Sane Society and Intellectual Honesty

Sometimes things I say confound people. They are talking to me via Facebook or chat room or email, and I say something like: “I think the term ‘intellectual honesty’ is a misnomer, just like the term ‘sane society.'”

I always manage to do these things where I make a complex statement, and it’s hard to jam the reasoning behind it into “140 characters,” so to speak.

This is why I love blogging.

I might lose just about all of you if I go on too long, but these URLs won’t go down so you can read my verbose verbage another time if you so desire. Like most who know a little about writing I know to kind of sum it all up in that last paragraph that everyone reads anyway.

Let’s start with “Intellectual Honesty” and why I call it a “misnomer”:

I am most certainly not saying that any person being intellectual is thereby being dishonest, by any means. The reason I believe the two words do not link is because the alternative is an impossibly. One cannot be dishonest in regards to your own personal reasoning and personal opinions, no matter if any facts collide with their intellectual position or not.

I can “intellectualize” any issue for you to the point that whatever provable facts and established evidence have far departed from whatever wide assertion I am making. You can find lots of examples of this on this very blog.

Whereas “honesty” relates to strict codes of precise reasoning that, as much as many desire them to, do not change at the whim of an individual. I believe the people screaming these false cries of “creeping socialism” are being “intellectually honest” with us, but they are still dishonest in their facts, in the labeling and on the raw record.

“Intellectual Honesty” is either one of two things: it is a given, where 100% of all people everywhere are “intellectually honest” so it is a redundant term; or it is a fallacy in that intellectualism may be in it’s nature honest but honesty is not by it’s nature intellectual. Either way I feel that this term doesn’t convey any kind of realistic view of the world, regardless of who is using the term.

Now on to “Sane Society”:

This term, to me, is a misnomer in complete and full. While one can glean and nit-pick through a society and raise up certain examples of sanity and good graces, there is a massive gap between that assessment and the picture of the whole.

I present to those believing that at a certain point we will attain a fully “Sane Society” here on planet Earth that to a certain degree establishments rely upon a certain amount of disorder. Utopian Society would be without need for “laws” or even “group morals” for all persons would never consider such acts that might disturb good public order and ethical treatment of others in first place. Other than for the sake of pomp and circumstance there would no need for “leaders” or anything but basic levels of “establishment” because all peoples everywhere would already understand and adhere to “Sane Society” principals. I believe a certain amount of chaos and disorder is inherent to the human condition itself, therefore while I enjoy musing over a “Sane Society” and the “Utopian Dream” I also view it as nothing but a muse in which to model a better world as opposed to the ultimate consequence of human progression.

What I am really talking about is the words we use and how we use them.

With the sharp increase in ad hominem attacks and red herring arguments in our lexicon, I can see how some might view these as less than important points. But I think these kind of issues are at the root of what is preventing good communication between opposing viewpoints in our society today. There is a strong need for a focus on critical thinking and making better arguments, and it starts with using language that makes real sense.

Advertisements

Emailing Alan Colmes of Fox News

I doubt anyone cares but I spent a bit of time on this email and perhaps there are some interested in hear about all this:


“You’ve Lost a Customer, Not Like One Customer Ever Mattered”

Alan Colmes,

You’ve lost a customer, but not a friend or a fan of your witty radio banter.

I will not be renewing my Fox News Talk podcast subscription when it ends this year.

I have always believed that one votes with their money in a capitalistic society and I will not “vote” for your program any longer. I have to retract it like I was saying that I believe strongly in ethical journalism and would have resigned from Fox, were I you, in the ACORN racist-crusade. You make your own career decisions, but broadcasting inaccurate information was what I trying to avoid by subscribing to your show out of the Fox News Talk selections.

In 2008, with W. in the White House, you were absolutely right about Fox News in regards to the straight-news being honest and you served to clear up misconceptions spread on the internet or by commercialized news-media.

Things change, my friend. Just as the NY Post has made it their singular agenda to “destroy Barack Obama” this is also true for Fox News as evident in endless cases of failure to report facts.

If you, as a broadcaster, refuse to do any research and refuse to look at any objective data on the matter then you have no credibility on the issue. Period.

As an example: you said on the air that you never get vaccines but you never advocated against getting vaccines on the air. Do you understand? If you had done the latter I would also be unsubscribing in the future. All this political crap we all talk about is no different. You and everyone else can believe whatever the **** you want, but when you spread inaccurate information as “fact” you can bet you drive the intelligent / educated people out of the tent and you also drive the loudmouth assholes like me crazy as hell.

This mindless defense of Glenn Beck (he should have finished college if he was going to claim to a “historian“ on the air) and of Fox News as a network when the line was crossed many lines between individual bias and network bias then you are not standing up for the truth.

There was a time you were not making crap up and when you didn’t know one way or another you would say as such. Now you have several times lied on the air and the only reason I don’t call up tonight to grill you on it is because that would serve to feed the right-wingers that are trying to destroy what is left of your credibility.

By the way: the credibility scale is internet then radio then television then print. You have three and I have barely two. I should just pornography in between paragraphs and you have an existing audience, no matter what network you are under.

I like to save your credibility and enhance your lack of credibility but now that I have had it out with your producer and thought on it more than that childish angry-email I first sent: I would only like to inform you that it is an accurate statement that you have “lost a fan.”

The only real difference I can make, other than speaking out, is to not feed into the process any longer.

I like the show, and your internet-work.

I just demand honesty, outright with no exceptions. I refuse to tolerate corporate lies coming from you or anyone else.

I want to be clear: I am not pandering to get back on Liberaland. I used my knowledge of psychology to make an awful, mean-spirited joke on Joel’s expense and I was so out-of-line I myself think I should be banned. Any rational person would agree.

I just want you, as the author of this blog, to understand that I thought every-goes because you posted words like “f***” and allowed endless verbal assaults on other users through an obviously moderated site.

I was under the false impression it was like my blog with Net-Neutrality intact. A simple misconception on my part.

So I’ll be enjoying the show via podcast and surely call in sometime soon (statistics show I‘ll call in the next few months or years after listening for about three years at this point, every night) but I’m not going to keep paying when I’m done with this round.

It’s kind of funny because you are the “clean-up crew” on almost every single other issue I can think you that you bring up on the show.

But I’d just be the caller that would hound you about “Fox-this, Fox-that” that actually had the capability to go out get a degree in Media Studies.

Basically, I’m not f***ing around. I thought you weren’t either but I was wrong and it doesn’t change your value as a broadcaster but your value as a social activist.

When I create a network out of thin air like Fox did in ‘94, I’ll hire you. I’d bring you in as Senior Staffer even on the first day.

I get it by the way. I know you just don’t want to attack fellow broadcasters and people in the news-room. It’s just crossed that line, my friend. It’s fully inaccurate to make any case for credibility from Fox Broadcasting as a corporate entity, and if don’t I think the facts are working against you that’s fine. But it’s like the tea-baggers, if you just shove your head in the sand we have nothing else to talk about and I have to just talk over your shoulder.

I believe I’ve said it before: If you are a liberal and not so angry you can barely stand it right now, then you are just not really paying attention to politics.

My suggestion is to have a full segment, perhaps reoccurring, dedicated to previous-guest Joe Conason of Salon talking about matters pertaining to Glenn Beck and Barack Obama.

I have the feeling he would not start screaming in talking about the racism being spread by both your former partner on television and this “rodeo clown” Glenn Beck.

I’m talking about shaking hands with the devil and still trying to make a better case than that. Joe Conason has it wrapped up, you need to talk to him.

“Truth to power.”

It was very cool when I first that in a promo for your show was impressed by your ability to tackle radical right-wing extremism with tact and intelligence. But my real enemy are the corporations and those who promote lies, or dishonesty, in the guise of “journalism.”

The truth comes out, with or without you aboard.

You do your thing, great radio entertainment, and I’ll do mine.

I am not here to question your motives, only to state mine: I follow the guidance of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. in that I feel I must speak out rather than remain silent about racism and bigotry.

Those evil idiots who tried to spread lies about you and your “Radio Graffiti” are an example of what qualifies as something I will continue to fight against. But just like you told them “learn your Radio History and call me back” it’s pretty much the same thing here except to you.

Learn your Modern-Media History studies a little better and then we’ll talk about me continuing to promote your product online, and buying it at future dates.

November 16th 2009

Media-Watchdog? Come Again?

This is the only reason I call myself a Media-Watchdog, one of the last of the breed.

These are just some of my saved email contacts from my personal email account.

crooksandliars@gmail.com
feedback@realclearpolitics.com
mail@journalism.org
yourcomments@foxnews.com
info@ap.org
pres@kqed.org
scoop@huffingtonpost.com
tips@hotair.com
press@thedailybeast.com

Just a sample, there‘s more. (Hot Air is highly partisan, by the by.)

Just making a point. And hoping you’ll input your own thoughts to these addresses.

Whatever good public emailing your my real name and address attached has, you can bet I did it.

And will do it again.

Most likely, standing while typing one-handed just like this. (Someone take a picture, I look journalistic!)

This post is just to dispel any confusion out there in terms of who exactly the real media-watchdogs of America exactly are.

That would be me, Eric Lightborn. The Non-Profit Student Blogger. And that’s pretty much it.

 

Eric Lightborn
http://americapress.wordpress.com
March 22nd 2009