My Left Wing

Well, I have always admitted to hidden lives around the internet, jokingly and seriously both, insofar as it's true, but we all do. That is the nature of the net, you couldn't share your traffic with me, really, unless I let it become my traffic, that is, I follow links you provide me. And that process can never be total, we fill up on a mix from other people.

I have always written with the very selfish position of myself as my audience. I want to like what I wrote myself. If others do it of interest to me, but what I'm willing to do about their opinion is really very limited, though I realize now that I am willing to make one big concession gladly, that is, I will search the best metaphors I can find to communicate the flux of history as I see it. Of course communication involves listening, and that is why it is so worthwhile to make such a healthy concession to one's own listeners, when one will also be a listener.

I'll have to defend myself immediately against charges of self promotion and navel gazing but won't be able to sufficiently since I'm willing to admit it is what some call navel gazing and that although it's not intended as promotion, it is about myself and it does in the end promote the subject, which is MyLeftWing.

MyLeftWing is a name like "MyYahoo" or "MyComputer"... we get to say what it means for us to be "left". If you know me you know I don't believe the left v. right spectrum really has much validity except in casual language, so it suits me to define for myself.  MyLeftWing is our left wing, and also, the non-politically correct "left wing" as Maryscott O'Connor sees it.

But it's not just about me, for Averroes has precipitated this essay, not directly requesting it, but by having come upon MyLeftWing. I recognized him immediately by style, though his handle is different. You are distinctive Averroes, I shouldn't admit it, but that's one of my main ways of judging people, I tend to value distinctive people.

I don't object a bit, of course, but the notion that Av had showed up convinced me that all of you might as well know about this place of value to me.  It's a progressive community and the proprietess, Maryscott O'Connor is known for earnestness and profanity. The mix seems ironic to some, she's somewhat controversial on the left, sparking objectsion from Markos Moulitsas of DailyKos, for example, when she has aggreed to be on Fox Radio and Fox TV.

I got to know her years ago as I know you here, by conversation in comments, but at dailykos.

The profanity distracts a lot of people, and it acts as a sort of shield I think. The people that tend to gather at MLW read the profane as words and are not distracted, and see the ideas. She's not unlike Hubris in that... an ability to post profane text and topics hides what is below one of the most reasonable and fair people you are likely to find. Those of us at MLW tend to see this in Maryscott while others do not and fully expected her to be cussing left and right on national radio and ripping John Gibson new orafices. Instead, she's charismatic and on the best of terms with him, while still not watering herself down.  "I saw you said you were going to appear on the right wing nut fest that is the John Gibson radio program on your blog... " John said to her on her first appearance.  She handled it in stride, Gibson loves her which is cool and disgusting both if you ask me.  How did I get on that tangent?  What was I?

It's a pretty progressive community, but not politically correct, swearing is not shocking for one thing,  but also many members of the community have non-politically correct opinions, such as myself, or even, in one member's case... liking fois gras and other animal-unfriendly foods... if you don't know why that's politically incorrect, I'll have to tell you later. Many smoke, etc., it's ordinary people that are liberal and progressive mostly but not exclusively.

Maryscott has been going on John Gibson's radio program, and now once on his Fox Television show, and she is very disarming and poised. Kos, that is, Markos Moulitsas of the DailyKos fame as just mentioned objects to any liberal going on Fox, and many vehemently expressed worry that she would seem unhinged, blinded as I said they are by her written profanity. 

However, her appearances have generated less criticism and more praise after the fact though the unofficial but intentional policy of Kos and the other Dem Bloggers has not changed. I am one of the admins at MLW, as we call it. I can write FP (front page) posts though generally I just write "diaries", essays that go on the open diaries page and on your own "dairy" page, and promote the diaries of others to the FP. Front Page vs. Diary Page is a distinction of the community blogs, generally scoop or scoop-like software.

Side Note: The "fame" of DailyKos; not that people know what DailyKos is, people I run into are always "wha? huh?", but they may well learn soon. Sen Kerry, Ried, Fiengold, Obama, Boxer, Rep Slaughter, Conyers, and others all have posted blogs there, "diaries" they are called in the lingo of scoop, the software running dkos and several other weblog communities.

I think you all could be welcomed there, though it is unabashedly liberal and dedicated to preserving that, the people there pride themselves on listening if you are civil.  Again, "civil" is counterintuitive to combine with a tolerance of profanity, but profanity is not uncivil by these standards, it's what you say with (or without profanity) that matters.

However, if you are not progressive, being the minority might get hard, and feel unbalanced, as it's no doubt true you will notice more tolerance of liberal positions than conservative positions, the main offense being that while many will treat you civilly IF someone gets upset with a conservative view they are likely be tolerated and in this way, a community remains ideological for good or bad. I post all over, including conservative homes like redstate, this sort of status doesn't bother me at all, but there is pressure and I wouldn't deny it.

To balance this I'll tell you of a second blog and stop there lest I reveal more than a few percent of my secret lairs and paths.  This is a new blog that combines a conservative and liberal in debate, ostensibly, though both will post individually as will I. Unlike an average new blog, this one already has traffic as the liberal, Armando, is very well known at DailyKos (dkos has over 600,000 visits a day, astounding) and the conservative, Joshua Treviño, aka "tacitus" is founder of tacitus.org and redstate.org, and well known also in political blogging, from the right.

So an instant audience of left and right is met at this blog which started just last monday.

But note, these people come to swords crossed mostly from blogs that are not ideologically mixed, it's new to them, UNLIKE CABAL users. We're old hands at it. Tacitus was Josh's blog, but he always welcomed progressives to post in comments and eventually to the main page, and it has now been set free and the FP stories come from diaries which have been voted to the front page. Treviño has excellent credentials in terms of wanting things to be represented in a balanced way, I respect his integrity though I marvel sometimes that such a respectable person could have positions that, in this day and age, I find impossible to themselves respect. Support for the war, anti-choice, etc, but an honest man not afraid nor resentful of criticism or contradiction. Also, Treviño is credible as a "compassionate conservative", which I respect. Like many Americans in 1999, I have much hope that compassionate conservativism COULD have meant something good, and again, though to me some of his positions ironically seem discompassionate to me... at least I know it is a matter of differing  judgment, that he believes his policies are best, not just for him, but for the nation.

Armando, otoh, is an asshole. Mind you, I'm excellent friends with Armando, it's his actual personal position that he's an "asshole". He's not actually an asshole, but he can be rhetorically intimidating to people. One part of the swords dynamic happens to be that Treviño is able to demand Armando's civil best, and sets policies against profanity and too much bluster, two vices of Armando's. Armando is a Clarke Democrat, and his actual ideas are not molested at all by profane or blustering thoughts, just web log comments at time.  You know how it is. Profanity is not tolerated at Swords.

This site I'm speaking of is to be found at SwordsCrossed.com, it opened Monday. I'm helping these guys with some stuff that is to Armando very technical, to Joshua somewhat technical and something he could use help on. They insisted that it was only right to let me post with them though the site is set up ostensibly as a debate between those two, to be continued or rebutted in comments by all. My reputation in that whole space is as someone that is generally incomprehensible, totally impossible to understand. But they insisted so I'll use the forum.

Cabal is also a blog in this genre, hubris another compassionate conservative (independent?), who put together something that ended up, if anything, slanted against him.  I can't tell you how much I respect intellectual bravery like that... but VERY MUCH.  More than anything else, I suspect, that defines a man or woman's politics. Hubris is one of the most honorable men in debate I've ever met, and my standards are high. I'd like to see you post here at Cabal more, Hubris, and I'd like to promote it in the right and left blogosphere.

Indeed, I would like to see Hubris Blogging at MLW, and all of you, and still, of course, Cabal, which I hope can continue.

Cheers.

 

Comments

[pyrrho]

>The simpler fact is that pyrrho ACCUSED me of saying the he "deified" Clinton, aqnd that is exactly wrong. n cpommon usage, this is called a "lie."

typical double standard... it's clear enough that you are not applying the same standard you do for Bush. I believed from the information at the time that you were accusing me of it... so it wasn't a lie, right?

Besides unlike with bush, I was right, you were saying that I had put him on some religious pedestal, and if you want to hang your argument on these distinctions that make little difference to this atheistical perspective... you may.

[Averroes]

See, Winston?

No double standard here, pyrrho. I am applying the exact standard i apply to anyne. I have identified the error, and you, yourself, have identified the information that you are fully aware of the error, and yet you continue to speak it anyway.

To make the analogous case for Bush, let's say that oinstead of his saying that we did not, in fact, find WMD in iraq, he now said that he was not a believing weaponist, so that the distinction between "chemical weapons" and "artillery rockets" was "not a distinction I was respecting nor do I value the distinction." While that may be true for him, I would have to say that he would be dishonest in making this statement, BECAUSE I think he is fully aware of the distinction as made by believing weaponists.

Similarly, i do not berlieve in astrology, yet I don't go around purposely confusing a sun sign with a rising sign, and then excuse myself by saying that this is not a disticntion that I respect, with the implication that because i don't "respect" it, it somehow doesn't exist, and those who make it are somehow evil.

Heck, pyrrho, in order to communicate with real, breathing people, one must accept the distinctions in the language, in addition to those distinctions that your communicant uses. in order to communicate with you, for instance, one must accept the distinctions of dogmatic progressivism, whether one is a believer or not.

I believed from the information at the time that you were accusing me of it... so it wasn't a lie, right?

As i havew stated repeatedly, this is not really the lie in and of itself. if you believed it at the time, then it would not be a lie. Normally, in such a case, the one whose veracity is being question simply says that they were wrong when confronted with the evidence to the contrary. Now, many days later, you STILL have not retracted your false claim. And THAT is what makes it a continuing lie.

You see, although i cannot know the state of your mind when you first made the claim, I have very good reason to believe that you now know that i was never accusing you of sayng that you deified Clinton, have stated so in so many words, have explained my usage (the only usaghe that counts here) for this word as opposed to the two meanings of sainthood that i used. You have responded with some mealy mouthed mincing meandering mopingly around the point, claiming, somehow, that being an atheist is a some excuse.

[Winston Smith]

In order to communicate with real, breathing people, one must presume some shared intention to communicate, rather than one party's private intent to obfuscate, confuse, provoke, dominate and abuse.

[darkhorse]

Wow, sure glad I came back for this exchange. What a hoot. Maybe there would be some closure to the diatribe if it were punctuated with the words PANTS ON FIRE!! On the other hand, I think there may be some room for compromise here, some common ground, in the form of perhaps lesser deities that could fill in that gaping hole between the merely canonized (1-2 miracles max.) and the penultimate (many, many miracles): you know, your not-yet-ready-for-prime-time variety deity, one that would allow for a little face-saving wiggle-room. Like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_the_Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
Think about it.

[Winston Smith]

Nice. Personally, I'm a disciple of the Church of the Mouse and the Disco Ball.

[pyrrho]

admitted the error... didn't I "admit" there was a distinction between canonization and deification? Yes, I have acknowledged the technical minutia of your faith, er, someone's faith.

We still have the fact that you claimed to "admit" Clinton was a saint.

So you are the one that canonized him, you have merely confused me... why did you canonize Clinton? I was saying, in that post, that Clinton was not a part of the question and the adjective "clintonian" was not apt, and not smart for liberals to utilize when talking about Bush's type of revised-revised stories... I know I did not introduce either his canonization or his deification.

"Yes, but there is a distinction between the two things, neither of which you did, pyrrho!"

And so? The point, the issue of Clinton's status as a saint was brought in by you and is nothing but a bunch of smoke.

Before I have to admit anything, you ought to explain why the canonization of Clinton, who is not even Catholic, is part of the topic.

Why?

[Winston Smith]

pyrrho, everything you say is true, and moreover, please observe what's happened: whatever your original topic, the discussion is now miles off in the weeds, and—ridiculously—you’re defending your honesty over an utter irrelevancy. That's not dialogue or discussion. It's abuse and bad faith.

[Averroes]

Well, woinston, lying about somethng i said is not something i consider an irrelevancy. Let's see if it is to you:

winston, you have called me a communist. (Npow, the point here is that you have not, and you might call me on it. If i were pyrrho, i might say that you called me an obfuscator, and that i don't honour the distinction between the two terms. more honourably, i would admit that you did not call me a communist.)

Come on, folks, this isn't rocket science, despite all of your collective efforts to obfuscate the issue. oyrrhgo said i did something that i did not. i called him on it, and he threw out an obfuscatory ink. that's all there is to it.

pyrrho, my reference to the sainthood of Clinton has nothing to do with faityh, as you well know, being based on Transactional analysis, as i have explained now several times. But even if it were, the fact that you do not believe in the faith has nothing to do with the use of the word. You have to have at least a modicum of intent to actually engage in communication, and that does not mean defining terms in any old way you want and refusing to acknowledge that they are used in other ways.

The issue of Clinton's sainthood was spurred because you were defending him at all costs, using the old "I admit he had this one failing, but otherwise he wsqas successful" argument, which, goiven the examples YOU provided, was false on its face. My notion was that, like that of those who venerate (not adore) a saint, and unlike my admiration for his "sainthood" based on TA, you resolved to minimize anything (but that one thing) that was negative about him, to ignore real flaws, and to even call his failures successes!!!! the point was that you weren't giving him the samnme critical look you might goive to, say, bush.

And, as Winston has pointed out for me, the rest was obfuscation on your part.

I was saying, in that post, that Clinton was not a part of the question and the adjective "clintonian" was not apt, and not smart for liberals to utilize when talking about Bush's type of revised-revised stories...

Yes. As you remember, i agreed with that wholeheartedly. i said that Bush is not in Clinton's league when it comes to slipperiness, glibness, or sociopathic lying. i also mentioned that he is not even in my league. and so, the use of the term as applied to bush is not justified.

you see, we agree.

[darkhorse]

The term 'sociopathic' specifically relates to the activities of an antisocial personality. So you would characterize Clinton as an antisocial personality: you state that he is a sociopathic liar. You have clearly misappropriated the term, or used it with the typical abandon of a fanatic. Simmer down already.

[Averroes]

AS i explained to pyrrho, i am using it in the TA sense, which roughloy aproximates the DSM use. The "saint" or "winner" is one who has moved from the sopciopathic stance (simplistically, "I'm OK, You're Not") to acceptance of others as his equals ("I'm OK, So are you.")

In TA lingo, the child neurotic posture, I'm not OK, you're OK, is more difficult to overcome into the sainthood category, and the "psyychotic" posture, I'm not OK, and neither are you," makes iit almost impossible. Most winnders, it is stated, come by way of the sociopath route. i think that Clinton is a prime example. it goes without saying that in the transformation, there is a gain of regard for others, but the skills of the sociopath are always there, as well, in varying degrees in various persons, some of the characteristics. Clinton, for instance, is glib, charming, a great liar, impulsive, and readily takes actions which can hurt others for his present pleasure. You know that he said "I feel your pain" too many times to be totally sincere.

And yet, there is in Clinton an honest effort (in my opinion) to overcome the spociopathic tendencies to actually empathize with people, and to help people. He has found ways to use his glib charm for the good of others. He is the kind of person that i maight ask for advice.

i should note here that not all TA people subscribe to all of this analysis.

btw, in the work of psychologists and psychiatrists outside the US, where they are not shckled by the DSM, there has been a real effort to distinguish those whom in america we call sociopaths, or "antisocial personality disorder" into different categories. Tose who express themselves with violence or a wanton disregard for anyone for any reason, excpt for their own gain, as one pole, are often called "psychopaths."

Hare's PCL-R scale has proven very good at differentiating between sociopaths and psychopaaths, in this sence, and is used in some countries to predict, with very good accuracy, who in prison will violently reoffend if released. (Despite what some psychiatrists and pshchologists say, controlled studies show that clinical impressions to make such predictions do no better than random.) Becasue the PCL-R is labor intensive, and that labor must be done in large part by professionals, particularly psychiatrists, it has not been used much in america. And that is a real shame. Not only would the scale have picked up Willie horton, it would also allows the realease of all those in prison, or mental hospitals with APD diagnosiseswho cannot otherwise be distinguished from the Willie hortons, and who are now kept longer than necessary because our society is so risk-averse, and political leaders are held to account for the criminal activity of anyone released.

In the last forensic pshchiatric place i worked, 5 of 7 units were on lockdown from 1988 until now, bexcause someone who had earned access to a work program (during the day) walked off and raped someone. The result was that about 80% of those incarcerated were kept for the maximum of their sentence, and those never sentenced becasue they were found unfit to stand trial were kept for the maxiomum sentence they could have received for the charges that were brought (but never tried), with the provision that any seperate charges were to be counted consecutively.

So, believe me, darkhosre, i am not using the term with fantic abandon, but with surgical precision. Picking up an antisocial personality is a survivfqal skill in my line of work. I recognized it in clinton the first time i heard him. But it is my opinion that he has grown out of most of the negative aspects of this personality disorder, for the most part.

in fact, this is much more common than you might expect.
contrary to the common perception of the APD person being a criminal, most are not. Very many can do as Clinton has done, use charm, an insight into people for good ends.

Just a quick and simplistic check: We need evidence of some conduct disorder at an early age, which, to be sure, i have not bothered to substantiate, and three of the following seven traits:

1. Failure to conform to social norms;

2. Deceitfulness, manipulativeness;

3. Impulsivity, failure to plan ahead;

4. Irritability, aggressiveness;

5. Reckless disregard for the safety of self or others;

6. Consistent irresponsibility;

7. Lack of remorse after having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another person.

Quickly, for 1, Clinton certainly smoked pot, but didn't inhale. is not this doubly an

2 is a common characteristic of politicians, and Clinton is not an exception.tisocial?

3) Hey, Monica!

7. i was never sure whether he was truly remorseful for his dalliance, but i am sure that he treated the other women he used shabbily.

Now, to actually make a diagnosis, you need more than an instance or two. But i would bet that going back to the pre-saint Clinton, you would have no trouble finding them.

But more importantly, he's moved on, for the most part, and his background has made a contribution to his being one pof the most skilled and seemingly natural politicians i have ever seen.

In america, according to the DSM-IV, approximately 3% of men are APD. i count myself proudly in that number (for instance, when i first worked in psych, i worked on a unit designed to test treatments for APD. All patients and staff had to take the MMPI. We quickly found that the profiles of those staff who lasted on the unit matched those of the patients! Our pd scores were off the charts!)

Also note that just as it is true that not all APD are criminals, not all criminals are APD. The DSM-IV has been criticized for conflating criminality with APD by including criminality in its criteria (such as in 1 above.)

So you see, i like clinton, always have. He's like me.

[darkhorse]

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a widely used manual for diagnosing mental and behavioral disorders, defines antisocial personality disorder as a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:

1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest. see DRUNKEN DRIVING. see NSA ACTIVITIES.
2. deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure. see KARL ROVE. see S. CAROLINA PRIMARIES.
3. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead. see IRAQ.
4. irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults. SEE WIMP FACTOR: MALE CHEERLEADER EXEMPTION FROM CRITERION #4.
5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others. see IRAQ. see BLANK UNQUESTIONING STARE WHEN INFORMED OF IMPENDING KATRINA DISASTER.
6. consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain steady work or honor financial obligations. see JOB RESUME.
7.lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another. see GLIB REMARKS FOR LAUGHS ABOUT NOT FINDING WMD's WITH DECEASED REPORTERS' FAMILIES IN ATTENDANCE.

Yeah, I think you've got your man.

[Winston Smith]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_06/009015.php > Bill Kristol and Leon Trotsky: Brothers in Denial?

[Winston Smith]

Sorry. That’d be http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_06/009015.php> Bill Kristol and Leon Trotsky: Brothers in Denial?

[Hubris]

Sorry for the delayed response Winston, stuff has been crazy with me moving/changing jobs (new kid pics are up, though!).

The South is made up of a big mix of economic strata — but the unifying theme from the very wealthy down to the poorest of the poor is this: what they’d like is some respect and to be treated like they are just as important and intelligent as the rest of the country. Not like some poor hayseed cousin that you are too embarrassed to take to the country club for fear he’ll belch the national anthem before the sorbet course.

That really resonates with me, as does the subsequent discussion of the importance of hope within political messaging.

While the post references Kennedy, I think a no-bullshit Trumanesque politician could really sweep areas like the one where I grew up. Campaign on a cocktail of governmental fiscal responsibility, corporate reform, and health care reform, with a twist of emphasis on individual responsibility/freedom, and the votes are there for the takin'. I think the next election will turn on domestic issues, not foreign policy.

[pyrrho]

one of you bastards post!

(said in a sweet and loving tone of voice)

[Averroes]

Darkhorse, I didn't see your post above on, i guess, Bush's supposed antisocial personality.

it is a bit silly, including, as it does, something that karl Rove did as eveidence. Most of the stuff you put up wold not be admissible anyway., and has the flavor of "fising the facts around the desired conclusion."

That being said, my bet is that politicians in general meet the criteria, and i don't see any reason why Bush would be an exception.

I remember a study published many years ago, which was repolicated, which showed that those who do well in politics and other positions of public trust were more likely to have been in serious trouble as teenagers. One of the explanations at the time was that this was because successful people were risk-takers.

Anyway, let me take one example from your list:

"GLIB REMARKS FOR LAUGHS ABOUT NOT FINDING WMD's WITH DECEASED REPORTERS' FAMILIES IN ATTENDANCE."

I take it that these reporters were killed by WMDs?

of course, this was an example of self-depracating humour. it fell flat.

One more to show your utter lack of seriousness here:

"impulsivity or failure to plan ahead. see IRAQ. "

Funny, i thought that the attack on iraq was planned from the beginning of the administration or before. As i remember, troops were positioned months before the attack. etc.

[Averroes]

Yeah, winston, Drum as usual, and, also as usual, wrong, wrong, wrong.

In fact, bush is so far from conservative he ain't even close. He's pushed through a liberal medicare expansion. he's done nothing about the entitlements that will eventually bring the country down. He's spent like a sailor, especially on a Kennedy-like war to bring truth, justice, and the American way to other countries in the world.

the only point of any wortth in the article is the intriguing notion, oft repeated, that if you have a negative view of government, then when you come into power, you might not do a good job of governing.

In fact, bush is the most liberal president since nixon. At least he hasn't instituted wage and price controls--yet.

[Winston Smith]

Right. And I'm guessing we can expect a lot more of such drivel in the future. Because, conservatism, like Communism, can never fail.

It can only be failed.

[darkhorse]

The last- and utterly laughable- resort of the far right is to single out and frame one of their own failures as the opposition. The Medicare bill was an act of Congress. Bush's attempt to revamp Social Security failed to arouse any significant enthusiasm in the same Congress. And as far as the war is concerned, I don't recall W. F. Buckley Jr. calling the conflict in Viet Nam a liberal invention, rather he embraced it. The far right is certainly hypocritical in labeling the architect of the current misadventure a liberal without accounting for their previous espousal of that conflict.

[Winston Smith]

Being conservative means never having to say you're sorry.