The Third Day

Scroll down to the bottom of this blog and read the Faulkner lines. If I tried to attempt such elegy, it would likely sound maudlin, but it is no matter, for Faulkner said it better then, and he says it better than anyone can say it now.

This is the 150th anniversary of the third and final day at Gettysburg. It was not a last stand but a hubristic effort with minimal chance of success. Its glory--thousands of men marching for home and family, brimming with valor and bravery--is sadly overshadowed by Lee's single mistake of the war: his overestimation of his troops'--and perhaps his own--capabilities. He incorrectly weighed elementary tactical considerations about numerical strength and geography against intangibles, such as the effect of a withdrawal in his men, and their enthusiasm for a fight. It was a blunder, and likely a prideful one at that.

And yet Lee's devotion to duty and love of country, and that of his officers and men--from the cavalier, aristocratic Virginian planters to the slaveless, hardscrabble Texans with Hood--nearly brings me to tears on this day. Pickett's officers likely knew that they were matching to their death that day, yet they did so gladly. They believed in something greater than themselves, whether it was home, God, or a sense of "duty." And it is moving to think that a mass of men was willing to fight and die for these things.

Lee blundered. He disregarded basic strategic considerations for emotions. The last day is bathed in so much sadness, so much needlessness, so much folly, that oftentimes its sadness is all one can glimpse. But we should always remember its beauty. Watch Gettysburg and see the incredible love between Marse Robert and his soldiers. See the grace with which his men went into battle. And see Lee stoop and shoulder the burden of defeat and loss unreservedly. It is tragic, certainly, but it is beautiful.

Introducing a New Word: "SNARKIRAZZI"

"Snarkirazzi":
Pronunciation: \ˌsnär-kə-ˈrät-(ˌ)sē\
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian, a portmanteau of "snarky" and Paparazzi, surname of a gossip a photographer in the film La Dolce Vita (1959)
Date: 2013
:
1. A growing class of young, well-educated, politically liberal, usually self-described "progressive," bloggers who rely on conceited, dismissive, and belittling sarcasm in their writing to express conclusions or opinions formed without knowledge of relevant facts and without exposure to or consideration of any justification or rationale for that which they criticize.

2. People who read such writing or who speak or think in a similar manner.

Yeah, it's "a thing," so I made a word for it. I have long railed against East Coast elitism in the press and among "educated" people my age, so I figured I would come up with a word for those acolytes of elitism, those sacerdotes of snark.

The best example is Gawker. Smart people write for it, people who can turn an effective phrase and bulls-eye shoot the tone and impression they aim for. But it's annoying. Their authors try to outdo themselves in snark (not the eponymous creature of Lewis Carroll's poem, but the snot-nosed, vitriolic put-downs that today pass for wit) with every post, every report, every "article" that gets written. They write without facts and without having considered other points of view. And they spout disgust for people who disagree with them.

I understand that people think differently; they do not. I try to start with the premise that other people probably have a rationale for doing the things they do and that I should try to understand it before criticizing it. Snarkirazzi, in contrast, start with the premise that they are the smartest, coolest on the block and whatever they don't understand after a nano-second glance must be idiotic and thus ripe and proper fodder for mockery.

It wouldn't bother me so much if so many people didn't subscribe to this way of thinking and ape it. I am afraid, however, that people my age do. I realize that Gawker is not the New Republic, but that does not bother me. What bothers me is that few people my age know the New Republic/The Nation/whatever and understand the value that thoughtfulness and reason have in political news.

We talk about my generation's discontent with the current partisan gamesmanship that passes for statesmanship in Washington--the 2008 Obama campaign encapsulates that sentiment. But this gamesmanship, failure to compromise, and a literal inability to talk to or understand the other side is being trained into us and reinforced by sites and news outlets like Gawker.

They are educated enough to write better, and we are educated enough to read better. Way better than what we're fed by the snarkirazzi.