man & nature # 210 ~ the last word on the Paul Lester Affair
Wednesday, August 19, 2009 at 12:16PM 
A humid Summer morning on the Au Sable • click to embiggenA fair number of Paul Lester friends and apologists have come to the fore to excoriate me for labeling his "opinion" and "doubts" - that healthcare expeditions are fictitious until "proven" otherwise - as ignorant and that he was acting ignorantly in denying their existence because all evidence that he had seen/read was merely "hearsay".
It has also been suggested that I used a racial epitaph - to call a spade, a spade - in calling ignorance, ignorance. Give me a break .... long before ignorant and hateful people misappropriated the phrase, it simply meant To speak plainly - to describe something as it really is. That is exactly how I used it and how I meant it. To suggest otherwise is entirely unwarranted and utterly without merit of any kind.
Several followers of The Landscapist have indicated that they will no longer do so. Hey, FYI, people come and people go. And it's worth noting that, with one notable exception, those who have stated that they are moving on have contributed absolutely nothing to the proceedings here - you won't be missed.
It has been suggested that I would never talk face-to-face with Paul Lester in the manner in which I have addressed him "from hundreds of miles away". FYI, try me.
It has also been inferred that I do not walk-the-walk as stated in my stand up and be counted entry. FYI, I did not include the notion of suffering-fools-(or foolish behavior)-gladly amongst my many virtues.
The list and the beat goes on and on.
What I find very interesting in all of this is that not a single Lester apologist has addressed his "hearsay" statement regarding healthcare expeditions. You might remember that topic - you know, the one that started this ruckus.
The "opinion" that ranks right up there with those regarding "death panels", and Obama - the Socialist Nazi foreigner, euthanizing the elderly and infirm, and all the rest of the ignorant stuff that is polluting the discussion on healthcare in this here US of A.
Now here's the thing, some have stated that Paul Lester is a nice guy but, if one hoists this notion up Lester's own petard, those statements are nothing but hearsay. After all, I have not seen Paul Lester with my own eyes. I have not personally witnessed that he is a nice guy. Hey, for all I know, there is no Paul Lester and this whole thing is waste of time.
All I know about Paul Lester is contained in the ridiculous comments he left on this blog regarding healthcare expeditions. That and the fact that he implied, inferred, or suggested on his blog that my "personal belief" that healthcare expeditions exist was, well, ignorant.
His CYA protestation (self-serving deniability at its finest) that his opinion regarding my actions was not an Ad Hominem attack aside, Paul Lester was suggesting nothing less than the fact that I was acting without knowledge of, information about, and awareness of healthcare expeditions - that I was spreading hearsay.
He was, quite simply, questioning my integrity. Of course he was only doing so because, being the reasonable man that he is, he was just trying to discover the truth.
But enough about Paul Lester, let's talk about me.
My reason(s) for the use of the words ignorant and ignorance to describe some of the ideas and actions that have been polluting our national discourse about healthcare is quite simple. I am horrified by the thought and the reality that the rest of the world - they are paying attention - sees / hears / and reads very little from those who believe and know that the words and actions (like holstered handguns and shoulder-slung assault weapons outside of townhall meetings) of a fringe element in our society are both ignorant and wrong.
IMO, it is well past the time for well-intentioned and informed people to speak out against this stupidity. To shout down those highly vocal and visible individuals (and organizations) who make us all seem like a country of ignorant idiots. It's time to drive them back into the dark shadows from whence they came.
It is time to stop tolerating those who advocate violence and spread lies and disinformation and do so behind the guise of "differing opinions" and their "right" to do so.
Reader Comments (21)
Oh yes, we have been paying attention for years... While no country, political system and/or culture is perfect, there are things going on in your country that belongs in the Middle Ages. Guess all that freedom has a price after all.
Mark, Have you considered having two blogs? One focused on your respect for and interpretation of landscape photography, and the many people who are inspired by it and appreciateit, and a separate blog for everything else?
I respect the thought that you put into your off-topic conversations (off photography topics), but, you know, I don't read Ag magazine for their coverage of healthcare debates and the like, unless of course it pertains to a photography project that portrays such a topic. Thus, I come to the Landscapist for stimulating landscape and photography discussion.
Just a thought. It's your blog and it should express what you want to discuss. But as one reader of it, that's my submission. And BTW I would also subscribe to that second "everything else" blog.
Now for my own off-topic contribution. I heard a radio story yesterday of one newsperson's concern that some in America are getting their "news" from the likes of Bill O'Reilly, as if their opinions count as fact. We can't fully blame those commentators, as most of them call themselves entertainers, but they surely know the power they have in what they express and must be held accountable when they echo misinformation. It just goes to show that our educational system needs to focus more on critical thinking skills so that people can sort for themselves fact from opinion and fiction.
Now back to photography!
"I heard a radio story yesterday of one newsperson's concern that some in America are getting their "news" from the likes of Bill O'Reilly, as if their opinions count as fact... and must be held accountable when they echo misinformation."
I heard a similar story on the radio yesterday about FOX bringing a conservative politician from Great Britain on the show to talk about the terrible effects public health care has had on their country. Well...folks in the UK were watching and the prime minister and parliament have denounced almost everything he said as half truths.
FOX's plan probably worked because I'd venture that more than half of their audience will believe this man and FOX over the Prime Minister and Parliament. And of course the other half of FOX"s audience won't even hear about it because I doubt FOX themselves will mention it.
I too am in favor of a separate blog...
The Blovius -
Politics that prick the unthought known
Or maybe the Daily Bloviation ;-) With title like that anything goes....
I had understood that Mark was requesting a "reincarnation of the FSA photography project" and therefore quite valid as a photography thread.
I have to say that I find the tone of some of the comments disturbing, and my perception is that here is a clear demonstration of what I have heard described as " The chilling effect". Correct me if I am wrong.
I live in the UK so am unable to participate in documenting the situation that Mark has observed. But if I did live in America I would at least want to go and look and see if what he was saying was so!
Keep doing what you're doing, Mark. Informed opinion is in short enough supply that it really would be a shame if yours went silent.
Point one: The way I see it many Americans go without needed health care for lack of funds; I am one. You adamantly agree. Paul Lester is unsure. What reveals more about our individual character: our position on political issues of the day or the tone of our comments about each other? Should I feel more confident that health care will become more affordable for me now that we've all had this exchange? Really, that's your bottom line defense, isn't it: the system is so bad and opponents of reform so evil that we need to shout them back into their cave. Doesn't work for me.
Point two: The way I see it, right wing forces funded by corporate interests use clearly false claims to whip up opposition to health insurance reform of any kind. Years of the same forces belittling the ability of government to do anything positive put the misguided mobs into a cognitive bind: Medicare is good, government can't do anything good; ergo Medicare is not a government program. Years of the same forces fetishizing gun ownership have created an atmosphere where some individuals think it is acceptable to brandish firearms at public gatherings. For these and many other reasons based on recent events I fear for the state of our democracy and fervently hope some leaders stand up and responsibly reply to the dangerous tactics being egged on to further political and corporate interests. I doubt Paul Lester, along with too many of his fellow citizens is politically engaged enough to see the danger, much less take part in counter-efforts. I suspect you agree with my sentiments, but given the tone of your rhetoric I don't see you playing a productive role either. Not that I deserve any acclaim in this regard either, though I can at least state my views clearly without--mostly-- resorting to even a mild form of the name-calling that is poisoning our politics. I have a good friend who spends time each month, and has for years, engaging in extended dialogue with people of different political persuasions in an effort to calmly and rationally bridge the gaps between opposing political forces. It is difficult, long term work. He engages in it because it can work and he doesn't see any possibility of real change coming out of the usual means of political engagement working. I agree. Do you have any evidence that you've actually changing anyone's political views with the kind of argumentation you've employed on this blog? If so I will gladly retract my description of it as self-indulgent rant.
Point three: I found Paul Lester's use of the term hearsay appropriate, although his point about being unsure that free health care events were occurring was unpersuasive. But his point was broader than the health care debate. You belittled him for it and equated an assertion of hearsay with an accusation of lieing. I find your usage inaccurate, hyperbolic and potentially inflammatory. I have no problem with hearsay being used in blog posts and am sorry I didn't make that clear. I do not put the Paul Lesters out there in the same category as the angry mobs. I wish they were more involved. I do find the rhetoric you use too much akin to the rhetoric of the angry right and fear that too many in the middle make a similar comparison and say a pox on both your houses. To me the dire necessity of counteracting the poison from the left calls for an antidote, not a stronger poison from the left.
Point four: The swastika has been used for many millennia in many cultures. The word for the symbol originated in Sanskrit as a combination of two works interpreted as well-being. It's most important local (to where I live) usage was by Navaho and Pueblo artists. If your folio project comes to fruition and I choose to participate--I only said your ranting kept me from visiting on a frequent basis--would it be OK for me to use the symbol to adorn my page? Could you ignore the Nazi appropriation of the symbol, it's subsequent equation with certain, current abhorrent types of political rhetoric, and the common reaction among the populace at large, which is, I feel appropriately, based on it's recent flagrant usage rather than its historical, archaic usages? If you could ignore it I would be concerned about your lack of respect for the predictable reactions of thoughtful, decent visitors, whether they be Jewish, Roma, people with disabilities, or members of groups not victimized by the Nazis. I would expect that you might suggest that I find some other symbols from native peoples in my neighborhood that would create a comparable image without all the baggage. Perhaps not in the heat of the moment, but surely after careful reflection. And I wouldn't want you to value my protestations of good-faith above reasonable expectations of how the audience will react. After all, what basis do they have to accept my protestations? And why stir things up?
Point five: It is true that I have made no previous contributions to cause you to feel that my potential contributions would be positive. You also have no reason to conclude that they would not be, so why the good riddance dismissal? If you truly want your site to be the nucleus of a photographic community, it seems you would do well to be as interested in engaging thoughtful critics as defending yourself from criticism.
Your bottom line on Paul Lester is that he was questioning your integrity. So what. You chose to put your political beliefs up for scrutiny. You follow the politics of the day. Surely you saw plenty of reason to expect just such a reaction. Now you've questioned Paul Lester's integrity and indicated that despite your invitation of lively discussion, you wouldn't bat a lash if I slunk away after daring to question your logic and rhetoric. In my book you haven't exactly rescued your image from the ravages of Paul Lester's monstrous accusations. More like you've threatened a libel suit against a slight that has received far more notoriety from the threat than from the initial publication. But at least you haven't lost this follower.
Today my newspaper carried a Larouche PAC poster of president Obama titled "I've changed". Mr. Obama is shown wearing Hitler's moustache. Sign of the times, I guess.
All is not well with the Health Care Reform, Mr Obama will not let Medicare and it's enormous buying power renegotiate lower rates for americans with the drug mfgs. Also private insurers will be able to add one quarter of the cost for their "administratives expenses".
This and other concessions that he's made to the "blue dogs" so that he can sign something before Christmas, makes me think that trying to cater to both sides at the same time will only lead to a botched reform.
At this time it's pretty unsure that Congress will vote a law that limits the powers and excesses of health insurers.
Yes there will be change. But it will be far removed from a real public health care system.
There's just too much profits to be made under a private health care system.
A few years ago one of the three main tv networks had had a news item at around 6 o'clock or was it 7 o'clock. It was called "The Fleecing of America", That is still current today with health care.
If anyone thinks that health care reforms is stirring up controversies, there's an even bigger four headed dragon that America will have to face one day. It's called public financing of political parties.
And Mark, you have my full support. I'm sick and tired of the "leave politics out of this" crowd.
Well, anyone using the term Nazi Socialist is confirming nothing but their own ignorance. The Nazis were actually Fascists. Fascism is a distinct ideology from Socialism, and historically those ideologies have not gotten along very well.
"Well, anyone using the term Nazi Socialist is confirming nothing but their own ignorance"
From Wikipedia: Nazism, officially in German as National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus), refers to the ideology and practices of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party or NSDAP under Adolf Hitler, and the policies adopted by the dictatorial government of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945.
The people bringing guns to town hall meetings (legally in their states) are downright scary. I saw film on the Rachel Maddow show last night (that show, NPR and local paper are my primary news sources), which I assume was not photoshopped.
The anti-health care rhetoric seems to be scooping up alot of hatred and crazies. If these people are concerned about taxes, why arent they taking aim at military spending...
John, it is usually wise not to judge a book by it's cover. In the same wikipedia article the following is written: In both popular thought and academic scholarship, Nazism is generally considered a form of fascism - a term whose definition is contentious. Both fascism and Nazism reject ideologies like democracy, liberalism and Marxism, but it is difficult to indentify a perfect definition of the two terms. According to most scholars of fascism, there are both left and right influences on the ideology; it has historically attacked communism, conservatism and parliamentary liberalism, attracting support primarily from the far right.
What amazes me is how blatantly obvious it is that these crazies and fringe lunatics are being completely used by the corporate entities to fulfill their insatiable greed. And how laughably easy it all is. I wonder how they are all gonna feel when the orgy is over and the country is in shambles.
I remember having thoughts during the last administration, when civil rights were being abused and threatened every day--in very REAL ways--how it was beginning to feel like I was living in an authoritarian state. Never once was I tempted to hit the streets with a poster of George Bush disguised as Adolf Hitler. That would have been ridiculously counterproductive, reprehensible and and morally irresponsible, in my opinion. But these nut jobs don't seem to feel that way or maybe they worship at the alter of cold hard cash and are being handsomely rewarded by those corporate monsters. Either that or Sarah Palin is holding a gun to their heads. I find it hard to believe, probably in my naivete, that people could actually believe this stuff and are so full of hate. A thousand steps backward for this country if that is the case.
What do we do about it?
Well, not that it matters, but I'll jump in and support the Landscapist on this one. I agree with more or less every point you made, including the ignorance comments.
Also, re: Scott's silly comment about Nazis and Socialism. You do realize that the actual party name was the National Socialists (hence Nazi), right? There can be social policies that are quite Socialist even in a Fascist regime.
I think you should change the name of you blog. Maybe "The Landstatist", "Photography that pricks the Socialist thought known".
Ron
Yep, some scary shit is happening in your country... As the wife pointed out the hatred and crazieness has surfaced once again. The amount of propaganda (read: disinformation and lies) served to the public is unbelievable and once again normal, rational Americans will suffer worldwide stereotyping and ridiculing. That a National broadcaster like FOX hasn't removed O'Reilly and Beck from the screen is just ridiculous, but I guess most intelligent beings have come to understand that FOX is a comedy channel that doesn't venture into the realm of journalism. I applaud Mark for speaking out against the rhetoric that keeps your country firmly established as a "Banana Republic". Differences of opinion is all good, but serving downright lies as arguments is an attack on democracy and free speech. When you back up such lies by posing with your gun collection in public it is beyond tolerable. It isn't that long ago since public servants in Oklahoma had to die because of some brainwashed anti-government morons put their hatred into action.
this story just posted today...
artist selling special edition of 500 prints to help pay for hospital bills as she is seriously ill.
http://stellakramer.com/blog/2009/08/corinne-day-seriously-ill.html
Just because you have the "Right"
Does not make it right.
Canada's Micheal Reichmann of the LL website had a special print offer to help his wife's friend, Alexis, living the in US. They were able to raise over $40,000 towards Alexis' medical care.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/alexis.shtml
And then there's the case of Bruce Fraser, a businessman, teacher and photographer who died of lung cancer in 2006. Friends asked for volontary donations to help retire lingering medicals bills. You can read about it at this link:
http://www.brucefrasertribute.com/index.php
How many in the USA are left behind by the private health care system because they do not have the resources to help pay for their medical expenses.