Enter your email address to subscribe to Irregular Times and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 300 other subscribers

Irregular Times Newsletters

Click here to subscribe to any or all of our six topical e-mail newsletters:
  1. Social Movement Actions,
  2. Credulity and Faith,
  3. Election News,
  4. This Week in Congress,
  5. Tech Dispatch and
  6. our latest Political Stickers and Such

Contact Us

We can be contacted via retorts@irregulartimes.com

No Answer Yet from Unity08 VP on Safe Money Pledge

Nearly five months ago, I asked Unity08 Chief Operating Officer Anya T. Harris and Unity08 Communications Director Shane Kinkennon whether they and the rest of the Unity08 corporate leadership would agree to a Safe Money Pledge. After all, they had demanded that other presidential candidates agree to their Clean Money Pledge to take no more than half their money from donations of over $250, even though Unity08 hasn’t met that mark. If Unity08 asks others to make ethical pledges, I thought, surely it would be willing to make ethical pledges itself, or at least to explain why it wouldn’t. That’s what I thought, but it’s not what happened. I’ve heard not a word in reply. Unity08 COO Anya Harris promised me to keep open a line of communications — until I asked my question about a Safe Money Pledge. Since that day, my line with Harris has gone dead.

The pledge I’d like Unity08 leadership to agree to should be a simple pledge if they are really building a movement for the country’s sake, and not building a movement in order to line their own pockets or advance their own careers. The pledge is called the Safe Money Pledge, and it goes like this:

SAFE MONEY PLEDGE

We pledge that no Unity08 corporate leader, member of the Unity08 Founders’ Council, or member of the Unity08 Rules Committee will pursue or accept payment or other compensation for any work in the campaign of a Unity08 nominee, or for work in the administration of a Unity08 White House.

A very simple pledge, and if those members of the Unity08 corporate leadership and associated councils were really doing their bit for the best of the country, they’d have no problem agreeing to it.

If, on the other hand, Unity08 staffers and council members were interested either in a vault to personal political power, or in their “fair” share of the hundreds of millions of dollars in consulting contracts handed out during a presidential campaign, they wouldn’t want to touch the Safe Money Pledge with a ten foot pole. And that, by the way, would be a pretty good indication that your money wouldn’t be safe with them.

More than two months ago, worried at not having received a response from either Harris or Kinkennon, I posted my Safe Money Pledge question on the Unity08 message boards. But as of today, if you try to follow a link to the Safe Money Pledge on the Unity08.com web site, you will only find a page that reads “Not Found.” That’s because Unity08 deleted my post rather than respond to it. On Unity08.com, you can find a wide variety of posts calling for white nativist supremacy, christian theocracy, deportation of American babies, and all sorts of other wild-eyed policy positions. But when I asked Unity08 staffers and council members to commit to not using Unity08 as a vehicle for their personal ambitions, they deleted the request. You’ll have to ask them why.

On June 27, new Unity08 Vice President Bob Roth promised to respond to my question about whether Unity08 leadership will take the Safe Money Pledge. I took Mr. Roth’s promise seriously, and I looked forward to receiving that answer and sharing it with you.

It has been eleven days now, and I haven’t heard a word.

12 comments to No Answer Yet from Unity08 VP on Safe Money Pledge

  • unity08 is on it’s way down. Nobody is buying into their phony PR scheme. It’s thanks to blogs like this one that have outed them as the scam they are. Nice work! They ain’t answering because they are too busy trying to stem the loss of their funding, donations are way down…

    The scientifically impossible I do right away
    The spiritually miraculous takes a bit longer

  • SpankyTuTone

    The other I.T. bloggers should look at the way Jim formulates his arguments above and in his other posts about Unity08:

    *He provides true premises that lead to valid conclusions. *He gives links that actually support the claims he makes. *He doesn’t claim more than his arguments support.
    *He knows how to make mathematical arguments (double points for that).

    Even though he may have a personal opinion against Unity08, that is not the only thing he relies upon to build his arguments.

    This is an example of what I mean by journalistic integrity.

    I withdraw my earlier over-generalizations about the Progressive movement.

  • Iroquois

    Yes, Jim’s writing is all of the above, he has an unusually clear writing voice, but you are underestimating some of the other writers. J Clifford for example, usually posts his links, (although he has missed in a couple of recent posts) and knows how to find some fairly esoteric and entertaining stuff. He also has the talent of looking at a page and sifting the bullshit out of it to cut to the heart of the matter and find that one crucial gem that has been hidden in polite language. He makes intuitive leaps that later turn out to be true. For a long time I discounted him as a serious writer because he wasn’t posting links. I figured he was drop-dead-gorgeous enough to get someone else to not only carry his books for him but do his homework as well. It is only after following his stuff for a long time that I have begun to suspect he reads quite widely, is unusually informed on political details, and that the leaps aren’t intuitive at all.

  • SpankyTuTone

    The only problem is that he combines exaggeration, dissembling, innuendo, and unsupported claim with a general lack of integrity, as I demonstrated on this thread:

    http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2007/07/09/ron-paul-enron-blackout/#comments

    Since jclifford did not bother to rebut my arguments in post #10 of that thread (yet), post #9 of this thread:

    http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2007/07/08/ron-paul-separation/#comments

    then I’m relying on the old law idea, qui tacet consentit.

    I’m putting forth lots of effort to make sure I do not make statements that I cannot support, Jim also does so. Jclifford and you do not even do the minimal investigation into your claims to make sure they are true.

    There may be other I.T. worters who do their homework before they make their posts, I have only read some Jim’s workd, some of jclifford’s work, and the comments in those threads, including your weak defenses of jclifford’s point of view.

    [I also see that jclifford is still up to his shenanigan's with this line of hyperbolic prose:
    "If you still need to be convinced of the danger of Republican ideology..."]

  • SpankyTuTone

    Make that, “I.T. writers…”

  • Iroquois

    I am not one of the writers here. I don’t know these guys, have never met them. I do not do research for them.

    I do not find Jclifford to be at all lacking in integrity, although I do not always agree with his views. In fact, this appears to be an ad hominem fallacy.

    I find it very difficult to see exactly what you are trying to advocate, Spanky TuTone, or what point you are trying to make except to whine about not agreeing with the writers. You sound like you are trying to join a high school freshman debate team. If you don’t think what they write is true, maybe it would help if you would make your point about what you think IS true and present the facts you have to back it up.

  • SpankyTuTone

    “I do not find Jclifford to be at all lacking in integrity, although I do not always agree with his views. In fact, this appears to be an ad hominem fallacy.”

    No. Not at all. An ad hominem in this case would be something along the lines of, “because jclifford has posted information critical of Ron Paul he must be part of a nefarious scheme to put America under the control of the UN.”

    The reason I say jclifford lacks integrity is very simple and logical:

    1. He makes a post with incorrect facts and false allegations.

    2. I reply with proof that his cliams are not true because they are unspported by his premises.

    3. He ignores my responses and continues to make posts with incorrect facts and false allegations.

    Therefore, he lacks integrity.

    This argument is both true and valid.

    Do you really believe that logic and truth should be limited to high school debate teams?

  • Iroquois

    No. When a writer does not post a citation with an article, it doesn’t mean the writer has “incorrect facts and false allegations” or is “lacking in all integrity.” It simply means the writer has not provided enough information to determine how they arrived at their conclusions.

    And no, you do not have the correct definition of ad hominem.

    A personal attack on J Clifford does not prove anything about Ron Paul. If you do not agree with J Clifford’s view of Ron Paul, why don’t you give some links that support your claims about what Ron Paul.

  • SpankyTuTone

    It’s not just that he doesn’t post a citation in the article, it’s because many of the things he says are not true to begin with, and, therefore, do not support his conclusion.

    “And no, you do not have the correct definition of ad hominem.”

    I didn’t define it. I’m using an example that because of something jclifford believes, he is a bad person (part of a nefarious scheme).

    I am not attacking jclifford, as I proved in post #7, I am showing that his posts show that he lacks integrity becuase he contiues to post false claims.

    I don’t really care to support Ron Paul, nor do I have a need to. Supporting Ron Paul is not necessary to show that jclifford’s posts are false and lack integrity.

  • Iroquois

    No, SST, your example is NOT an example of ad hominem. Why don’t you LOOK IT UP instead of continuing to use it incorrectly???? How hard can it be?

    If you say someone “lacks personal integrity”, that is a PERSONAL ATTACK.

    YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN THE CLAIMS ARE FALSE!!!!! Why don’t you use your examples of “journalistic integrity” in post #2 to SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS.

  • SpankyTuTone

    “No, SST, your example is NOT an example of ad hominem. Why don’t you LOOK IT UP instead of continuing to use it incorrectly???? How hard can it be?”
    I would ask you the same question.

    Here is a definition of ad hominem from
    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

    “An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting).”

    Let’s break down my example and show how it fits the criteria listed above.

    My example, “because jclifford has posted information critical of Ron Paul he must be part of a nefarious scheme to put America under the control of the UN.”

    1. Irrelevant fact about the author: Jclifford is part of a nefarious scheme to overthrow America. Wait! This may not be true. Therefore it is both irrelevant and possibly false.

    2. An attack against the character of person: Nobody of good character would be part of a nefarious scheme.

    3. This attack is taken to be evidence against the claim: Nefarious people (like jclifford) are evil, wicked and not to be believed (everyone knows that) so anything jclifford says must be false.

    “If you say someone “lacks personal integrity”, that is a PERSONAL ATTACK.”

    Not when it’s true. (I never said “lacks personal integrity”, but I’ll let you go.)

    “YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN THE CLAIMS ARE FALSE!!!!! Why don’t you use your examples of “journalistic integrity” in post #2 to SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS.”

    I showed that very thing in the two extensive posts I linked to in comment #4.

    Perhaps you could join Ralph in attempting to dismantle my argument at the first link. He may need help.

  • Iroquois

    What argument? You don’t HAVE an argument. Do you really think people won’t recognize that you are trying to bullshit your way through when you have absolutely no claim, no argument, no clue.

    These Ron Paul supporters are really a few bricks short. I don’t know why I bother.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>