January 4, 2007


Brent Michael Davids, 1/4/07

Personally, I suspect both. But let’s consider a few facts.

Yeagley strongly implies that his being fired from teaching at that university in Oklahoma was for being too radical, or that he somehow was victim to a political firing for being a “conservative” (neocon, actually). However, when the truth came out, it turns out the numerous and pointed student complaints regarding his “teaching” style, is the reason he was let go. A Yeagley supporter, including Yeagley’s biggest supporter (the man in the mirror), obviously clamor for the former explanation but that explanation wholly disregards the statements made by his University superiors alleging his confrontational interludes with the university students. In my book, Yeagley’s explanation seems a bit incomplete, wouldn’t you say? I’d wager Yeagley’s lie is more a “sin of omission” by failing to consider the actual perspectives of his immediate superiors in the matter — leaning too heavily on what he wished the reality to be rather than the way it really was.

When he declared his discovery of a new grand harmonic theory, a new discovery so noteworthy to be championed in his biography, he could not reveal it nor defend it with any reasonable critique by theoretical or compositional standards. It is a fact that many student composers experiment with all sorts of harmonic theories, self-created theories of harmonic organization, and perhaps Yeagley could be counted among them. However, what is not true is that Yeagley has discovered a grand new theory. It is nearly common knowledge among theorists and composers that development of new harmonic theories, as a field of exploration, has been largely exhausted. So exhausted is this field, that Yeagley’s discovery would out of shear uniqueness be trumpeted as the new E=mc2, or the new harmonic theory that breaks the mold, which is utterly ludicrous. No one has ever experienced this theoretical contemplation save Yeagley himself, probably when writing about it in his own biography. To me, this seems a bit more a sin of omission, by not revealing the whole truth, that Yeagley once got creative as a student composer and came up with a new harmonic organization that he personally liked, and tried composing with it. However, expanding that truth into a full-blown new harmonic theory of organization to which no other composer might be privy, is hot air — it is a ballooning story of a theory.

Though other fabrications and sins of omission abound, one must ask how many would it take to qualify Yeagley as a liar? 1000 omissions? 500? 10? How many? Though I am not qualified to answer that question, I have presented two documented cases above. There are others of course, such as Yeagley’s appearance on the Native America Calling radio program, when he implied he successfully smacked down Winona LaDuke; anyone hearing that episode would most likely see it all together differently. In the on-air debate with LaDuke, Yeagley rather feebly attempted to bolster his own position as a superior male warrior and got his clock cleaned by a superior woman. But the question of liars and liar haters seems somehow to coagulate with David Yeagley. He appears to be both liar and liar hater, which may account for the apparent odor of self-loathing that one gathers when wading through his blogging efforts. Again, as I’ve stated often before, why take my word for this, when one can go sniff around for yourself. Just remember to vent yourself off afterwards, and return to BadEagle.ORG for a bit of sanity.

As far as Yeagley’s so-called “Bad Eagle Restitutions,” I think he missed one — reason. Yes, he defines himself in the negative, obviously, by declaring this personage “bad eagle” as his own namesake, but reminds us that he is not actually him. Yes, he praises the Jews claiming many Jewish friendships, but quickly declares that he does not “sell himself” as Jewish. Yes, he thinks he could pass for Italian, but again identifies himself in the negative as not being himself Italian. The same for being Persian, yes he has Persian acquaintances but no, he is not actually Persian.

Why all the focus on race? Even by twisting the blog’s conclusion — to blindly equate "race" with “culture” — did not save Yeagley's goose from laying an egg. I think he still missed something about reason, you know, sound reasoning, healthy thinking. So let me add this bit, that perhaps Yeagley could pass for someone using reason? Perhaps he even has reasonable friends? However, considering the facts and lest we forget, maybe he is not actually reasoned himself. For 2007, this might be something for ‘bad eagle’ readers to keep in mind for the new year.

No comments: