to our irrational/emotive tendencies and attempt to cleverly and
emotionally persuade us to a greatly exaggerated positions of the
truths/probabilities of certain claims than to appeal to our rational
tendencies. This includes use the language of destruction either directly
are metaphorically.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Political assaults and assignations are not new. There
are considered by some to be a perfectly legitimate tool for changing the
social/political order. </FONT><FONT size=2>There is little doubt that certain
kinds of current political rhetoric reinforces or creates this view in
some.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>In a free society, there is no way to prevent the use of this
kind of suggestively violent or anti-social rhetoric. Persuasion can
be used to discourage such rhetoric. In my experience, however, such
attempts to persuade do not work on those who act rhetorically and otherwise in
violent and/or other anti-social ways in extreme ways, mentally healthy or
not.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV><FONT size=2>
<DIV><BR>Wayne A. Fox<BR>1009 Karen Lane<BR>PO Box 9421<BR>Moscow, ID
83843</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><A href="mailto:waf@moscow.com">waf@moscow.com</A><BR>208
882-7975<BR></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=jampot@roadrunner.com href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com">Gary
Crabtree</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=philosopher.joe@gmail.com
href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">Joe Campbell</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, January 13, 2011 6:04
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] A Resolution
for the 112th Congress (after theTucson Tragedy)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 face=Calibri>I would have a sliver of respect for
your point if you included so much as a <BR>single example of rhetoric that
was not from the the right. To endlessly<BR>drone that</FONT> "it's just as
extreme to say that the volatile political <BR>rhetoric of the radical right
and the climate it created, and the Palin poster <BR>in particular, had
nothing to do with the shooting." <FONT color=#000000 face=Calibri>and never
once include<BR>one of the multitude of examples that are just as
prevalent on the left.<BR>You are clearly trying to paint the maniac as, at
least partially, a product <BR>of the right and I'm having none of it so stop.
Really, just stop.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 face=Calibri>g</DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR></FONT>--------------------------------------------------<BR>From:
"Joe Campbell" <philosopher.joe@gmail.com><BR>Sent: Wednesday, January
12, 2011 8:56 PM<BR>To: "Gary Crabtree" <jampot@roadrunner.com><BR>Cc:
"the lockshop" <lockshop@pull.twcbc.com>;
<vision2020@moscow.com><BR>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A Resolution for
the 112th Congress (after the Tucson Tragedy)<BR><BR>> What exactly is the
moon beam claim? That a "nothing" claim is<BR>> extreme? And please stop
with the "wishful thinking" claim, which is<BR>> just repeating the
insulting comment that Tom posted from Rush, that<BR>> Democrats wanted
this to happen. Have you no decency? Really just<BR>> stop.<BR>>
<BR>> I'll repeat what I said, again, so it doesn't get lost in
your<BR>> continued attempts to distort my words: It is extreme to say
Palin did<BR>> it and just as extreme to say that the climate created by
the rhetoric<BR>> of the radical right had nothing to do with the shooting.
The truth<BR>> lies somewhere in between. Where? I don't know. I don't need
evidence<BR>> that he saw the map to support this claim, just to support
the extreme<BR>> position you keep trying to put in my mouth (which I do
not hold).<BR>> <BR>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Gary Crabtree
<jampot@roadrunner.com> wrote:<BR>>> " I think it is just as
extreme to say that the volatile political rhetoric<BR>>> of
the<BR>>> radical right and the climate it created, and the Palin poster
in<BR>>> particular,<BR>>> had nothing to do with the
shooting. "<BR>>><BR>>> I might be willing to accept this if there
was even a shred of evidence<BR>>> that the psychopath had seen the map
or paid any attention to right<BR>>> wing commentary. So far, the
indications are that he didn't and your<BR>>> claims appear to be made
up of moon beams, fairy dust, and a heaping<BR>>> shovel full of wishful
thinking<BR>>><BR>>>
g<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>
--------------------------------------------------<BR>>> From: "Joe
Campbell" <philosopher.joe@gmail.com><BR>>> Sent: Wednesday,
January 12, 2011 8:28 PM<BR>>> To: "the lockshop"
<lockshop@pull.twcbc.com><BR>>> Cc:
<vision2020@moscow.com><BR>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A
Resolution for the 112th Congress (after the<BR>>> Tucson
Tragedy)<BR>>><BR>>>> What is the uber left? What policies do
they hold? What are they<BR>>>> saying about Palin that is so
egregious? Be specific. Use quotes.<BR>>>><BR>>>> I know
that I've made some claims about Palin and the shooter, but<BR>>>>
most of my claims were distorted by you and by Roger. I never
blamed<BR>>>> Palin, for instance. I certainly never claimed that she
was<BR>>>> responsible in any way. It would be an extreme claim to
say that she<BR>>>> was an accessory, which I don't believe and never
said. But I think it<BR>>>> is just as extreme to say that the
volatile political rhetoric of the<BR>>>> radical right and the
climate it created, and the Palin poster in<BR>>>> particular, had
nothing to do with the shooting. In between the<BR>>>> extreme all
and nothing claims are a variety of more plausible views<BR>>>> and I
haven't said which of those I accept because I really don't
know<BR>>>> what to say about it.<BR>>>><BR>>>> You
say "Stop trying to tarnish your ideological 'enemies' with<BR>>>>
reasons for a event that just are not there." But this is such a
joke<BR>>>> it is not funny. I'm merely asking that Palin and others
stop using a<BR>>>> "bullseye" to target their political enemies,
that the right stop<BR>>>> referring to everyone on the left as a
communist, that they stop the<BR>>>> distortion and the over-the-top
rhetoric. That we realize, as one V<BR>>>> post put it, we are
hovering around the same spot on the political<BR>>>> compass. Again,
there is nothing radical about any of this and it is<BR>>>> precisely
the very same request that you're making. So I find that<BR>>>>
ironic!<BR>>>><BR>>>> Add to this that if I had political
motives, what I'd do is keep my<BR>>>> mouth shut wrt criticisms of
Palin. What I'd try to do is get her to<BR>>>> win the Republican
nomination since she is one of handful of people<BR>>>> that Obama
has a chance of beating. She is simply not electable. I<BR>>>> hope
she does win the Republican nomination for that very reason
(but<BR>>>> she won't). So if I were playing political gamesmanship
I'd keep quiet<BR>>>> about her. I wouldn't criticize her. It makes
no sense to criticize<BR>>>> her if you're a Democrat and your only
concern is to get Democrats<BR>>>> elected. She is the best thing for
the party in years. But I'm out of<BR>>>> politics and have more
broad social concerns, like the well being of<BR>>>> our country. I'm
using this as an opportunity to try to get the<BR>>>> over-the-top
rhetoric to stop.<BR>>>><BR>>>> Lastly, wrt to your claims
about "surveyor symbols" that is just plain<BR>>>> stupid. I'm not
saying you are stupid since I don't think for a minute<BR>>>> that
you believe that story. So the fact that I don't believe it
can't<BR>>>> be a slight against me. No one believes that story, and
we're not all<BR>>>> members of the uber left. Even the folks telling
that story don't<BR>>>> believe it.<BR>>>><BR>>>>
Here's a nice article on the
issue.<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/01/gunsights_or_surveyor_symbols.html<BR>>>><BR>>>>
At the end of this article there is a comment from Palin
herself,<BR>>>> tweeted after the election: "Remember months ago
'bullseye' icon used<BR>>>> 2 target the 20 Obamacare-lovin'
incumbent seats? We won 18 out of 20<BR>>>> (90% success rate;T'aint
bad)."<BR>>>><BR>>>> Nothing about surveying here from the
horses mouth. Try explaining<BR>>>> this! Or better yet, try dropping
this stupid fairytale altogether. NO<BR>>>> one is buying
it.<BR>>>><BR>>>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 5:25 PM, the
lockshop <lockshop@pull.twcbc.com><BR>>>>
wrote:<BR>>>>> The symbol means here, this place, this location on
the map. In other<BR>>>>> words<BR>>>>> this is a
district where we would like a Republican to be in office.
Sort<BR>>>>> of<BR>>>>> like X marks the spot. Why the
uber left keeps trying to make this<BR>>>>>
tragedy<BR>>>>> about Sarah and the right is really an unsavory
mystery. The shooter was<BR>>>>> crazy. Stop trying to tarnish
your ideological "enemies" with reasons for<BR>>>>>
a<BR>>>>> event that just are not
there.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> g<BR>>>>> -----
Original Message ----- From: "Joe Campbell"<BR>>>>>
<philosopher.joe@gmail.com><BR>>>>> To:
<nickgier@roadrunner.com><BR>>>>> Cc:
<vision2020@moscow.com><BR>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 12,
2011 4:46 PM<BR>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A Resolution for
the 112th Congress (after the<BR>>>>> Tucson
Tragedy)<BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>> Another
question: What possible meaning or significance could
surveyor<BR>>>>> symbols have? Why that
symbol?<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 4:26
PM, <nickgier@roadrunner.com>
wrote:<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> A note to Roger and
Gary:<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> When Democrats start
calling for "Second Amendment" solutions, then I<BR>>>>>>
will<BR>>>>>> consider your losing battle to make Democrats
more violent.<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> If Palin meant
those to be surveyor symbols, why did she accompany
the<BR>>>>>> map<BR>>>>>> with the tweet "Don't
Retreat, Reload"? Could it be that the webmaster<BR>>>>>>
couldn't find the cross-hairs symbol that he really intended and
needed?<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>>
Nick<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> A RESOLUTION FOR THE
112TH CONGRESS<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> Whereas, the
Pima County Sheriff rightly said that violent rhetoric
has<BR>>>>>>
consequences;<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> Whereas,
abortion clinic doctors were marked with cross-hairs and
“four<BR>>>>>> doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard,
and a clinic escort<BR>>>>>> were<BR>>>>>>
killed”;<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> Whereas, GOP Senate
candidate Sharon Angle and Tea Party leaders<BR>>>>>>
declared<BR>>>>>> that a “Second Amendment” solution may be
necessary for the Obama<BR>>>>>>
administration;<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> Whereas, in
November of 2009 a person brought a handgun to one of
now<BR>>>>>> critically wounded Rep. Gabriel Giffords’
community gatherings;<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> Whereas,
GOP Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin targeted
22<BR>>>>>> Democratic seats with a symbol that Giffords, a gun
owner, took as<BR>>>>>> cross-hairs (the map was followed by a
tweet that said “Don’t Retreat,<BR>>>>>>
Reload”);<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> Whereas, Gifford’s
opponent Jesse Kelley asked supporters to "shoot a<BR>>>>>>
fully automatic M16" to "get on target" and help "remove
Gabrielle<BR>>>>>>
Giffords";<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> Whereas, on Fox
Business News Sarah Palin offered praise for Kelly: "I<BR>>>>>>
don't feel worthy to lace his combat
boots";<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> Whereas, on January
12, 2011 four GOP leaders in Arizona, criticized as<BR>>>>>>
McCain supporters, resigned after violent threats from Tea
Party<BR>>>>>>
activists;<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> Whereas, Giffords’
office was vandalized right after she voted for the<BR>>>>>>
Affordable Health Care Act;<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>>
Whereas, the U.S. lags other industrialized countries in mental
health<BR>>>>>> services, and Arizona ranks second to last in
the U.S.;<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> Whereas, repeal of
the Affordable Health Care Act has no chance of<BR>>>>>>
passing<BR>>>>>>
Congress;<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> Whereas, Americans,
sometime by polls of 2-1, support major aspects of<BR>>>>>>
the<BR>>>>>> Affordable Health Care
Act;<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> Therefore Be it Resolved
that the repeal of the Affordable Health Care<BR>>>>>>
Act<BR>>>>>> be
withdrawn;<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> Be It Further
Resolved that more funds be provided for mental health<BR>>>>>>
treatment;<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> And May It Further
Resolved that all Americans stop demonizing their<BR>>>>>>
political and religious opponents and refrain from using
violent<BR>>>>>> rhetoric<BR>>>>>> about
them.<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> And Finally May It Be
Resolved that on the eve of the MLK Holiday all<BR>>>>>>
Americans attempt to embrace the ethics of non-violence that
Martin<BR>>>>>> Luther<BR>>>>>> King drew from
Mahatma Gandhi and his own Christian
faith.<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>>>>>>
=======================================================<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>>>>>
=======================================================<BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>>
No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>>>>> Checked by AVG -
www.avg.com<BR>>>>> Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database:
271.1.1/3375 - Release Date: 01/11/11<BR>>>>>
23:38:00<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>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>=======================================================<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>=======================================================</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>