Overheard On Talk Radio, Part Drei: The Case of the Piehole

Forgive me for vulgarity (not for the first time, nor the last time), but I'm really f#cking sick of this "it's the 1930s all over again, and Saddam Hussein/Amendenijad or however you spell it/(fill in the blank) is Hitler" rhetoric. For one thing, talk of this kind highlights the general historical illiteracy and tendency to groupthink among contemporary Americans. Guess what, people: there were bad men in history before Hitler. There have been bad men since. Hitler was evil, but he had no monopoly on wickedness, tyranny, cruelty and depravity. And yes, some men have arguably been even worse than the excitable dictator with the strident voice, the puffy pants and the silly mustache. Stalin, for one (though admittedly he was handsomer, better dressed, and had a more elegant-looking mustache than that wild-eyed Austrian fellow), except that he was our ally, loved and trusted by Roosevelt during WW2, that bloody conflict now commonly viewed as a straightforward battle between the forces of light and the forces of darkness. In defeating Hitler, we ended Nazism as a political force, which was good, except for the fact that in so doing we aided the spread of Communism, which was bad-- very bad.

Last Friday, a caller to the Glenn Beck program wanted to take issue with the glorification of Winston Churchill that is an essential part of the typical template by which WW2 is viewed as a Manichean struggle between Good and Evil, rather than a means by which one Evil (Nazism) was supplanted by another, perhaps greater one (Communism), through the help of powers that committed plenty of evil themselves (see the deliberate destruction of civilian populations in Germany in Japan by U.S. and British forces) in the supposed pursuit of an eventual good. These days we all "know" that Churchill was a great leader who recognized the danger of the Nazis before anyone else (unlike the hapless Neville Chamberlain of the mainstream account of 20th Century history) and whose stirring speeches helped the British public endure the ruthless shelling of the Luftwaffe in the early months of the war. We don't, of course, hear about the Churchill that presided over the terror bombing operations of the RAF (in which German women and children were slaughtered rather than English ones), or who caved to the sinister, smiling Georgian with the elegant mustache and (along with Roosevelt) sold Eastern Europe into Bolshevik slavery at the Yalta conference.

Well, it seems that some of the usual suspects (Bush, Lieberman, and other politicians whose hay is made with "war on terror/stay the course" appeals) are now invoking the spirit of Churchill, insisting that it's 1938 all over again, that Iran is Nazi Germany, that "Islamofascism" is the new.... well, fascism. "Churchill stood up to the bad guys, and so should we," they declare. Of course, standing up to Islamofascism in their account invariably seems to involve invading the Middle East, taking it over by force in order to save it from itself (and killing not a few civilians in the process), and imposing the precious system of democracy down their throats.

That said, I don't know if the caller to Beck's show had any of this in mind when he called to offer an alternative view on Winston Churchill. Instead, he seemed to want to argue that Churchill (in an earlier post in his political career while stationed in the Middle East) was instrumental in causing some chaos in that region, particuarly in creating nation-states like Iraq, which led to tribal friction between the various groups who were suddenly thrown together and forced to see each other as fellow citizens.

Or at least I think that's what the caller wanted to say. I'm not sure, because Beck cut him off almost instantly-- in fact, the caller met his demise the very moment that it became clear he was going to be critical of Churchill. He only managed to say, "Churchill's one of the reasons why the Middle East is so messed up..." before Beck angrily told him "shut your piehole!" and then moved on to the next caller.

Beck is generally one of the more unpretentious, unabrasive, self-effacing talk jockeys out there. Of course, he's in lockstep with the Rush-Hannity axis on most matters, but he takes himself far less seriously, at least most of the time. He'd rather have fun with callers, including flaky or contrary-minded ones, than abuse or insult them. This is probably a large reason for his success. Yet clearly, there is a dark underbelly of brutal, self-righteous censoriousness beneath Beck's usually affable, comedic demeanor. I have heard hints of it before (the most disturbing being the time when he cheered Racheal Corrie's murder by an Israeli bulldozer-driver a couple of years ago), but nothing so blatant as this.

One has to wonder why criticizing Churchill in any way makes one so unworthy of being part of the national conversation. Why must we shut our proverbial pieholes, Mr. Beck? Is this perhaps a tacit admission that you have nothing of substance to feed us?

Overheard on Talk Radio, Part Deux

In my latest piece at THE LAST DITCH (see link below), I criticized Rush Limbaugh for cheering on the notion of deliberately bombing civilians in order to to win a war. I know Rush claims to be pro-life, so I took him to task, not only for the repugnacy of his views re: war, but for his inconsistency. How can you say it's okay to slaughter the innocent in some circumstances, but not in others?

Well, based on what I heard yesterday, I'm now not so sure Rush is even pro-life. So I guess he might be off the hook on the inconsistency charge. He might just be consistently morally repugnant.

Rush was talking about this new article making the rounds in a lot of places, regarding the so-called "fertility gap" between conservatives and liberals in America. Apparently conservatives are prone to having larger families, and thus propagating their views to more future citizens. Liberals, on the other hand, tend to have fewer children (as is usually the case with more secular-oreinted folk, and liberals do tend to be more secular in their beliefs than conservatives), thus the future of the propagation of their ideology is in doubt. (They needn't worry, of course; as long as they control the academy, the media, and the courts, they'll be able to enforce their preferences and stigmatize their enemies as racists, sexists, and homophobes, et al)

Interesting article, and a very real phenomeon, no doubt. Then Rush pointed out that the liberals are probably also having more abortions than conservatives, which doesn't help their overall fertility. Decent point, and reasonable hypothesis, considering liberals are more likely to subscribe to the apalling notiong that killing a child is A-okay, provided the child hasn't emerged from the birth canal yet.

Then Rush started having some fun, and things turned ghastly.
"Liberals are aborting themselves out of existence. Abortion is almost their birthright," he said. This was a chilling turn of phrase, and if he'd stated it in a sober tone that drew attention to both the irony and the tragedy of the situation, all would have been well. But this didn't happen. In fact, after making this statement, Rush began to chuckle uncontrollably. He didn't just find this state of affairs bitterly ironic; he found it funny. If you want a good laugh, apparently nothing beats the merciless destruction of babies, provided their mothers are blue-state liberals.

It got worse.
"Liberals are aborting themselves out of existence, " Rush repeated. "So maybe we conservatives shouldn't oppose abortion so much."

Yes, he was probably being tounge-in-cheek. And I'm not the reflexively-offended type. I understand the appeal of self-consciously tasteless humor.

But forgive me if I observe that the sort of person who properly understands abortion as one of the greatest evils of our time wouldn't make a joke about how it's a good thing for babies to be murdered today, provided that this means fewer Democrat voters 18 years from now. Forgive me if I surmise that Rush probably doesn't care that much about unborn children, except as a wedge issue to get out the red-state vote.

Overheard on Talk Radio, Part One

William Bennett to Rich Lowry of National Review (paraphrase): "I suppose a case could be made that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq..."

Really-- a case to be made! I'm hearing similiarly grudging admissions in other unexpected places too. A few months ago, the notion that things were going badly in Iraq was dismissed, the perception chalked up to the media's relentless bias. "Why do they keep reporting all the bad things that are happening over there?" the talk radio loudmouth chickenhawks would whine.

Now a new "paradigm" (man, I hate that word-- I don't take it seriously; that's why I enclosed in in quotation marks) seems to be emerging. We seem to be working up to an admission-- among formerly pro-war people-- that things in Iraq really ARE bad, that it's not just a lie concocted by anti-American military-hating journalist hacks. It will be interesting to see where this all will lead. Perhaps to an actual troop withdrawal? One can only hope.

Myself, I've never been sympathetic to the "why is the media reporting these things all the time?" complaint. Maybe it's because I once worked as a journalist myself, albeit in a small-time, small-town venue. It was often the case, in my experience, that people who complained about "negative" stories were bigwigs (and bigwig lackeys, suck-ups, and PR men) who somehow felt that they ought to be exempt from any kind of criticism. Believe me, if seven marines are killed by an IED in Tikrit, it's news, and it ought to be reported. If a crowd of Shite pilgrims are killed by Sunni insurgents, it's news, and it ought to be reported. And if some American soldiers indulge in a massacre of Iraqi civilians, it's news, and it ought to be reported.

Let the journalists tell their stories. Hold their feet to the fire, of course; make sure that they tell the truth. Make sure they are fair, and challenge them when they aren't. But don't give them hell for doing their jobs, just because you'd rather hear nicer stories.

About the Name

Hundreds, if not thousands of my loyal readers have approached me at the gym, on the street, at work and at home, all to ask me the question(s), "What's it all about, Nowicki? Why have you named your blogsite 'Dyspeptic Myopic'? What does it mean?"

Then, of course, they ask for my autograph, which I generously provide, free of charge. (Unlike home run champion Hank Aaron, who makes people pay for his mighty signature, or did at least back in 1989, when he came to my high school and spent the morning pontificating about his greatness as a baseball player and a human being before haughtily refusing to sign a fellow classmate's copy of THE SCARLET LETTER as we stood in line to shake his hand as part of a phony and contrived display of generosity on the part of Hank's handlers following his pompous speech.) The brainy, buxom women who make up my fan base are all crushed to learn that I am indeed happily married, just as I have written in my profile. I tell them to keep their heads held high, not to give up, that there's someone out there just right for them who's got at least half of my wit, charm, and winning personality, if not my good looks. But I digress. In fact, I've digressed a couple of times, but who's counting? Indeed, who's reading?

Actually, no one has asked about the name of this site, except my wife, and to be honest she didn't seem all THAT interested. Nevertheless, here's what it's all about:

"Dyspeptic" means something like "disgruntled." Dyspepsia is a condition that is characterized by a chronically upset stomach. A dyspeptic personality is someone who is cynical, suspicious, misanthropic.

"Myopic" is a condition of the eye-- I think it means something similar to "shortsighted," only more extreme. A myopic person is someone who gets too caught up in himself and his own struggles to see the much vaunted "big picture."

As a card-carrying pessimist, I have often observed that optimists become angry when their sunny expectations of life and the future are challenged. Hell hath no fury like an optimist scorned. If you are a pessimist, there must be something wrong with you, they assert. They assign you certain epithets, and in so doing declare that you needn't be taken seriously. "Dyspeptic" and "myopic" are two such epithets.

Well, there COULD be something wrong with me. My thoroughgoing pessimism about life, the future, civilization, humanity, and so forth could well be an outgrowth of my own inner problems. I might just be "projecting" my own demons on the world around me. I'm open to that possibility.

Then again, it MIGHT just be that I have a point, that my gloomy outlook isn't so much pessimistic as it is realistic. And it might be that you insufferable optimists out there-- who like to dismiss us unreconstructed pessimists as buffoonish curmudgeons-- are actually the ones who have deep-seated personal issues.

Then again, it could well be that everyone is f#cked up, and no one knows what the f*ck they're talking about. In which case, conversation is useless, and we should all just die. Even I am not willing to go that far.

No, I plan to continue to hold up my end of the conversation, out of some kind of faith that conversation is useful, and that through conversation, we can get somewhere better.

Thus, I write on, embracing the very dismissive appellations given to me by my enemies, and indeed using them as a rallying cry. Dyspeptic Myopic forever!!!

My Latest At THE LAST DITCH

www.thornwalker.com/ditch/nowicki_hate_radio.htm

2 V or not 2 V: That is the question

I've officially been Roman Catholic for just four months now, but I've been "Catholic-minded" for a long time. It took me a while to make the final step Rome-ward. I didn't hesitate for any of the usual reasons. I didn't have a problem with the doctrine of transubstantiation, or with the elevated status of Mary, or any of the other bugaboos you often hear converts or would-be converts dwelling upon. Frankly, folks, those things are small potatoes. If you're already a Christian, you already base your faith on a miracle; you believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and that he rose from the dead. Hell, if you can buy into that, why is it so hard to believe that God could be actually present in the wafers and the wine the priest holds up at the altar? As far as Mary goes, the Church of course doesn't and never has considered her divine; she's simply a great, great person who's highly blessed in Heaven. Even papal infallibility is not such a big deal when one understands that the pope is really just a sinning schlub like the rest of us, and that actual ex cathedra pronouncements are exceedingly rare occurances.

And hey, I've always loved the saints. I've always been drawn to iconography, to statues, to candles, to vestments, to rituals, to "smells and bells," in short, to the whole Catholic mystique. I really don't understand wanting to do without such things. Why separate yourself from beauty, in order to immerse yourself in the stark plainness or even ugliness that characterizes much of the contemporary Protestant style of worship?

No, it was in fact the very state of the contemporary Catholic church itself in this post-Vatican 2 era that provided the biggest stumbling block to my conversion. I still can't stand many things about the typical novus ordo mass-- the hippy-dippy touchy-feely hymns, the hand-holding during the saying of the Our Father, the back-slappin' howdy-do-neighbor "sharing of the peace" moment, the ubiquitous "craftsy" church decorations (felt banners, etc.), the church buildings that look more like plush hotel lobbies than places of prayer, etc. etc. etc.

All of this crap, and worse, started after the Second Vatican Council was held in the early 60s. Since that time, priestly and religious vocations have dropped off severely, the "Lavender Mafia" of militant homosexual recruitment has sprung up in many seminaries, and heretical and heterodox concepts have gained momentum in many quarters, to such an extent that one recent pope (Paul VI) even mourned that "the smoke of Satan has entered the Church."

So is the Second Vatican Council to blame for the downward direction of the Church since the time of its inception, or was the Council itself a good thing, and does the problem simply stem from abuses or willful misinterpretations of the "spirit" of the Council? That is the question for all doctrinally orthodox, serious Catholics to ponder.

Myself, I'm not a scholar, so I can't answer definitively. But I will confess to an impatience with many of those in the "willful misinterpretation" school of thought. There is a certain glibness to many of these folk that grates and irritates. It's as though they can't see the full extent of the problem. Or else they admit that, yeah, the problem is bad... but it is in the process of being corrected. "Be not afraid," as JP2 said, and all that.

Sorry, but I'd have an easier time buying this optimistic view if you could show me where any ultra-liberal heretical group operating within the Church has received the excommunication treatment accorded to Lefebyre and the SSPX. And thanks, JP2 and company for making it "legal" to celebrate the Tridentine Mass again, but y'all must be aware that not all bishops are accomodating, and many are downright hostile to us traditionalist-minded folk. Thus, many of us are deprived of the opportunity to obtain the sacraments in a manner that we find revential, and we have to settle for novus ordo cheesiness every Sunday instead.

I like you Ratzi, but you have got some serious work to do, and not a lot of time to do it. Time to get cracking.

More Mel Thoughts

1) Am I the only one paranoid enough to wonder if this whole incident could be a scheme cooked up to manufacture a controversy, in order to create anticipation for an upcoming movie? They say there is no such thing as bad publicity, after all. Gibson had been out of the public eye for a while following THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST. His new movie, APOCALYPTO, is set to come out in December. I know that Barbara Walters-- who made a career out of being a celebrity kiss-ass-- has turned on Mel and said she's not going to see any more of his movies, but I think there's a good chance that more people will see APOCALYPTO than would have before after this whole "drunk driving Jew-baiting" thing plays itself out. (All right-- this is just an out there sort of theory; I don't really believe it myself; still, it would be wild if it turned out that Mad Max and his enemies in the Hollywood "Judocracy" were actually in cahoots all along.)

2) Will Gibson appear on Saturday Night Live in the fall and make fun of himself on national TV? If I were his agent, I'd recommend such a course of action. You know the ratings would be through the roof. Gibson could turn on the goofy, manic charm that was the trademark of some of the more comedic roles of his career, and Americans' hearts would melt. Even Jews would admire his chutzpah. It would be a real "win-win situation" (dontcha just love that expression?) And of course it would get even more people to see APOCALYPTO. In short, complete career rehabiliation would be achieved.

3) By the way, is Gibson still a hunk? I hardly ever hear him referred to as such anymore, but he seems to be holding up against the ravages of age pretty well to me. Still, I don't recall hearing Gibson being called "sexy" in the last three or four years-- in short, not since THE PASSION went into pre-production. Is this what going against the principalites and powers of the age does to a person? Are you stripped of even your sex appeal? Is this the threat they hang over our heads: "Oppose the Zeitgeist, and we'll declare you unsexy, even if you're Mel Gibson"?

4) I admired, and still admire Gibson greatly for going out on a limb to make THE PASSION, and to make it exactly as he wanted to make it (well, except for not giving the subtitle to the "his blood be on us and on our children" line-- his one artistic concession). I always admire anyone who says, "screw you, I'm gonna do it this way; to hell with conventional wisdom and political correctness, etc." I liked how, in his interview with Diane Sawyer, he stubbornly refused to diss his dad Hutton in any way, while implicilty rejecting some of Hutton's more fringe ideas. Now some of the smarmy schlubs and sycophants on certain Catholic blogs are clamoring for Mel to openly denounce his father, as the first step towards personal rehabilitation. It's sickening how a desire to make nice with the smelly little orthodoxies of our time can lead certain weak-minded people to demand that another person turn on his family. Pathetic. Nauseating.

On Mel

Let's be honest: if a Jewish movie star were arrested for driving drunk, and over the course of his arrest he launched into a tirade against the goyim, this wouldn't be a story. Nobody would care-- at least, nobody important.

Welcome to the 21st Century, where some people, and some prejudices, are more equal than others.