Fair Balance

I hear he was a liberal. I hear people described as liberals all the time that I don't tend to agree with. I think the rise of the Southern Democrats and the Democratic Leadership Council has pushed the definition of what's a liberal farther and farther to the right. [Wash. Post]

Tim Robbins talking about Bill Clinton

'Hardball' bulldog's [i.e., Chris Matthews'] new gig... Conservatives think he's too liberal, liberals think he's too conservative, and his assorted other detractors insist he's too loud, too curt, too abrasive, too blond, too...

Bergen Record

I understand. Really, I do. It's a matter of denial and projection. Conservatives think I'm liberal. Liberals think I'm conservative. Introverts think I'm an extrovert. Extraverts think I'm an introvert. Sane people think I'm crazy. The crazies think I'm sane (or normal). Sociable people think I'm anti-social. Sociopaths think I'm gregarious. Beautiful people think I'm ugly. The uglies think I'm beautiful. Osama bin Laden doesn't know I'm alive. I think Osama's dead. Understanding people think I'm obtuse. The confused admire my wit. Whatever you are that you don't know, blame it on me. I understand.

Like Tim Robbins, I find myself disagreeing with supposed liberals. But I find myself agreeing with supposed conservatives, and libertarians, and progressives, and radicals. I'm finding it increasingly difficult to classify myself according to traditional labels. I like to call myself a liberal, because I like to take a stand against staid conservative ideology and profess a certain tolerant stance, a live-and-let-live attitude. But recently I'm becoming aware that liberals too can be intolerant. And anyway, I find that I hold almost as many conservative ideas and ideals as I do liberal ones--not to mention the radical strain in my philosophy. (I call myself a progressive sometimes, because that's the only position in which I haven't yet found any discrepancies with my ideas, mostly I think because I haven't looked. They're probably there.)

Tammy Bruce, on a C-SPAN show, convinces me that it isn't only right-wing fundamentalists who are intolerant and want only their views to dominate the world. My idea that liberals are more tolerant and laid-back than conservatives may be just wishful thinking or, at best, a tendency that is never realized in practical politics. Liberals as well as conservatives exert social pressure and an intolerant method to try to dictate a pc attitude. They bring pressure to bear on employees, advertisers, organizations, etc., to try to muffle voices that are conservatively outspoken. They cause people to lose jobs, market shares, and social face. Everyone, it seems, has the capacity to be intolerant. It is not a conservative trait.

So, it's not only the liberals, progressives, and radicals or the conservatives and libertarians who're causing all the trouble. Each side denigrates the other. Republicans bad-mouth Democrats and Democrats bad-mouth Republicans. Conservatives accuse liberals of causing all of the problems, and liberals accuse conservatives of the same. Isn't anyone capable of stepping back from the fray and assessing the overall situation in a truly objective way?

It's obvious that with either right or left wing contingents in total control, we'd be going off on a dangerous tangent, as have many countries, past and present, like China, Russia, and Iraq. (There are way too many of them to create an exhaustive list.) I see good points and bad points to the philosophies and practical strategies and tactics of both sides of the political spectrum. Each side keeps the other honest. The net result is a centrist balance. [Tim Robbins is actually criticizing the Democrats for becoming centrist.]

Without opposing political parties our country would quickly head toward one or the other extreme. When conservatives get the upper hand, we head toward solid social order and control, but we sacrifice our personal freedoms and leave ourselves open to (if only subtle) repression by government and business. When liberals predominate, we relieve these repressions, but we suffer from fiscal irresponsibility, allowing our 'goodheartedness' to waylay good economic sense. [Is it really all that goodhearted to allow people to wallow in an ennui of poverty and helplessness supported by a maternal government?]

There are countless dichotomies like this that could be outlined. Bill Clinton understood this dilemma and tried to take a centrist position, which accounted for his success, despite his detractors. Bush, however, pits himself against the left, while giving lip service to it via ineffective political appointees like Colin Powell. [But, to be fair, Bush doesn't lean too far right, as evidenced by Pat Buchanan's recent arguments that (centrist) neo-conservatives have hijacked the Republican party.]

There are all kinds of good arguments on both sides, and we should be looking at what makes sense among them and choosing from a complete palette to build a platform which is not so much centrist as all-encompassing. In this light, although I have a soft spot in my heart (or head) for liberal thinking, I have to side with Buchanan. I think he's an intelligent man who speaks clearly and succinctly to the point of the (maybe not so) subtle New American Imperialism. We are interventionist (even during the Clinton era) and actually hope (or more than hope, desire) to impose our way of life on the entire world.

But Buchanan's view is not the only intelligent one--and that's the point! There are good arguments for intervention, as well as for any political or social stance. I can argue against or agree with both (or all) sides of most arguments, even the most insane. We need leaders who will look at all these arguments and choose among them, not on the basis of political affiliation, not even on the basis of a political philosophy or theory, but on the basis of a practical agenda. Define the goals and do what works to get you there (without, of course, adhering to the theory that the end justifies the means, which is itself a philosophical theory).

I'd call this approach a 'progressive' one if the word didn't imply a liberal agenda. I think that we can hope to progress without adopting the 'wishy-washy' 'liberal values' that right-wingers abhor. If we can't, how does that bode for Republicans? Are they against progress? Maybe the Pat Buchanans, the reactionary elements, are against it, but many 'Neo' Republicans must believe in progress, even forward progress, otherwise why would they be moving toward the center. They saw that it worked for Clinton, so they thought they'd give it a try themselves, which is a good thing, because a centrist position gives politicians the widest choice and better represents all the people.

But I believe we can go even further. I believe we can progress without a right, left, or centrist agenda. We can, for example, help those people who can't help themselves without spending a cent on social welfare. How? I don't know. But I'm certain it can be done, because I'm certain that anything can be done if intelligent humans put their minds to it. Look at what we accomplished during WWII with England and the U.S. working together. That's what we need, a peacetime war agenda. And now with the advent of the worldwide terrorist age, we have that 'opportunity' to come together again and to continue that intense kind of cooperation on as a way of life, which is what we should have been doing all along, because that's what this country's supposed to be about.

But it seems we've lost our way, once again. Nevertheless, we can apply our intelligence across party lines and political philosophies to adopt practices that work. There are all kinds of strategies that we could use that we don't, because theorists have said that they are un-American, things like wisely investing the public's money and making it grow. We could, eventually, with the right mechanism, free ourselves from taxes altogether [which the rich don't want at all, because it would tend to allow the poor to become affluent, thus watering down the elites' positions. It's much more palatable for the rich to maintain their influence in the government in order to keep corporate taxation to a minimum while maximizing personal taxes, which they can easily get around as individuals]. The government could become self-sufficient and, by new law, use the profits they make to enable the poor to help themselves (via social programs like the CCC or the WPA that do not subsidize, but 'rehabilitate'). [I'm aware that this kind of practice may be illegal, not only because big business doesn't like this kind of thing, but because it would turn the undue business influence of government on its head, giving government the upper hand, even to the point of criminality. If business people commit corporate crimes, the government, however ineffective it may be at it, is theoretically there to stop them. But if the government is commmitting the crimes, what's to stop them? But these objections can be countered with good law. I don't know what those laws would be. This is not a proposal, just a series of off-the-top-of-the-head 'progressive' ideas.] The same types of things could be done with criminals, drug addicts, etc, albeit, I admit, with more difficulty, requiring far more psychological expertise, which would be available to the government if it were on a pay-as-you-go basis (accomplished via a balanced budget amendment to the constitution).

There are many, many more things like and unlike this that we could do. We are only limited by our lack of imagination. But first we have to unhook the government from the business community so that undue influence is not exerted on the mechanisms for social reform (and vice versa). It is not un-American to be non-capitalist, but I'm not even talking about us becoming that, necessarily. I'm just saying that, in some, perhaps limited, cases, non-marketplace agendas could work. There are many ways that we are now non-capitalist, but business interests don't want to focus on these, for fear that they will proliferate. When Republicans argue against progressive ideas (which they call liberal ideas, even though they may not really be), it is not because they operate from a theoretically conservative philosophy so much as it is because they have vested interests that they are protecting, if not direct financial holdings, then at least votes that they fear they will lose. (Democrats too. Republicans don't have a monopoly on PAC money.) Until this bond is broken, we cannot hope to progress, but will remain bound by the ropes of our corrupt political past. Things do change, slowly. Too slowly. Not nearly so fast enough for me.

My opponent will pick (Thompson's) desk up and move it clear across the aisle and put it next to Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy and make it one vote harder for the president to lead our country and represent our values. [The Tennesssean]

TN Senate Candidate Lamar Alexander
talking about his Dem Opponent Bob Clement

You see, this is the real problem: we have values. You severely diminish your potential for achieving results in politics or in social action when you have values that you insist upon adhering to. They get in the way, not because there's something wrong with them, but because other people have values too that are opposed to yours. When you tie accomplishments to values, someone is going to lose. One side has to win. And since there is never any one side to any issue, since "two sides to every argument" is a myth, an oversimplification at best, then most sides lose when one side gets the upper hand. But with valueless government, where value lies in the private sector and government makes laws and adjudicates them fairly, never taking sides, everyone can win, living their own values and letting others live theirs in a true democratic spirit.

I can't seem to get over the belief that conservatives do not want this, but liberals do. It's a prejudice I am saddled with. The conservative heritage is to keep government off the backs of the individual (by which they have meant the individual businessman). And the liberal heritage is to use government to keep the businessman off the backs of working Americans. But it seems that, lately, conservatives are all too willing to ask government not only to bail them out, but to help them to oppress workers and minorities. And liberals are all too willing to engage in oppressive tactics to gain an edge over conservative business and governmental factions. It's obvious to me that the balance is achieved, as evidenced by the perfectly split electorate in 2000. [I'm ignoring here that great third party under development in this country, the Non-Voters Party, which represents over fifty percent of the voting population.] It's time to find a third alternative. Centrism could work, if managed by someone like Bill Clinton, but those kinds of people are few and far between. We need a systems' solution. How about a parliamentary form of government? No? No, I guess not.

Government isn't the only thing that occupies my mind these days, although I have to admit, I'm becoming obsessed. It used to be that my mind was completely preoccupied with writing--what I do, how I do it, how others do it that is different, how the best and the worst writers do and did it. Any more, however, I tend to forget about that aspect of my being. I either do it or I don't and leave it at that, a semi-conscious process.

I've been making an effort to balance out my mind, to be fair to other streams of information and methods of judgment, but that effort has been waylaid by the news, which has been waylaid recently by the government. I'd like to get back to the analysis of writing style and method and let the rest of the world fend for itself. To this end, I'd like to cancel my cable tv and seal myself off a little bit more from a world that I increasingly don't agree with.

I watch a lot of news and I write a lot of trash to try to get to where it is I want to be, but I never seem to get there. I should concentrate on quality instead. I should go back to writing fiction, which has the advantage of being a less specific truth. I respond to my world in order to try to balance it out, but all I do instead is add another divergent set of opinions. Is quality so important after all? It's a schizoid split: integration and separation.

From the Hardball Briefing mailbag...Debra Brady writes

"I must be an idiot. I'm flat broke, while you get paid for writing this sophomoric nonsense. I know I can produce trash, where do I apply?"

Call it trash Debra, but it sure beats selling insurance in Topeka! Whatever you call it though, just keep reading!

Dominic Bellone wrote, compiled and edited The Briefing from Washington, DC

[Hardball Newsletter]

Well, not just anybody can write this trash, but a lot of people can. But anybody with half a mind will have learned that what you can do is not nearly so important as who you know. It's an old saw that's still as true today as it ever was. Forget about how much skill you have, people, and start to network. It makes all the difference. (I should take my own advice. But Dominic's advice is better: keep reading.)

And more from Dominic, who proves to be an interesting postmod writer as he departs from his usual style to pen this:

I hit the protests downtown over the weekend and it was pretty lame at the pre-func stuff near the Washington monument. When they started the march however, that's when the excitement hit...Thousands marching, dancing, chanting and such...I was walking near the front with the speaker clad truck playing disco and other exotic tunes...It was all fun and games until I got shoved by a cop for walking on the wrong side of the sidewalk and hundreds of battle gear clad cops boxed us in at Farragut Square...I like my politics hot and spicy but that's a bit "muy caliente" for my tastes....Anyway, I survived unscathed...

Yep. Walking on the wrong side of the sidewalk is a dangerous practice, for sure. I don't know how fair and balanced I can be with this kind of thing going on. I'm assuming that life in this country, in this world, isn't fair and balanced at all. It's all stacked against you, unless you have the money. Then, it's a different story. No one is going to accept my 'progessive' ideas, neither conservatives nor democrats. No one really wants to see social reform. The only reform people want is that which applies to their own particular situation.

The reason that ignorance and poverty continue in this country (and in the world) is that the educated and the rich are perfectly happy to have things go on this way. They have no reason to change, and they are the only ones who have the power to make change happen. We live with the myth that America is a country of opportunity, where with hard work and diligence any person can be successful. But success among the disenfranchised is afforded only to those few individuals who display intelligence and skills far above the rest of the enfranchised population. And when these few achieve a position of power, they become unwilling to endanger it by working for the rights of those who remain repressed. Attempting to reform the social system is like playing Russian Roulette with a fully loaded revolver, or walking through a mine field that has no open spaces. It's an impossible game to win, when people in power don't want anything to change.

There is no fairness and balance in the world, unless there's a certain justice in the balance between the rich and the poor, which I do not believe. We can do better, as a species, progressing toward a fairer society. But we won't. So, maybe, we can't do any better after all. I want to hope that we can, but I can't. I'm too pessimistic. After the final war, all will be better, I know. We'll solve the problems, in a progressive fashion. I'm optimistic for the far future. But for now, for my own lifetime, I have no hope. It's going to have to get a lot worse before it can get better, because intransigent people will not change to accomodate people who have less than they do. Despite my desire, I can't make myself hope that I will live to see the day when it will all be different, because I fear that it will take longer than I am able to persevere. Alas.

In any case, I'm not responsible for the world's social injustice and ineptitude. And even if I were, the world won't pay any attention to me. And even if it would listen to me, I probably wouldn't try. In a lot of cases, the world as a collection of indivduals is a lot less able than I am. Even if I could manage to influence it, why would I want to give my edge away? The other way around, it doesn't do the same for me. It guards its advantage and keeps it to itself. You have to fight for any advantage. Even if you're rich. The rich must fight to maintain their advantages. The poor are continually trying to take them all away. Who can blame them? It's the way of an unfair world. So, given this attitude, maybe I am responsible for the world's social injustice and ineptitude. I am, at least, responsible for the small part of it that I protract when I guard the edges I have gained against those (more unfortunate than I) who would take them away from me in the name of making the world a little bit fairer.

The world is not fair. It's never been fair, and it's not likely to become fair very soon. It's not fair socially, and it's not fair politically. The unfairness is hardwired into our genes, as we continue to struggle to survive and prosper by attempting to always gain the upper hand, and there is no better example of this that the current (or any) presidency:

Bush is on a power trip. He wants total control (as evidenced by the fact that he started out on his Iraq vendetta on his own without any attempts at consensus building, until he was made to see the error of his ways by an increasingly vociferous population of voters, advisors, and world leaders) to wage war, to fire federal employees, and to chase after "terrorists" without having to consider the civil rights of American citizens.

But, in any human endeavor, everyone must deal with the limitations of power, especially in America where we live within a system of checks and balances and where we honor the collective rights of workers.

Bush wants to be able to command his way through his presidency in a completely authoritarian manner. But this is America, home of the rebel, home of the independent asshole.

Therefore, Bush is not a true American. He's not a patriot. He's a warlord wannabe like his mentors and associates, the Big Oil businessmen who rule their worlds from the corporate offices and boardrooms. And his vendetta against Saddam Hussein is not much more than psychological projection.

This may sound disrespectful, and it is. I find it increasing difficult to respect politicians, despite their affiliations. I find it easier to respect people on the political fringe, like commentators and pundits.

William F. Buckley, on Hardball, talks profoundly in his usual slow and ponderous drawl, and despite all of the opportunities provided by Buckley's style, Chris Matthews doesn't once interrupt him, which isn't his usual style. Now that's respect. (I respect both men, because they respect each other. Most politicians pay lip service to respect while seldom displaying it. I find little true respect in politics.)

Among politicians, I find it easier to respect Democrats than Republicans (even though I want to think that conservatives are more sound in practical matters than liberals are), because I feel that liberals tend to care more about their fellow humans, and I place a higher value on nurture than on logic [in general, and in theory, (I like women better than men), but not necessarily in my own day-to-day life; but everyone is inconsistent, everyone is a hypocrite in some way]. Democrats, for example, don't want to deny the rights of businesses to make money, but Republicans want to deny the rights of workers to collectively bargain. The conservative position here is a practical one; it reduces the cost of doing business. The liberal position is a caring one; it enables workers' ability to better care for their families. It's easier to respect the latter than the former--unless you're a conservative businessman who already has enough money to properly care for his family and is working to a "higher level" (ala Maslow) purpose.

We each protect our own asses, and those of our family and friends. We do what we have to do in order to survive and prosper, weighed down with the baggage of our human heritage. And this is never more true than in politics. When it comes to political underlings, does it really make all that much difference whether they tow the line because they're afraid they'll be murdered by a death squad (as in Iraq) or because they're afraid they'll lose their jobs and/or political favor (as in other countries with which we are more familiar)? Isn't the net effect the same: a party with a strong leader and a lot of sycophants?

You can argue against this point of view for the Bush administration, given the nature of men like Rumsfeld and Ashcroft who, as often as not seem to be leading the President around by the nose. In this case, you have to consider the administration as a whole and the underlings as their sycophants. That's the way it tends to be in a "democracy." The power is not vested in one autocrat, but in an elected and appointed junta.

Whatever the case, the U.S., ala the Bush administration, is just plain wrong in its focus on "terrorism." They had all the support they needed after the 9-11 terror attack and they blew it with their vendetta against Iraq. Terror is the issue for the new millennium, Iraq is only very marginally tied to the problem of terrorism, and Bush has lost his focus by attending too closely to the problem of Saddam Hussein.

Meanwhile, terrorists probe the world stage for their next act. As the terror threat increases and acts of violence proliferate, authorities worldwide will become pressed to do something about the problem, until eventually some local (or even national) brainchild will hit upon the idea of fighting fire with fire--or with chemical weapons, or with nukes. I mean, imagine:

Al Qa'ida mounts a successful campaign to overthrown the Indonesian central government and take control of the island nation. A government, Australia probably, allied with the U.S. and Britain, conclude that a national terrorist base is intolerable. But the geography is not conducive to conventional attack. So they kill every living island thing with chemicals. Hey, it could happen.

Via, then, a circuitous logic (if you must use logic, this is the best kind), I conclude that I cannot support the Bush administration in its prosecution of a war against Iraq. And:

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

Thomas Jefferson

The logic is clear: we should not have to pay taxes that support the Bush administration.

All I seem to want to do any more is criticize, especially the Bush administration.

The Art of Criticism and Response

A method of criticism: compliment / criticize / apologize. A criticism nested within beneficent and ingratiating verbal behavior is much more readily, if sometimes unwittingly, accepted. (In other words, there could be a later backlash, when the nature of the criticism seeps fully into the conscious mind of the criticized.)
A method of defense: agree / explain / compliment. When you are criticized, first agree with the criticism to disarm it and any hostile intent behind it. Next, explain how the criticism is appropriate, adding as you do qualifications pertinent to your understanding of the 'problem.' Finally, compliment the criticizers for the insight and intelligence they display.
When qualifying the 'problem,' implicitly explain how the criticism is not quite accurate, leading the agreement to a slightly different interpretation by presenting more information and drawing a larger, more complete picture.
And since no difference of opinion is anything to get upset about (because everyone, at one time or another, disagrees), spread general good will by complimentary behavior.
Realize that all criticism is ultimately self-criticism.
As such, it is always good practice to avoid criticism wherever possible.
Criticism is a weakness, giving in to the process of denial and projection.
Artful response to criticism, however, is a strength.
Above all, never engage in counter-criticism, as it inevitably escalates toward heated argument.
All criticism being self-criticism does not negate the fact that all criticism has some validity. In order for people to project, they must find a hook for the projection. It may be a very small hook, but it will be a valid point nonetheless. Examine this hook carefully. Analyze how it reveals your hidden content and agendas. There may be more validity there than you might think. Also analyze how your qualifications of the agreement might be defense mechanisms of your own.
Next, after the appropriateness of the criticism is analyzed, analyze the criticism re its origin as self-criticism. Understand what the criticizer is all about. It may be helpful re the next exchange.
Ultimate strength rests in the practice of never expressing understanding gained from this process of analysis of others' projected self-criticisms. Understanding is a great defense; it is ammunition. And ammunition used is ammunition spent, but ammunition reserved is confidence-building material.
It is better to agree and leave attack to others. Be nice to people, even those who malign you. And avoid vengeance, at all costs. The best revenge is living well, and the second best revenge is allowing society to take your revenge for you, because everyone who is not nice will eventually get all their malevolence returned, and it's better that you do not participate in that process, because those who return the malevolence will also have that malevolence returned. It's a never-ending process. But then, so is agreement. Be an agreer and leave revenge to others who will become participants of vengeance themselves. What goes around, comes around.

I believe that if people could talk amongst themselves enough, if enough information could be transmitted between people, no one would ultimately disagree. There is a certain truth in every opinion, and when we find it, we modify our beliefs slightly, and when we qualify others' criticisms, we modify their beliefs slightly. Even the most horrible idea contains a germ of truth, and the person who expresses that idea, if exposed to a counter argument in a benign and 'agreeable' way, may modify beliefs, if only minimally. If enough of this kind of behavior is engaged in, the believer of horrible thoughts can come to a more 'sociable' point of view. Over the (extremely) long run, we can all come to an eternal agreement, but only if we avoid hostile criticism (i.e., that which is not couched in an agreeable method). This is a theoretical position. Will we, really, ever accomplish this grand goal? Probably not. It's an idle dream. But the tendency is valid. We can head in that direction, which is better than heading in the opposite one.

Unfortunately, in the real world, agreement is more a matter of personality and presentation than of the actual ideas involved. There are many people with whom I disagree, but with whom I would get along. And there are many with whom I agree, but with whom I would argue despite the agreement. For example, George Bush and Al Gore. Bill O'Reilly is a good example of someone with whom I frequently disagree and yet genuinely like and appreciate. Phil Donahue is a good example of the opposite. It's a matter of personality, not the least part of which is whether they treat others fairly and agreeably. Bush treats others fairly and agreeably. Gore is far too wrapped up in himself and his career to consider others in an honest way.

People react, sometimes critically, to what I write. I want them to do this--and I don't. I really want to know others opinions of what I say and who I am, but sometimes it frightens me, because I am so often so privately in-housed that when I come across others opinions [of me or of my ideas (they're not really mine, most of them, they're borrowed, or rather incorporated, as are most people's opinions)], I am afforded an insight into myself that I otherwise might be avoiding, and that can be a scary process. Just as I often avoid people because too much input often overwhelms me, so does getting a response to what I write cause me to react similarly. I feel like I don't want to know what others have to say (about me). I fight the feeling that people who disagree with me just don't understand, because I know that this is a projection, that I disagree because I don't understand their point of view so well.

...if you are going to put forth the effort to make your voice larger by feeding it to the internet, then I'm hoping that you likewise expect and welcome feedback...

e-mail from codered22 (Cody Redmon)

Make my voice larger? Yes. Like publishing books. Thus inviting a response? Not necessarily, not any more than publishing a book invites a (direct and personal) response. Well, maybe a little bit more, since the Internet is a slightly more socially interactive forum. (Chat rooms, an Internet phenomenon, are an example of a forum that, of necessity, invites a direct and personal response, but an ordinary website designed for simple publication is more like a book.) But I invite response anyway, regardless of the Net's quasi-invitational nature. I do it explicitly on my website contact page. I do welcome feedback, but I do not expect it, because I seldom get it. I wish I would get more, despite my reservation that I might become overwhelmed. This is just another example of my schizoid orientation. (It seems that I can't disregard input that I happen upon, or that happens upon me, a function of my obsessive-compulsive nature.)

You had a comment in WATCHING AND WAITING that really caught my eye... "The basic dichotomy between conservative fundamentalism and liberal enlightenment is..." I realized suddenly that you weren't exactly what you were preaching to be. Vain, pretentious and over-assuming are about the most pleasant terms I could come up with for this quote of yours. It becomes clear here that you are purely politically motivated....and I'm rather liberal myself. Liberal enlightenment? What are you now, politically holy?

I can't think of a single comparison between the terms 'conservative' and 'liberal', in any context, that would justify the usage of a term like "ENLIGHTENMENT." That you would assume yourself or those 'liberally enlightened' ones you're speaking of to be worthy of such a grand title is a pure, damning example of how you're just "tooting in the wind" like everyone else.

e-mail from codered22 (Cody Redmon)

No one is enlightened all the time. I'm sure there are conservatives who experience enlightened moments and liberals who do not. But my point then [at the time of the writing of the pastiche in question] was, and maybe still is, an unenlightened fundamentalist agenda exists that applies strict and unforgiving attitudes, behaviors, rules, laws, etc. toward disenfranchised people, never caring for their plight. The fact that people who express these 'fundamentals' may also at times exhibit an 'enlightened' caring attitude does not undo the uncaring fundamentalist agenda, although it may be mediated somewhat by a personal caring attitude on the part of individual fundamentalists. Liberalism (when defined as a practice opposing fundamentalism) is 'enlightened' in this sense--not that individual liberals themselves necessarily experience any more of an enlightenment than individual conservatives/fundamentalists. I'm defining enlightenment as our purpose in life on earth, not as a Zen Buddhist perception of a non-subjective dispelling of illusion, but as a motive to advance the human race, not by applying rational controls to social and cultural phenomena, but to 'care for' people who cannot quite care for themselves. This is a standard (non-fundamentalist) Christian conception.

As for " 'tooting in the wind' like everyone else," well, of course I am. I make no claim to objectivity. In fact, I believe it to be an impossible practice. Nor do I make any claims on any kind of professionalism (except maybe grammar and punctuation rules, which I will often violate for the effect). In these disclaimers, I am unlike most contemporary journalists and reporters who stumble around their words babbling (just as I do), subjectively rendering opinionated editorials that pretend to be the "news." And I make no claim to any academic discipline, because that's become a similar joke, if it had not always been such. What I claim to be is exactly as I have been defined by codered22: a tooter in the wind. But I try to do it without a pretension that I am doing something else, something more "worthwhile."

We all, each and every one of us, have a valid point of view, even, or especially, those of us who are seldom, if ever, heard. The Internet has become a mechanism for leveling the ground between the professionals and the amateurs. Now, we can all toot in the wind much more effectively, if effectively means finding an audience greater than your family and friends. On the other hand, the Internet is an annoyance to 'professional' newscasters, who must now compete for 'airtime' with almost any articulate or semi-articulate person, and who do so by lowering their standards to appeal to mass audiences on the most basic levels, abandoning fact for opinion. They make no pretense about what they do. The new breed of journalist believes that it's their job to render opinion, which is all very well if that is their intent, not that I agree with the practice. But when they confuse the opinion with fact, which is what they are increasingly doing, then they do a disservice to "the news." You'd think they'd want to do something more than what the rest of us are doing, but they don't, although I'm sure they think they do. They're living a massive misconception.

I have to take this analysis one step farther by asking what it was that codered22 thought I was "preaching to be." I asked him this in a reply e-mail, but he never answered me. Maybe he thought, as a result of my website introduction, that I was preaching to be a psychologist and postmod writer, per my self-description on my intro page. If so, well, okay, so I'm not so fair and balanced a psychologist. So, sue me. But as a postmod writer, I can say anything I want to say. It doesn't have to make sense, and when it does, I'm always pleasantly surprised.

[I am a psychologist, but my academic credentials are non-existent and my work experience is entirely industrial and business-oriented. I have no clinical experience, nor do I desire to gain any. But I do have a good education and I have a lifelong self-education in psychology, as well as in a number of other fields.]

An analysis based on criticism as denial and projection:

Why does a person feel he must decisively and vehemently take exception to something someone says? What motive propels him? Does he feels offended by the ideas and so he must counter them? If so, this would be a classic situation of denial. These are the main points expressed:

"I am no one special to anyone at all."
(Said of himself elsewhere in the e-mail.)
I'm not exactly what I am preaching to be.
I am vain, pretentious and over-assuming.
It becomes clear that I am purely politically motivated.
I am politically holy.
I am worthy of such a grand title as 'liberally enlightened,' a pure, damning example of how I'm just "tooting in the wind" like everyone else.

Of course, in every analysis of projection, there is the obstacle of counterprojection. The fact that I would undertake such an analysis as this in the first place is evidence that counterprojection is occurring, since said analysis is itself a form of criticism.

So, what is projected is projected back, giving credence to the original criticism. This is the phenomenon of mutual identity. We are all one entity, exchanging information between our various selves, attributing its source to another part of our multiple being.

We cannot escape from that which we project. It is of necessity projected back, except in those rare cases where a fully conscious person, aware of the process, chooses not to play the game. But I have not yet met such an enlightened person as this.

And, certainly, as much as I would like to be, I am not such a person either, although I feel that I am on my way. At least, it's a goal of mine that I continally fall short of, so short sometimes that I don't know who's who, projection becoming counterprojection.

Some people (this may be me) have an unconscious (or consciously intentional) desire to hurt people and so couch hurtful words in "objective" terms sandwiched between compliments [ala The Art of Criticism and Response] to prove that they are really nice people (when they're not). And they make it a point to end by saying that others should welcome and expect criticism. In other words, recipients of criticism should want to be hurt, as if they invite an S&M relationship.

Some people do not respond (I see myself in this category, being a typical non-responder) because they fear being found out for what they really are. Some others call their bluff when they first criticize, and then they do not answer back, unconsciously feeling, despite all ego to the contrary, that they are "no one special," having set about to prove that the others are no one special too, in order to bring them down to one's own level, having felt threatened by a perception of the other as actually having been someone special, when the other is, in fact, just another person, probably pretending likewise to himself that he is someone special after all. Each, then, denies that special part of himself (which everyone has) and projects it onto the other so that he may deny it again, externally, symbolically denying it in himself.

Some people want to snool each other and continually try to beat each other at their own games, using communication that is the epitome of psychological compactness, where each gets out of it what they put in, revealing their psychologies in so few words. This is why I write so volumionously, trying to capture every little nuance of experience so as to disguise that very basic thing that I am really up to.

A Fair and Balanced Vision

by j jackson