Wednesday, November 24, 2010
TSA Torture Live
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
The Vagabond way recommends: "Golf her Wei"
It warms my wandering heart to see someone refuse to let a dream die. Thus, with suitable fanfare, thundering cannons and streaming confetti (all virtual, of course), The Vagabond way announces it's latest addition to our "recommends" section: Wei under par.
"Wei under par," founded, operated and otherwise cared for by Stephanie Wei, is quite simply some of the most original, irreverent and innovative coverage of the world of golf you can find. Wei brings a unique perspective and rapier wit to a genre of sports journalism that is moribund at its worst, staid and stuffy at its best. Very few golf writers produce work that non-golf junkies would care to read and, even for golf fans, most coverage is eminently forgettable. Not so with "Wei under par." Wei, along with contributors Kevin Merfield and Conor Nagle, consistently finds a fresh angle to combine with straight reporting and produces work that anyone could find interesting and funny.
Wei, a former competitive junior golfer and Yale grad, has a growing presence in the male dominated world of golf journalism, with her work being featured in The Wall Street Journal, Sports Illustrated and ESPN.com, a presence that is 100% self made. Working in the event planning field after graduating college where her collegiate golf career was cut short by a back injury, she had a desire to make her living doing something golf related. Thus was born, "Wei under par." A few short years later, the WSJ sent her around the world to cover major tournaments and the 2010 Ryder Cup. Talk about making your own niche!
Stephanie, The Vagabond way commends and congratulates you for your vision, tenacity and skill. Keep grabbing that brass ring! As with all honorees in The Vagabond way's "recommends" section, you win an absolutely free cup of coffee from Vagabond himself, assuming it's not too close to payday and Mrs. Vagabond says it's ok.
For anyone reading this, take a huge step up in blog quality and check out "Wei under par." You won't be sorry!
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Those who live in glass houses . . .
The Vagabond Way loves few things more than hypocrisy exposed, hubris laid low and public rants proven wrong. Thus, it is with great glee and fanfare that we present "Those who live in glass houses . . ."
Our inaugural entry involves one Lou Dobbs, famous CNN financial reporter, immigration tough-guy and possible political candidate. Since being forced out of a long gig at CNN due to equal parts of personal asshattery and public outcry, Lou has stumped the country advocating his "get tough" brand of enforcement first immigration policy. He has waged a veritable crusade against illegal immigration, reserving a special brand of disdain for employers who hire undocumented workers. Dobbs has been quoted numerous times excoriating such employers, railing against their "exploitation of illegal aliens," and advocating felony charges for such offenses.
Well, it turns out that Dobbs isn't above hiring just such a contractor to care for two of his large estates and his daughter's million dollar show horses. An article by Isabelle MacDonald in "The Nation", outs Dobbs for engaging in the exact practices he has so publicly opposed. An example of Dobbs' rhetoric can be seen below:
The full article can be found here and is certainly worth the read, but the highlights are basically thus: Dobbs employed, through a contractor, undocumented workers who were isolated at his property, worked long hours doing menial tasks, were on call at all hours for the care of the horses involved and paid substantially less than minimum wage. They were also provided no health benefits even though the work is physically dangerous. Hmmm . . . Let me get this straight . . . for all of your moral indignation on this issue, you can't find the time in your busy life to check the veracity of your contractors efforts when it comes to employing undocumented aliens, or even talk to the poor guys who are scooping your horseapples and trimming your roses. You can afford to pay a million bucks a pop for show horses but you can't afford to kick a few greenbacks the way of your underpaid workers who live in conditions that mirror indentured servitude. Hell is in the details, Lou. Thanks for busily chucking rocks from the glass magnificence that is your estate. You have proven yourself to be even more full of it than your horse stalls.
Our inaugural entry involves one Lou Dobbs, famous CNN financial reporter, immigration tough-guy and possible political candidate. Since being forced out of a long gig at CNN due to equal parts of personal asshattery and public outcry, Lou has stumped the country advocating his "get tough" brand of enforcement first immigration policy. He has waged a veritable crusade against illegal immigration, reserving a special brand of disdain for employers who hire undocumented workers. Dobbs has been quoted numerous times excoriating such employers, railing against their "exploitation of illegal aliens," and advocating felony charges for such offenses.
Well, it turns out that Dobbs isn't above hiring just such a contractor to care for two of his large estates and his daughter's million dollar show horses. An article by Isabelle MacDonald in "The Nation", outs Dobbs for engaging in the exact practices he has so publicly opposed. An example of Dobbs' rhetoric can be seen below:
The full article can be found here and is certainly worth the read, but the highlights are basically thus: Dobbs employed, through a contractor, undocumented workers who were isolated at his property, worked long hours doing menial tasks, were on call at all hours for the care of the horses involved and paid substantially less than minimum wage. They were also provided no health benefits even though the work is physically dangerous. Hmmm . . . Let me get this straight . . . for all of your moral indignation on this issue, you can't find the time in your busy life to check the veracity of your contractors efforts when it comes to employing undocumented aliens, or even talk to the poor guys who are scooping your horseapples and trimming your roses. You can afford to pay a million bucks a pop for show horses but you can't afford to kick a few greenbacks the way of your underpaid workers who live in conditions that mirror indentured servitude. Hell is in the details, Lou. Thanks for busily chucking rocks from the glass magnificence that is your estate. You have proven yourself to be even more full of it than your horse stalls.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Seconds to decide . . .
">
WARNING: THE LINK ABOVE CONTAINS GRAPHIC IMAGES OF COMBAT
An organization called "Wikileaks" has posted an edited version of the video above. I'll warn you now, it is horrifying and graphic. The video is from the optical sighting equipment on a U.S. Army Apache helicopter gunship. It details an aerial attack on a group of men in Baghdad in 2007. The attack resulted in the deaths of, among others, two journalists, Saeed Chmagh and Namir Noor-Eldeen who were covering the war for Reuters. The attack also resulted in the wounding of two young children.
Wikileaks, according to Wikipedia, "is a Sweden or Iceland-based website launched in December 2006 that publishes anonymous submissions and leaks of sensitive documents from governments and other organizations, while preserving the anonymity of its sources. The website is run by The Sunshine Press, and has said it was founded by Chinese dissidents, as well as journalists, mathematicians, and start-up company technologists from the U.S., Taiwan, Europe, Australia, and South Africa. Newspaper articles describe Julian Assange, an Australian journalist and Internet activist, as its director. Within a year of its launch, the site said its database had grown to more than 1.2 million documents. It has won a number of new media awards for its reports."
I want to invite you to watch the video above, and then watch the version posted at the Wikileaks website, here.
The first thing you may notice, other than the horrifying and harrowing raw content of the video, is the packaging done by the watchdogs at Wikileaks. We start off with an appropriate quote, move on to some background information and then proceed to the video feed, complete with subtitles and labels. At various points, we fade to black so that more background information can be passed along. The extra information helps to clarify a chaotic picture, helps us to see things we may have missed, documents the atrocity unfolding before our eyes . . . or does it?
The problem with the reporting in the edited version is simply this: It may be slick and tell a compelling tale, but it's not journalism. To paraphrase the late Paul Harvey, you're not hearing "the rest of the story." The labels, information crawls and subtitles, while truthful on the face of things, obscure and hide the other facts and prevent you from developing the perspective you need to form a complete picture. Even the raw video itself lacks this perspective, as it only displays a small piece of a very big picture. The folks at Wikileaks would have you believe that the U.S. Army rained murder and destruction on a group of peaceful, innocent bystanders with no provocation, and that the Army has covered this event up or painted it as a heroic combat mission.
Here are some things you may not have realized if you only watched the edited version: Chmagh and Noor-Eldeen were journalists embedded with an armed insurgent group. This is not an uncommon happenstance, but any journalist working a combat zone for an international news organization certainly understands the risk entailed by such action. How do we know this? Reuters admits as much and there is evidence in the video. Look at about the 1:43 mark. See the two guys just above and to the right of the cross-hairs? One is armed with a Kalashnikov assault rifle and the other is carrying an RPG launcher. There are no arrows or labels pointing to these two gents in the edited video.
Also, if you look at the video from 2:06 to 2:17, you'll notice someone kneeling just behind the building to the right of the cross-hairs and fiddling with a tubular object. Just as he is about to be obscured from the camera by the corner of the building, he points this tube directly at the helicopter. What is he doing? As it turns out, that is one of the journalists pointing a telephoto lens equipped camera, but that helps to illustrate my next point.
Wikileaks describes the attack as indiscriminate. The fact is, the Apache was on a combat mission over hostile territory. They were monitoring a group of armed insurgents who were equipped with weapons capable of shooting down their helicopter and at least one of this group pointed an object resembling a weapon at their aircraft. They believed they were taking ground fire (this is supported by the subtitles, although it is unclear where they believed the fire was coming from). None of this is mentioned in the edited version's "analysis." No attempt is given to provide the viewer with this perspective. Wikileaks is leading their audience to a predetermined conclusion from the very beginning. Look at the Orwell quote use for an establishing lead. "Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give the appearance of solidity to pure wind." To my mind, once you take that step, you've left the world of hard journalism and entered in to Op-Ed writing. You've abdicated your position as an objective journalist and you are engaged in sensationalism.
There is no denying that this incident is tragic. The two journalists who lost their lives were bravely performing a vital service to the free world. They also knew the risks. The fact that children were wounded is horrifying, but no less horrifying is the fact that the adults caring for those children chose to take them in to an active firefight. To be fair, the U.S. Army hasn't handled inquiries into this situation in a forthright manner, and that has contributed to the perception of wrongdoing and cover-up. Reuters has been asking forceful and probing questions since the incident and received no good answers and their request for the video via the Freedom of Information Act has been stonewalled. You can also make an argument against attacking the van that attempted to rescue the wounded. Some interesting comments were made here on that very subject. We don't really know whether or not the attack was made in accordance with the established rules of engagement, primarily because we don't know what those were at the time. Wikileaks claims to have them, but I can't see them posted anywhere on their site.
The simple fact is, this situation is as complex as it is tragic. To attempt to reduce it to a simple act of wanton murder is to surrender to an agenda. The soldiers in that helicopter had to examine a chaotic and ambiguous situation and make a choice within a few seconds. The price of failure could very well have been their death and the deaths of the infantry soldiers whom they were covering. They didn't have the leisure to examine the video at length as we have done. The comments they made during and after engaging the insurgents were indeed graphic, and may be shocking to the layman. They are also absolutely common to any battlefield. This is after all war, and not a debate. Witness also the efforts of the ground troops to save the life of the wounded child. This also was discounted by the "analysis."
I believe Wikileaks can, and has provided a valuable service. Too much secrecy is a bad thing for free societies. Those who would engage in cover up and conspiracy should have cause to worry and to fear exposure. The trick for Wikileaks and like organizations will be to avoid engaging in those activities themselves by shading the truth to fit their own notions.
WARNING: THE LINK ABOVE CONTAINS GRAPHIC IMAGES OF COMBAT
An organization called "Wikileaks" has posted an edited version of the video above. I'll warn you now, it is horrifying and graphic. The video is from the optical sighting equipment on a U.S. Army Apache helicopter gunship. It details an aerial attack on a group of men in Baghdad in 2007. The attack resulted in the deaths of, among others, two journalists, Saeed Chmagh and Namir Noor-Eldeen who were covering the war for Reuters. The attack also resulted in the wounding of two young children.
Wikileaks, according to Wikipedia, "is a Sweden or Iceland-based website launched in December 2006 that publishes anonymous submissions and leaks of sensitive documents from governments and other organizations, while preserving the anonymity of its sources. The website is run by The Sunshine Press, and has said it was founded by Chinese dissidents, as well as journalists, mathematicians, and start-up company technologists from the U.S., Taiwan, Europe, Australia, and South Africa. Newspaper articles describe Julian Assange, an Australian journalist and Internet activist, as its director. Within a year of its launch, the site said its database had grown to more than 1.2 million documents. It has won a number of new media awards for its reports."
I want to invite you to watch the video above, and then watch the version posted at the Wikileaks website, here.
The first thing you may notice, other than the horrifying and harrowing raw content of the video, is the packaging done by the watchdogs at Wikileaks. We start off with an appropriate quote, move on to some background information and then proceed to the video feed, complete with subtitles and labels. At various points, we fade to black so that more background information can be passed along. The extra information helps to clarify a chaotic picture, helps us to see things we may have missed, documents the atrocity unfolding before our eyes . . . or does it?
The problem with the reporting in the edited version is simply this: It may be slick and tell a compelling tale, but it's not journalism. To paraphrase the late Paul Harvey, you're not hearing "the rest of the story." The labels, information crawls and subtitles, while truthful on the face of things, obscure and hide the other facts and prevent you from developing the perspective you need to form a complete picture. Even the raw video itself lacks this perspective, as it only displays a small piece of a very big picture. The folks at Wikileaks would have you believe that the U.S. Army rained murder and destruction on a group of peaceful, innocent bystanders with no provocation, and that the Army has covered this event up or painted it as a heroic combat mission.
Here are some things you may not have realized if you only watched the edited version: Chmagh and Noor-Eldeen were journalists embedded with an armed insurgent group. This is not an uncommon happenstance, but any journalist working a combat zone for an international news organization certainly understands the risk entailed by such action. How do we know this? Reuters admits as much and there is evidence in the video. Look at about the 1:43 mark. See the two guys just above and to the right of the cross-hairs? One is armed with a Kalashnikov assault rifle and the other is carrying an RPG launcher. There are no arrows or labels pointing to these two gents in the edited video.
Also, if you look at the video from 2:06 to 2:17, you'll notice someone kneeling just behind the building to the right of the cross-hairs and fiddling with a tubular object. Just as he is about to be obscured from the camera by the corner of the building, he points this tube directly at the helicopter. What is he doing? As it turns out, that is one of the journalists pointing a telephoto lens equipped camera, but that helps to illustrate my next point.
Wikileaks describes the attack as indiscriminate. The fact is, the Apache was on a combat mission over hostile territory. They were monitoring a group of armed insurgents who were equipped with weapons capable of shooting down their helicopter and at least one of this group pointed an object resembling a weapon at their aircraft. They believed they were taking ground fire (this is supported by the subtitles, although it is unclear where they believed the fire was coming from). None of this is mentioned in the edited version's "analysis." No attempt is given to provide the viewer with this perspective. Wikileaks is leading their audience to a predetermined conclusion from the very beginning. Look at the Orwell quote use for an establishing lead. "Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give the appearance of solidity to pure wind." To my mind, once you take that step, you've left the world of hard journalism and entered in to Op-Ed writing. You've abdicated your position as an objective journalist and you are engaged in sensationalism.
There is no denying that this incident is tragic. The two journalists who lost their lives were bravely performing a vital service to the free world. They also knew the risks. The fact that children were wounded is horrifying, but no less horrifying is the fact that the adults caring for those children chose to take them in to an active firefight. To be fair, the U.S. Army hasn't handled inquiries into this situation in a forthright manner, and that has contributed to the perception of wrongdoing and cover-up. Reuters has been asking forceful and probing questions since the incident and received no good answers and their request for the video via the Freedom of Information Act has been stonewalled. You can also make an argument against attacking the van that attempted to rescue the wounded. Some interesting comments were made here on that very subject. We don't really know whether or not the attack was made in accordance with the established rules of engagement, primarily because we don't know what those were at the time. Wikileaks claims to have them, but I can't see them posted anywhere on their site.
The simple fact is, this situation is as complex as it is tragic. To attempt to reduce it to a simple act of wanton murder is to surrender to an agenda. The soldiers in that helicopter had to examine a chaotic and ambiguous situation and make a choice within a few seconds. The price of failure could very well have been their death and the deaths of the infantry soldiers whom they were covering. They didn't have the leisure to examine the video at length as we have done. The comments they made during and after engaging the insurgents were indeed graphic, and may be shocking to the layman. They are also absolutely common to any battlefield. This is after all war, and not a debate. Witness also the efforts of the ground troops to save the life of the wounded child. This also was discounted by the "analysis."
I believe Wikileaks can, and has provided a valuable service. Too much secrecy is a bad thing for free societies. Those who would engage in cover up and conspiracy should have cause to worry and to fear exposure. The trick for Wikileaks and like organizations will be to avoid engaging in those activities themselves by shading the truth to fit their own notions.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Book review: Stephenson's "The Baroque Cycle"
Neal Stephenson's "The Baroque Cycle" is nearly as intimidating to review as it is to read. At 2,700 plus printed pages spread over three volumes (the page count and number of discreet books may vary depending on the format of your purchase), this work is massive in scope, setting, ambition and sheer physical size. The picture at left is the handwritten manuscript for the work, displayed behind the three published hardcover volumes. The experience of reading it is worth every carpal tunnel syndrome pang you will suffer and more (even this slight price to pay can be alleviated by using one of the readily available electronic book readers now on the market).Set against the backdrop of the late 17th and early 18th centuries, The Baroque Cycle features a bewildering number of characters, both historic and entirely fictional, pursuing their plot strings and character arcs across five continents and nearly 50 years. The cycle follows three main characters, Jack Shaftoe, Eliza and Daniel Waterhouse as they rub shoulders with and often directly influence the movers and shakers of enlightenment Europe. Their story arcs shape Stephenson's hyper-historic, mind-bending narrative of the shaping of the modern world. Historic figures from the period (Isaac Newton, Gottfried Leibniz, John Churchill, Louis XIV and George I to name a few) are blended with a rogues gallery of highly developed, idiosyncratic fictional characters to tell the tale of the foundations of modern science, politics, commerce and finance.
Stephenson's writing style is wryly humorous, with an eye for the ridiculous. I feel it fair to warn you that reading this work in public will result in sudden fits of laughter, assumptions of mental disorder and possible beverage squirting as the author makes deft use of the hilarious and ridiculous to both advance plot points and diffuse tension. Jack Shaftoe, in particular, is equal parts swashbuckling adventurer and comic misfit as his various sobriquets (King of the Vagabonds, L'Emmerdeur, Half-Cocked Jack, and more) will attest. Stephenson often writes of Jack's actions being prey to the influence of "The Imp of the Perverse." The same could be said of the entire work, providing a lively and surprise filled narrative, even considering the accuracy of the story's historic events. The reader is treated to a picture of the period that spares no detail, however distasteful (the sanitary conditions of the age, or lack thereof, seem to hold a particular fascination) or racy, and therefore the work is not for prudes or the squeamish. For those who may be daunted by the work's sheer size, I can promise that the pages turn quickly with a goodly amount of belly laughs interspersed with "I'll be damned" moments.
In all, this is a story and an author worth investing your hard earned guineas and increasingly valuable time in. The dividends will be rich and rewarding.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Shameless lack of work ethic
Today is my birthday. I will likely have too much strong drink and will be in no fit state to write. Have a good weekend all!
Thursday, March 25, 2010
The Latest Sign 'O the Apocalypse.
The Associated Press is reporting that former Alaska governor and conservative media creation Sarah Palin has inked a deal for a new reality show on The Learning Channel to be called "Sarah Palin's Alaska." The press release states "The series tells stories of some of Alaska's unique features as seen through the eyes of its former governor." The former governor was quoted as saying, "I look forward to working with Mark (Burnett, the producer) to bring the wonder and majesty of Alaska to all Americans," in a statement released by Discovery, which holds the rights to the series. Burnett is known for producing the reality shows "Survivor" and "The Apprentice."We at The Vagabond Way are eagerly looking forward to this series and have a few suggestions for episode titles and content. We would also like to encourage our readers (all four or five of you) to submit their ideas in the comments section below.
The Vagabond Way recommendations:
"The place where I can see Russia from" - detailing the Palin family back yard/early warning post.
"Tina Fey is goin' down" - one on one grudge match action.
"The Palin family moose massacre" - a heartwarming tale for hunting enthusiasts.
"Wasilla nightlife" - may not be enough material for a 30 minute show.
What do you guys think?
Unforseen Consequences
The mob is a sort of bear; while your ring is through its nose, it will even dance under your cudgel; but should the ring slip, and you lose your hold, the brute will turn and rend you.
- Jane Porter
It is the proof of a bad cause when it is applauded by the mob.
- Seneca (Lucius Annaeus Seneca)
An open letter to the Republican National Committee:
Demagoguery is exhilarating, isn't it? There is nothing quite like the feeling of holding a crowd in your sway, feeding their anger and fear, controlling their collective emotions and inciting them to do your bidding. You start to feel that, with this kind of influence and power, you can accomplish anything. The crowd worships you, repeats your words, chants your slogans, denigrates your enemies and exerts your will. Your exhortations alone can trigger it's power, manifest it's menace. Yes, with the masses behind you, all of your aims will come to fruition . . .
As much as I hate to intrude on your little daydream, I just want to remind you of the reality of your situation. If you continue down this road, it will end badly. Not just for your organization, but for all of us.
Consider a few examples from history:
Alcibiades: Ancient Greek demagogue, political opportunist. His oratorical skills and ability to play upon the base emotions of the crowd allowed him to lead, at various times, Athens, Sparta and Persia to military disaster and famine. He died when his house was surrounded and set on fire by a Spartan mob, causing him to flee the flames . . . into the daggers of the waiting arsonists.
Maximilien Robespierre: French revolutionary, leader of the Committee of Public Safety. Despite a reign of terror that resulted in the formal execution of 16,000 French subjects and the mob lynching of perhaps 40,000 more, he failed to stabilize the French economy and raise the standard of living. He was executed in 1794. The political climate he helped to foster virtually guaranteed the death of the fledgling democracy and fostered the military dictatorship of Napoleon Bonaparte, leading to a further 20 years of war.
Adolph Hitler: Rose to power in Germany by exploiting the ethnic and nationalistic prejudices of the populace. Upon his appointment as Chancellor, Erich Ludendorff was prompted to remark to Paul Von Hindenburg (President of the Wiemar Republic and the man who appointed Hitler), "By appointing Hitler Chancellor of the Reich, you have handed over our sacred German Fatherland to one of the greatest demagogues of all time. I prophesy to you this evil man will plunge our Reich into the abyss and will inflict immeasurable woe on our nation. Future generations will curse you in your grave for this action."
You see, at some point, the crowd that you incite, the mob whose fears and prejudices you have played upon, will expect results. Not just legislative results, but real world, "my life is better now" results. How are you going to deliver that? What is your plan? Where is the vision? Thus far, all we've seen is obstructionism, scare tactics and invective. What are you going to do when the mob you've created comes to you for results and your basket is empty? What will that mob do when they realize they've been used and manipulated for cynical gain? What will happen when they understand your true agenda?
You are creating a monster you cannot possibly control. By defining cooperation and compromise as "treason to the conservative cause", by encouraging your own fringe radicals to set the course for your party, you are poisoning the political process and popularizing hate. You have driven all of us who value moderation and compromise out of the party. What can anyone possibly stand to gain in the end?
Pulitzer Prize winning author Timothy Egan writes of this topic much more elegantly than I. His opinion can be found here.
This is a dangerous precedent to set, a perilous road to travel. It will have consequences none of us can foresee. Please stop while you still can.
- Jane Porter
It is the proof of a bad cause when it is applauded by the mob.
- Seneca (Lucius Annaeus Seneca)
An open letter to the Republican National Committee:
Demagoguery is exhilarating, isn't it? There is nothing quite like the feeling of holding a crowd in your sway, feeding their anger and fear, controlling their collective emotions and inciting them to do your bidding. You start to feel that, with this kind of influence and power, you can accomplish anything. The crowd worships you, repeats your words, chants your slogans, denigrates your enemies and exerts your will. Your exhortations alone can trigger it's power, manifest it's menace. Yes, with the masses behind you, all of your aims will come to fruition . . .
As much as I hate to intrude on your little daydream, I just want to remind you of the reality of your situation. If you continue down this road, it will end badly. Not just for your organization, but for all of us.
Consider a few examples from history:
Alcibiades: Ancient Greek demagogue, political opportunist. His oratorical skills and ability to play upon the base emotions of the crowd allowed him to lead, at various times, Athens, Sparta and Persia to military disaster and famine. He died when his house was surrounded and set on fire by a Spartan mob, causing him to flee the flames . . . into the daggers of the waiting arsonists.
Maximilien Robespierre: French revolutionary, leader of the Committee of Public Safety. Despite a reign of terror that resulted in the formal execution of 16,000 French subjects and the mob lynching of perhaps 40,000 more, he failed to stabilize the French economy and raise the standard of living. He was executed in 1794. The political climate he helped to foster virtually guaranteed the death of the fledgling democracy and fostered the military dictatorship of Napoleon Bonaparte, leading to a further 20 years of war.
Adolph Hitler: Rose to power in Germany by exploiting the ethnic and nationalistic prejudices of the populace. Upon his appointment as Chancellor, Erich Ludendorff was prompted to remark to Paul Von Hindenburg (President of the Wiemar Republic and the man who appointed Hitler), "By appointing Hitler Chancellor of the Reich, you have handed over our sacred German Fatherland to one of the greatest demagogues of all time. I prophesy to you this evil man will plunge our Reich into the abyss and will inflict immeasurable woe on our nation. Future generations will curse you in your grave for this action."
You see, at some point, the crowd that you incite, the mob whose fears and prejudices you have played upon, will expect results. Not just legislative results, but real world, "my life is better now" results. How are you going to deliver that? What is your plan? Where is the vision? Thus far, all we've seen is obstructionism, scare tactics and invective. What are you going to do when the mob you've created comes to you for results and your basket is empty? What will that mob do when they realize they've been used and manipulated for cynical gain? What will happen when they understand your true agenda?
You are creating a monster you cannot possibly control. By defining cooperation and compromise as "treason to the conservative cause", by encouraging your own fringe radicals to set the course for your party, you are poisoning the political process and popularizing hate. You have driven all of us who value moderation and compromise out of the party. What can anyone possibly stand to gain in the end?
Pulitzer Prize winning author Timothy Egan writes of this topic much more elegantly than I. His opinion can be found here.
This is a dangerous precedent to set, a perilous road to travel. It will have consequences none of us can foresee. Please stop while you still can.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Winners and losers
I was just watching the coverage of President Obama signing the health care reform bill into law. I have to admit that my relief at its passing is tempered by a large amount of ambivalence regarding the entire process that led to this historic event. I wonder what the price to this country will be, not in terms of money, but in terms of the endemic unwillingness to allow reason and compromise into the debate. I don't think I've ever seen this amount of divisiveness,or such rabid, bestial behavior on both sides of the issue. To be certain, there have been polarizing issues faced by this country's legislators from the very beginning. Independence from England, the place of slavery in this country, isolationism, taxation, civil rights and separation of powers are just a few of the issues that have caused deep political rifts and spawned epic debate and, eventually, sweeping change for this country. Is it just me, or does this one feel way over the top in terms of ridiculous hyperbole, race baiting, fear mongering and hate? How did we come to this? Who is responsible? How do we make it stop?
It's all too easy to apportion blame, to point the righteous finger and condemn those with whom you don't agree. As any reader of these posts can see, I am as guilty as anyone. I see examples of the most ridiculous opinions being stated as fact, pronouncements of impending doom from both sides of the aisle, and I cannot help but ridicule and belittle the hubris and sheer numskullery I see and hear. I count on my readers to recognize the sarcasm and, when they have a differing viewpoint, to express it. I do my best to consider their views and respond accordingly. I recognize and expect that not everyone will agree. I readily acknowledge their right to their own viewpoint. The sharp point of my sarcasm and scorn is saved for those who revel in ignorance, parrot the spews of pundits, engage in stereotypes and reject independent thought. Until recently I assumed that, media hype and punditry aside, most of us who possess the power of thought did the same.
That is, until yesterday. Yesterday I realized a corner had been turned when a person I've had a friendship with for 12 years allowed our frequent email correspondence to turn ugly. Though this person (a highly educated, highly decorated retired military officer and published historian)and I have widely differing views on politics, we have kept a spirited debate on that subject friendly, and have discussed history, golf, literature and other diverse subjects warmly. Until yesterday. The exchange yesterday rapidly became dysfunctional, insulting and disturbing. This highly educated, intelligent person began to spout the same hate filled invective you can hear nightly on a certain "fair and balanced" network (or, to be fair, the other network affiliated with the evil software giant as well). Read out of the moment and with no context, these emails are laughable and a little sad. In the moment and in full context, they become tragic. A noble force for reason and analysis has surrendered to fear and hate. A scholar dedicated to investigation and unbiased fact has abandoned both. His example is the most glaring to me, but he is far from alone. I speak to my friends and acquaintances and hear varying degrees of the same malaise. Many of us take the easy route, no longer gather facts before forming opinions, surrender reason to hype and spout whatever our favorite pundit says. There is no discussion, negotiation or compromise. Decisions are made based on ideology, not practicality. As we watch, or read the news, we are indoctrinated, not educated.
How did it come to this? How can we make it stop? History teaches us that stagnation, inertia and partisan deadlock in government leads to revolution, anarchy and tyranny, often in a repeating cycle. The Greek City States, The Roman Republic, Ptolemaic Egypt, Bourbon France, Tsarist Russia, Wiemar Germany, the communist bloc and many more governments have failed with disastrous results for these reasons (among others). Is this our future? Is this how it starts? The surest way to destroy anything is to be indifferent to it. Too many of our elected officials have become indifferent to effective governance. They have surrendered to partisanship and become prisoners of the radical fringe. If we, as voters, allow this attitude and behavior to stand then we too are guilty of indifference. Republican Romans felt that their society was immune from tyranny and monarchy because they had cast out their monarch at the founding of the republic. The Roman Senate allowed itself to become hopelessly mired in partisan politics and abdicated any kind of role in the effective governance of the city and its possessions. Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus Augustus showed them the price of that conceit.
I wonder, are we laying the groundwork for our own Augustus? Will we see the warning signs in time?
It's all too easy to apportion blame, to point the righteous finger and condemn those with whom you don't agree. As any reader of these posts can see, I am as guilty as anyone. I see examples of the most ridiculous opinions being stated as fact, pronouncements of impending doom from both sides of the aisle, and I cannot help but ridicule and belittle the hubris and sheer numskullery I see and hear. I count on my readers to recognize the sarcasm and, when they have a differing viewpoint, to express it. I do my best to consider their views and respond accordingly. I recognize and expect that not everyone will agree. I readily acknowledge their right to their own viewpoint. The sharp point of my sarcasm and scorn is saved for those who revel in ignorance, parrot the spews of pundits, engage in stereotypes and reject independent thought. Until recently I assumed that, media hype and punditry aside, most of us who possess the power of thought did the same.
That is, until yesterday. Yesterday I realized a corner had been turned when a person I've had a friendship with for 12 years allowed our frequent email correspondence to turn ugly. Though this person (a highly educated, highly decorated retired military officer and published historian)and I have widely differing views on politics, we have kept a spirited debate on that subject friendly, and have discussed history, golf, literature and other diverse subjects warmly. Until yesterday. The exchange yesterday rapidly became dysfunctional, insulting and disturbing. This highly educated, intelligent person began to spout the same hate filled invective you can hear nightly on a certain "fair and balanced" network (or, to be fair, the other network affiliated with the evil software giant as well). Read out of the moment and with no context, these emails are laughable and a little sad. In the moment and in full context, they become tragic. A noble force for reason and analysis has surrendered to fear and hate. A scholar dedicated to investigation and unbiased fact has abandoned both. His example is the most glaring to me, but he is far from alone. I speak to my friends and acquaintances and hear varying degrees of the same malaise. Many of us take the easy route, no longer gather facts before forming opinions, surrender reason to hype and spout whatever our favorite pundit says. There is no discussion, negotiation or compromise. Decisions are made based on ideology, not practicality. As we watch, or read the news, we are indoctrinated, not educated.
How did it come to this? How can we make it stop? History teaches us that stagnation, inertia and partisan deadlock in government leads to revolution, anarchy and tyranny, often in a repeating cycle. The Greek City States, The Roman Republic, Ptolemaic Egypt, Bourbon France, Tsarist Russia, Wiemar Germany, the communist bloc and many more governments have failed with disastrous results for these reasons (among others). Is this our future? Is this how it starts? The surest way to destroy anything is to be indifferent to it. Too many of our elected officials have become indifferent to effective governance. They have surrendered to partisanship and become prisoners of the radical fringe. If we, as voters, allow this attitude and behavior to stand then we too are guilty of indifference. Republican Romans felt that their society was immune from tyranny and monarchy because they had cast out their monarch at the founding of the republic. The Roman Senate allowed itself to become hopelessly mired in partisan politics and abdicated any kind of role in the effective governance of the city and its possessions. Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus Augustus showed them the price of that conceit.
I wonder, are we laying the groundwork for our own Augustus? Will we see the warning signs in time?
Hiatus over . . .
Hello fellow (and very missed) travelers. Vagabond's apologies for the long time span between posts. Just a few other things going on in life like, starting a new job, moving and, oh yes, the news that Mrs. Vagabond is expecting our first Li'l Traveler. As I've been in my self imposed sojourn, the world has moved on and portentous events have transpired. I'll have more in depth later, but I thought I'd start with a bit of a chuckle at the expense of those lovable, right wing fanatics who hate them some commies! Much hilarity can be found here. We'll talk again soon . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
