Saturday, August 30, 2014

Please Dither, Mr. President

There's blood in the water in Washington, D.C. Not only did the President violate some unspoken sartorial rule by <gasp> holding a press conference while wearing a TAN SUIT, but during said press conference, acknowledged that he and his team are still working on a strategy to confront our newest bogeyman, ISIS (or ISIL, or IS, whatever term is your pleasure).

The peanut gallery (aka Republicans in Congress) who are finishing up week four of a five week vacation (not a typo) roused themselves from their torpor to castigate the President for what, it's not exactly clear. Not bombing enough shit? Not sending troops into the middle of a religious squabble among multiple bad actors? Leading the charge (unsurprisingly) are Grumpy Old Man John McCain and his Sancho Panza, Lindsey Graham - accusing the President of the dreaded "d" word - "dithering" - when he could totally be starting another war. 

But here's the thing. Our track record in the Middle East is pretty shitty, and that is particularly true over oh, the last 10 years or so. Sectarian forces who are more than happy to manipulate and have us serve as their proxies to settle religious or political scores are far more prevalent than any nascent Thomas Jeffersons or George Washingtons. When we've pushed for democratic elections, Hamas ended up running the Gaza Strip and the Muslim Brotherhood won in Egypt. How did that work out? 

Of course, our most glaring fuck up was Iraq, a country that posed no strategic threat to us and had been cowed by more than a decade of sanctions and no-fly zone restrictions. But Cowboy W had to scratch his Oedipal fix and that whole if-you-broke-it-you-bought-it idiom resulted in creating a new Iraq that was more closely aligned with supposed "axis of evil" member Iran than it was with the West. As W's successor in Texas might say, "oops."

In Syria, had we toppled Bashar Assad, we may have done ISIS's work for them. Instead, Syria handed over all its chemical weapons, which have now been destroyed (imagine if they were still available for any random, rogue "terrorist" group to pilfer). Of course, the President asked Congress to grant him the authority (as he is required to do under some document called "the Constitution" that Republicans conveniently ignore when it suits their talking points) to attack Syria last summer and they punted. Not that you'd know that to listen to the media. Regardless, the situation is no better in that country in many ways, but at least random gas attacks are no longer a concern. So there's that. 

But more importantly, what the President articulated in that press conference, and consistently does, is the belief that you do not shoot first and ask questions later. We tried that in Iraq (and to some degree Afghanistan) and we have a two trillion dollar bill, thousands dead, and neither country being close to stability to show for it. Once upon a time, it was a bedrock article of faith among Republicans that you do not start a military engagement without an exit strategy (colloquially known as "the Powell Doctrine") but today's GOP prefers to hurl our military power about like a four year-old without any concern for the consequences of this action. 

Ultimately, it is not our responsibility to solve the problems that roil the countries in the Middle East. Indeed, foisting solutions on actors uninterested in our opinion (or interference) is largely why the region is such a fucking mess right now. We need to disabuse ourselves of the notion that we can, because we are THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, dictate resolutions to conflicts that date back, in some cases, for centuries. We have armed every side of most of these conflicts and prop up their governments through our purchase of their oil, but again, in a not-too-distant past, we worked diplomatic channels to get this rogue's gallery on the same page to expel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait and kick start Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. 

If military action is needed to weed out ISIS, by all means, the Saudis, Jordanians, Iraqis, and others have billions in good old American made war machinery to do so. If they need help, please, ask the British, French, Italians, and our other NATO allies to chip in. Once done, can we talk about the need for moderation in that region? For madrasses to stop spewing anti-Western rhetoric? To grant women equal rights? To educate a population that is ill-equipped for the 21st century? To modernize economies that are based solely on fossil fuels?

In other words, please take your time and come up with a thoughtful strategy, Mr. President. Do not allow the critics in Congress or the press, who are going to kick the shit out of you regardless, dictate what you do. Getting it right is much more important than getting it done fast. 

Friday, August 29, 2014

Community Policing

In the wake of the shooting death of Michael Brown, several ideas have been floated to mitigate the chances that more young black men will end up dead as a result of interactions with police. Among those ideas are two that bear some additional explanation because they seem, on the surface, to make good sense, but need to be understood in broader context.

One idea that is gaining popularity is the idea that the police force should reflect the diversity of the community it serves. The theory being that people who are either from that community or reflect its ethnic or racial make-up will be more humane and less confrontational, unlike Ferguson, which quickly devolved after Brown's murder into something resembling a combat zone. I do not disagree with this objective, but would qualify it in several ways. First, there is nothing precluding officers, regardless of race, from becoming better versed in the needs of the community. In impoverished areas, the law abiding folks are every bit as invested in keeping their neighborhoods safe as the cops are. In many areas, if only the cops would take a little more time to walk their beats and get to know those residents, they would be amazed to find out about this convergence of interests. Doing that is not predicated on your skin color or your station in life, but rather, a legitimate interest in understanding the needs of the people you serve. 

Second, and this is an uncomfortable truth, but some areas are simply not going to have enough qualified candidates to fill officer openings (assuming any exist, more on that below). For example, in Camden, New Jersey, less than 7% of residents in that city over the age of 25 have a college degree, a level of education more and more police departments prefer (if not require). In situations such as these, the laudable goal of diversity may not be best served by simply filling spots based on that objective. 

Third, officer training to limit the use of "quality of life" and other nominal offenses that are too often used as a pretext to arrest someone and get them into the "system" is long overdue. Not only does this type of policing exacerbate negative relations between communities and police, it clogs jails and courts, punishes those arrested with fines and levies that are often difficult to pay (and lead to additional penalties, bench warrants, and the rest). 

Finally, and as others have mentioned, better police training in deescalation tactics, improving reporting transparency, and community relations would also go a long way toward improving relationships. Meeting with neighborhood groups, faith-based organizations, visiting schools, and participating in events like the recent "National Night Out" are all ways that bridges can be built between law enforcement and the community. Indeed, the idea of "community policing" is not a novel one; however, at least here in New Jersey, where some of our largest cities, including Newark, Camden, and Trenton (all of whom also have sky high crime rates) laid off hundreds of police officers when the bottom dropped out of the economy, leadership must be exercised to rethink how resources are allocated, improve officer training, and consider how communities view those who wear the uniform. 
The other idea you hear a lot about is the need for officers to be equipped with cameras, either in their cars or on their person. Again, a perfectly sensible idea that has been shown, at least with regard to officer "body cams" to reduce citizen complaints in one city that started using them. That said, no one talks about the cost of these devices. Not to be all green eyeshade, but in many places where one assumes talking heads think this equipment should be used, the coffers are dry. Again, here in New Jersey, many cities can't afford to maintain staffing levels, how do you expect them (really, their city councils and mayors) to pay for this equipment when they can't keep officers employed? If the federal government is willing to pay the upfront costs of these devices and leave the maintenance to local departments, that might be one solution, but to expect a city like Irvington, New Jersey, which is desperately poor, to come up with the money for cameras is not realistic. 

Don't get me wrong, I do think, when possible, a city's police force should look like it and that officers should don cameras or have cameras mounted in their vehicles, but that isn't always possible (and is not a panacea regardless). Getting officers invested in the betterment of the community, knowing the people they protect and serve, and extending a hand in partnership are all things that can be done without cost, just an investment of time and caring. 

It is also important to note that improving community/police interactions needs to go hand-in-hand with longer-term efforts in places that are struggling - that includes in education, after-school programs, job training, and a range of other programs that can gradually help improve the quality of life for people in impoverished areas. 

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

In Rizzo We Trust

When the vagabond Montreal Expos landed in Washington, D.C. by way of a part-time "home" in Puerto Rico, with a barren farm system and the indifference of Major League Baseball, which would have happily contracted the Expos, but instead, pocketed $450 million for their sale, fans in the nation's capital who had waited more than three decades for baseball's return could look past the thin roster and celebrate a surprising 81-81 record in the team's inaugural season.

That first season began propitiously, with the team riding a hot start to a surprising division lead, but faded badly down the stretch. Ownership was learning on the fly, entrusting veteran GM Jim Bowden to stock the team on a threadbare budget while a new stadium arose along the DC waterfront. The results were predictable - a string of sub-.500 seasons with instantly forgettable players rotating through the lineup and diminishing crowds. 

One acquisition Bowden made, however, would never lead Sports Center or make the front page of the Washington Post sports page, but it probably did more to change the fortunes of the franchise than any other - he hired a well-regarded scout from the Arizona Diamondbacks named Mike Rizzo. When Bowden slinked out of town in advance of a federal investigation into the team's Latin American operation, Rizzo was promoted to General Manager (first on an interim basis, but ultimately, on a permanent basis) and set about rebuilding the team into the steady contender it has become. 

It is hard to overstate Rizzo's profound influence on the team and its success. Whether it was through strategic trades that brought key pieces like Wilson Ramos, Denard Span, Tanner Roark, or Doug Fister, draft picks like Stephen Strasburg, Drew Storen, or Bryce Harper, or others, like Tommy Milone, Brad Peacock and Derek Norris, who got packaged in a deal for Gio Gonzalez, Rizzo and his scouts have found gems throughout the draft that have created a steady stream of home grown talent to stock the major league squad but also act as trade bait when a player like Fister or Span comes available. To this combination Rizzo has made strategic free agent signings, the most notable being Jayson Werth, who, some initial stumbles aside, has not only performed at a level justifying the $126 million contract he signed, but has become the glue that holds the team together. Slick fielding Adam LaRoche has manned first base admirably for three years and provided solid run production. 

The team announced its arrival as a contender in 2012, a year, or maybe even two ahead of what many thought was possible, but the 98 win season ended on a sour note, as the team coughed up a six run lead in the deciding Game 5 of the NLDS. A bumpy 2013 still resulted in an 86-76 record, but fell well short of expectations, with the team missing the playoffs. This year, after a slow start, the team is firing on all cylinders, even with the loss of third baseman cum left fielder Ryan Zimmerman spending much of the season on the disabled list. At the trade deadline, Rizzo again showed his acumen, poaching Asdrubal Cabrera from the Indians for prospect Zach Walters (another Rizzo find, coming over to the Nats in a deal for veteran pitcher Jason Marquis) and claiming veteran lefty Matt Thornton off waivers from the Yankees. Both men have helped stabilize two needs - Cabrera, a sure handed second baseman can also play shortstop and Thornton provides veteran experience out of the bullpen.  

Of course, none of this means the Nats will ever win a World Series. The fickleness of the playoffs is such that the team entering the post-season with the best regular season record has only won the World Series about 20% of the time since 1995. The Red Sox, who finished last in the AL East two years ago, won it all last year, before falling right back to the bottom of the standings this year.  But what Rizzo has done is mold a team that has a four to five year window where it will be very good and have a chance to win it all every year. That is no small thing. The farm system, which has been shorn of some of its talent in service of the major league club is again flush with everyday and pitching talent. And that talent is what will be needed to sustain the team through the end of this decade as young veterans like Jordan Zimmermann and Ian Desmond are in line for nine-figure contract extensions in DC (or elsewhere) before a conversation even starts about Strasburg or Harper, both of whom could command close to $200 million when they hit the free agent market. 

For now, enjoy your bounty, Washington. We have a perennial playoff contender being built "the right way," a GM who pilfers talent from other teams so often he should be arrested for robbery, and a bunch of guys it is very easy to root for (unlike the football team and its execrable owner). 

Saturday, August 23, 2014

Book Review - Bloody Spring

For most Americans, the military aspects of the Civil War are known in broad strokes – the firing on Fort Sumter, the epic battle at Gettysburg, and Lee’s grudging surrender to Grant at Appomatox. While Ken Burns’s wildly successful documentary introduced millions to other conflicts, at Antietem, Chickamauga, and Vicksburg, unless you are a “buff” with granular knowledge of one side’s regiments or some obscure dust-up that occurred in a remote corner of Georgia, General Ulysses S. Grant’s Spring 1864 Overland campaign is often overlooked, but in Joseph Wheelan’s new book Bloody Spring, Forty Days That Sealed The Fate of the Confederacy, we learn that this six week period of relentless fighting was as important to the Union victory as repelling Pickett’s Charge.

1864 was a perilous time in our nation’s history. Lincoln’s re-election was far from assured, Robert E. Lee had spirited his defeated troops back to Virginia after his loss at Gettysburg, and from the western theater came Ulysses S. Grant, a hard charging (and some said too hard drinking) general who had choked off half the South by defeating rebel troops at Vicksburg. Grant’s promotion to Lieutenant General and overall commander of all Union forces spoke to Lincoln’s frustration at the Army’s failure to leverage its superior manpower and personnel to beat Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia and the President’s desire to hand authority to a commander who would stand and fight. On the other hand, the South was relying on war fatigue to either oust President Lincoln (whose opponent in 1864 was his former commandeering officer, George McClellan, who was running on a negotiated peace platform) or result in its recognition by other nations like Great Britain to reach the same result. In the alternative, the South hoped for a decisive battlefield victory based on Lee’s strategic and tactical skill; however, Sherman’s march through Georgia, the Army of the Potomac’s vastly superior (in soldiers and material) numbers, and the crippling blockade that starved the South of basic necessities, made this scenario highly improbable. Indeed, the North’s advantages suggested that the right man, with the right temperament, could snuff the rebellion and secure Lee’s surrender.

Grant’s elevation was far from ordained. His military career was choppy and he was not even in the army at the time fighting began; but through dogged determination, a killer’s instinct, and an utter lack of remorse for the casualties his troops inflicted and suffered, Grant’s reputation as a fighter par excellence was cemented when Vicksburg fell. When handed the reins of the entire Union force, he developed a multi-pronged strategy that relied on Sherman’s continued penetration of the deep South and the Army of the James’s menacing of areas below Richmond to squeeze Lee and his forces like an anaconda choking out its victim. When Union troops crossed the Rapidan River to begin the Overland campaign, Grant signaled a point of no return – he would not retreat even in the face of battlefield setbacks.

And with this backdrop in mind, Wheelan sets a furious pace through brisk storytelling and evocative language that places the reader in the claustrophobic atmosphere of the Wilderness, the fighting at Spotsylvania Court House, and the war councils of Grant and Lee. Wheelan’s treatment of his main protagonists is judicious. While Lee is certainly portrayed as the better strategist, deftly moving his troops around and battling heroically against a greater force, Wheelan is not afraid to point out his mistakes. Similarly, Grant is not shown to be a mindless warrior piling bodies into the maw; his nimble removal of the entire Army of the Potomac from the stalemate at Cold Harbor was a masterful feat involving the laying of a 2,100 foot pontoon bridge that ferried 100,000 troops across the Pamunkey River without Lee even knowing about it. Had Grant’s underlings moved aggressively after this daring river crossing, it would have reached Petersburg ahead of Lee’s troops, effectively bottling up the Army of Northern Virginia and bringing the war to a close. Indeed, Wheelan suggests that Grant’s shortcomings as a general were less about his tactical or strategic acumen, but rather, someone saddled with an overly cautious staff whose postponements and reluctance to engage the enemy left their commander frustrated, his objectives unmet, and victory just out of reach.

Wheelan admirably captures the scope of carnage wrought in this short time. The six weeks of fighting resulted in tens of thousands of deaths and even more injured and mangled. It is not a pleasant story, but one well told. To sit back in 2014 and attempt to imagine casualty numbers that surpassed, in a single day, all those killed in the Iraq War is sobering to say the least. That Grant continued his grinding progress even as the body count mounted earned him the sobriquet of “butcher,” but Lee’s casualties, while less in sheer numbers, were greater as a percentage of his overall force. Unlike Grant, who could rely on a fresh supply of soldiers, the Confederacy was tapped out and incapable of sustaining the battle over the long haul.

Wheelan also takes care to flesh out the biographies and personalities of those around these two larger than life figures. In this way, the leadership challenges of each is brought into sharper relief. For Grant, it is commanders reluctant to charge and a direct report (Meade) who teeters between paranoia and self-pity as his authority is steadily eroded. Lee, on the other hand, is in many ways a team of one, as he loses his cavalry leader Jeb Stuart during the campaign, while his de facto number two, James Longstreet, is seriously wounded. It is clear from Wheelan’s storytelling that Lee is the linchpin of his entire force, with his men furiously demanding his return to the rear any time he nears the battlefield, while Grant’s men are generally respectful, he does not engender the same blind loyalty.

On one level, this is understandable. As Grant’s troops ram into Lee’s fortified barricades, the body count skyrockets, and the Confederates offer grudging respect for the one Union general they have met who will stand and fight; but the futility of these charges is captured by the line grunts, whose diaries show a poignant fatalism, particularly as the lethality of attempting to breach the breastwork defenses Lee’s troops mastered becomes more and more apparent. Meanwhile, the Union generals’ complicity in undue slaughter is clear – be it through their inability to press advantages or stubbornness in futile attacks at impregnable defensive positions. Indeed, as a military side note, the rapid evolution of trench warfare even within this short season of combat is startling and an ominous foretelling of World War I. The Overland campaign was among the first to take place behind fortified lines and across empty spaces that quickly turned into killing fields.

Ultimately, Grant’s aggression and Lee’s dwindling forces allowed the former to steadily make his way toward Petersburg, where a months-long siege that stretched into 1865 finally choked off the Army of Northern Virginia, who attempted a break out in early April, only to be cornered near Appomatox Court House. While the Petersburg siege could fill its own book, Wheelan’s superficial accounting of those long months is one of his few missteps – an afterthought that barely covers two pages, but could have, in a slightly longer epilogue, provided a more fitting cap to his story. That said, Bloody Spring is a worthy addition to the voluminous Civil War record.

Sunday, August 17, 2014

Princeton - August 17

An overcast morning made for some nice photographic opportunities on the Princeton campus. Check it out:

Firestone Library:

Princeton University Chapel:

East Pyne Hall:

Blair Hall:

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Why I Cannot With Edward Snowden

In his latest bit of trolling, Edward Snowden appears on the cover of Wired magazine clutching an American flag. I’m not going to lie, I didn’t read the interview in the magazine because I cannot with Edward Snowden anymore.

I do not care whether you think Edward Snowden is the most important whistleblower since Daniel Ellsberg or the greatest threat to national security since the Rosenbergs, the reality is that someone who wants to wrap himself in the flag while a fugitive from justice hiding in Vladimir Putin’s Russia can politely go fuck himself. If Edward Snowden is so enamored of the United States and the many liberties and freedoms he enjoyed while living here, he should get on the next plane from Moscow and hoover up all the due process protection our legal system affords someone accused of a crime and defend himself. Trust me, he would have his pick of the most eminent and qualified defense attorneys in the country to defend him.

But in the meantime, please stop treating this man like some sort of hero – most of what he leaked was known (or suspected) since the New York Times broke stories about the so-called “Terrorist Surveillance Program” way back in 2006 and the fact that he is living in a country that just illegally annexed another country’s territory and whose record on press freedom is, let’s just say, less than stellar, just adds to the hypocrisy. I am tired of Edward Snowden being provided a media platform to inflate his ego and self-righteously proclaim his innocence while avoiding justice.

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

Super Moon

This weekend saw another "super moon" over New Jersey. Taking pictures of the moon is greatly aided by utilizing manual settings on your camera - the auto settings won't select the right aperture opening or shutter speed. These pictures were all taken with "f" stop settings between 4 and 8 and shutter speed settings of between 1/60 and 1/125. The first three pictures were taken the evening of August 9th and the other four were taken on August 10th, the technical "super moon." Enjoy!

Sunday, August 10, 2014

Prospect Garden

During prior forays into Princeton, I included photos from Prospect Garden among others taken around campus. Today, it is an homage to this tranquil setting. As summer has passed, the dominant flora has changed, but it is always eye-catching. Enjoy!

Tuesday, August 5, 2014

Move Along Folks, Nothing To See Here

The 24-hour news cycle is bad for a lot of reasons – it lacks context, encourages lowest common denominator reporting, and sometimes needs correction after-the-fact because the need to be right is often sacrificed at the altar of being first. Twain’s axiom that “a lie makes it halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to put its pants on” is truer today than ever, but several stories that consumed the Beltway media in the past year when each was deemed a “crisis” were so lightly reported in follow-up as to make one wonder whether reporters in Washington simply root for failure.

You might remember the budget deficit and the economy consuming enormous swaths of real estate on the pages of major newspapers and the airwaves of cable television a while back. The former was a millstone hanging around the President’s neck, with Republicans darkly warning of a dystopian future if Social Security (fully funded until beyond 2030) and Medicare (solvent through the mid-2020s) were not tinkered with. Meanwhile, the steady drumbeat of pabulum from Speaker John Boehner – “where are the jobs” – was uncritically repeated by a media far more interested in Washington food fights than analyzing our country’s economic recovery.

So, what happened? Why aren’t we hearing more about either the budget deficit or the economy? Sadly, it appears that the answer is “because both are doing well.” I know, it is odd to think that media types would not be interested in reporting good news, but it is hard to conclude otherwise. Consider the fact that the budget deficit is predicted to be roughly 3% of our nation’s GDP at the end of the federal government’s fiscal year on September 30th. This is well in line with what most economists think is acceptable and is an enormous reduction in total dollars from the depths of the Great Recession; however, you would be hard pressed to find much coverage of this fact and certainly far less than the “sky is falling” attitudes expressed by many conventional journalists when a “grand bargain” was seen as the only solution to our fiscal woes.

As for the economy, it just recorded the sixth straight month of creating more than 200,000 jobs; the first time this has happened since 1997. Moreover, private sector job growth has expanded for more than 4 years straight, the unemployment rate is hovering just above 6%, and would be even lower if states had not laid off so many public sector workers to balance their books. But again, <crickets> from the media, who were otherwise consumed last Friday with the fact that the President used the word “folks” when confirming what everyone knew – that America tortured people after 9/11.

Remember, Obamacare? How could you not. For the better part of four years, from the town hall astro-turf melees to Sarah Palin’s “death panels,” the media gleefully reported on attempts by Republicans to deny their fellow Americans access to what is considered a basic human right in every other advanced nation in the world – quality and affordable medical treatment. Good times. After the law was passed and upheld by the Supreme Court, the coverage shifted to the creation of exchanges where insurance plans could be purchased. You might remember that too – the federal exchange got off to a rocky start, but quickly righted itself (like literally, in the span of about 6 weeks it was working perfectly – another thing the media failed to report on). Ultimately, more than 8 million people registered for “Obamacare,” which ended up being more than were initially predicted before the “glitch” problems on

You would be surprised to learn how effective Obamacare has been because what coverage the media still provides is (shocker!) negative – a rogue appeals panel that held subsidies were limited to those states that set up their own exchanges (another appeals court found the opposite, but again, got much less coverage) and polling that shows the law’s overall unpopularity (never mind that the component parts always poll well and some who are unhappy with the law think it should go further). In deep blue California, premiums are only going to rise 4.5% next year, well below the double-digit inflation that used to occur in the system, and hundreds of thousands of people in blood red Kentucky signed up for health insurance for the first time. Further, instead of creating a predicted insurance “death spiral,” reports indicate that young, healthy Americans are signing up and insurance companies are battling to enter more markets. But why would the media want you to know about that? Also of little interest to most in Washington is the fact that Medicare costs are dropping, due in part to the Affordable Care Act, which has the added benefit of extending the life of the program (something everyone was also up in arms about just a year or so ago).

And finally, who can forget Benghazi? You know, an incident the right-wing media portrayed as worse than 9/11, that would be the downfall of Hillary Clinton’s nascent Presidential run and proved, once and for all that Obama was really a feckless leader who refused to save helpless Americans in Libya. Benghazi got plenty of coverage in the darker corners of conservative talk radio and the blogosphere from the day it happened, but more recently, the media was all over the creation of a (rare) “special” committee in the House of Representatives to “investigate” the matter further. All of this sturm und drang (with little substantiation) served to drop Hillary’s poll numbers and gin up the type of hysteria that was once reserved for Dan Burton doing tests of bullet trajectories on melons (google that one if you don’t get the reference).

But on the same day the media was ignoring the strong July job numbers it was REALLY ignoring a story written by Carolyn Lochhead of the San Francisco Chronicle about a soon-to-be declassified report by the House Intelligence Committee (yes, run by a Republican!) that will debunk, refute and otherwise reject all of the wild-eyed conspiracy theories that were generated in the murky pools of right-wing media and leaked into our public discourse. Seriously, her reporting generated NO follow-up for several days and when MSNBC finally picked it up, most of us who use social media could only shake our heads at the veritable eternity it took for anyone in “journalism,” who had shamelessly taken advantage of a terrible tragedy to advance bogus talking points, to clue the world into this latest destruction of a cherished right wing myth.

And so it goes. This is not to say NO reporting is being done on these subjects, it is the utter lack of proportionality given the negative versus the positive (or in the case of Benghazi, the truthful versus the false) that should shame and embarrass those who report the news. When Chuck Todd bemoans voter cynicism he points to a truth largely created by him and his journalistic ilk who have decided its raison d’ĂȘtre is conflict not context, specious over substance, and optics above all else. We deserve better.