The String Pullers-- What Are They Up To?

I see now, somewhat to my dismay, that my blog has become a sort of "eye on the news" affair lately. I am very far from being a news junkie, and in fact I deplore the tendency, rife in our so-called "information age," to overreact to whatever is being broadcast as the latest, juiciest story, to play it up like it's going to lead to the end of the world, before discarding it tomorrow.

Yet I too often find myself doing this very thing. The temptation for a writer, particularly one interested in cultural commentary, to dwell "where it's at" news-wise is very strong. For one thing, it's a good way to attract readers. You give a provocative take on something that everyone's abuzz about (something I find that I'm good at doing from time to time), and people who are busy buzzing will give you a look. Well and good, and except that it makes you feel somewhat like a whore. You've fallen for a trick (and metaphorically speaking, you've "turned a trick"); that is, you've chimed in on a story that's supposed to be a huge deal because all of the news outlets tell us that it's a big deal.

But the fact is that news doesn't break so much as it is manufactured. I sometimes wonder who's pulling our strings, drawing our attention to this or to that, and for what purpose. I hear lately that something like one in three people now believe that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were an "inside job," i.e. that the American government is responsible for the death and destruction of that day. I don't buy it for a second. I don't think that a third of the American public know a damn thing about 9/11 conspiracy theories. I don't think the vast majority of Americans have given the matter much thought. They may only be vaguely aware that conspiracy theories exist. But a couple of weeks ago, I started hearing alarmist talk from many different sources about how a sizable chunk of the American public is falling for all kinds of kooky and irresponsible notions.

It seems that someone in power wants to make us think that Americans are getting brainwashed into disbelieving the official story about 19 Ay-rab hijackers armed with boxcutters, and buying into a belief in sinister government plots, involving bombs placed in the WTC towers, a missile launched at the Pentagon, and planes run into their targets by remote control. What I'd like to know (since, as I have stated, I strongly suspect that most Americans don't believe in these things, and moreover, aren't even aware of such allegations) is, who wants us to believe that Americans are increasingly tending to believe in such a story, and why do they want us to believe that this is what we believe? Who benefits from such alarmism?

Yes, Loathsome Baby Boomers: You Too Must Die

Perhaps you have seen one of the more annoying advertisements on TV these days. I can't recall the company's name. (I hardly ever remember the product being sold even when I find a commercial memorable, which shows, I guess, that I have a superior mind impervious to the slick charms of salesmen... but I digress.)

What's being sold is retirement insurance of some sort. The target audience is people nearing retirement right now, which is to say, baby boomers. The theme music is some groovy 60s number, with images of dancing, drug-addled babes at Woodstock, frolicking hippie couples striking cool, "countercultural" poses, and so forth. The voiceover goes something like this: "Retire? Hey, you're the generation that's reinvented everything. You've never played by the rules? Why start now?" Then the former super-8 washed-out 60s photography is replaced by images of these same people, having aged considerably but still young at heart, doing things like hand-gliding, skiing, and other very "active" pursuits.

Obviously, this ad is playing right into the hubris of this already most insufferable of generations. Thanks to the boomers, we have the destruction of just about everything that was once good and decent. The boomers, after all, were the orchestrators of the sexual revolution, which has led to the divorce revolution, which has led to the breakup of the family, which has led to the demise of childhood innocence, which has led to the overt sexualization of children. Now those of us born after the Age of Aquarius trying to raise kids of our own have to contend with the culture they've helped to wreck through their self-indulgent behavior and self-serving ideologies. Thanks a lot, hepcats!

To see them now congratulate themselves for their "accomplishments" through this advertisement is all too typical, but still infuriating. Boomers, allow me to break it to y'all not so gently: yes, you have to retire. Yes, aging means that you physically deterioriate. Much as you may have looked down on your own parents for acting "old" when they got old, you will do the same. No, your insistence on doing it if it feels good, following your bliss, or any other slogan you make up that rationalizes screwing everything in sight regardless of the consequences won't save you from death.

Great are your sins, baby boomers. You will be held accountable. Time to start contemplating that, methinks.

The Hollow Men of Talk Radio

So yesterday I heard both Bill O'Reilly and Neal Boortz bemoan the fact that there's resistance to the idea of carpet-bombing foreign countries and wiping out thousands of civilians. Both, of course cited World War Two and the US atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, pointing out that "this was what it took to end the war."

The logic: it was right to do it then, and it' s right to do it now. Implied premise: We just lack the guts to do something like that now, and it may take another "9/11" finally to give us some backbone.

If that's true, then it's another reason to pray that another "9/11" doesn't happen. If mass murder is the outgrowth of "backbone," then God save us from backbone. If having backbone makes us thirsty for the blood of women and children, then I say we can do without it. For what does it profit a man to gain a backbone and lose his soul? We'd be better off as snakes.

From Boortz, who is sometimes articulate and intelligent, but often stoops to sneering, infantile insults-- he seems to think he's being incredibly brave and clever when he calls religious people ignoramuses-- this rhetoric at least has the benefit of consistency. Boortz is, after all, a proponent of abortion, and if you're in favor of killing the innocent in one way, why not branch out and stump for other types of human slaughter?

For O'Reilly, who is ostensibly a pro-life Catholic, however, such talk is all too representative of the typical "conservative" talk radio host, who (as I have shown in prior entries) is only selectively in favor of protecting innocent life. Or, more accurately, who postures in such a way that at least makes it appear that he's in favor of protecting certain lives (i.e. the unborn), while openly showing a callous disregard for the lives of people who have the temerity to live under the spot where a U.S. fighter plane drops its bombs.

Then there's good ol' Podhoretz Jr. Writing in the New York Post, Johnny Boy mourns the fact that Sunni men between the ages of 15 and 35 weren't deliberately wiped out by American troops during the initial invasion of Iraq.

I must say that something strikes me as especially obscene about these men, who are able to spend a few hours behind a microphone or a word processor calling for violence against civilians, and who then are able to live the high life, attending cocktail parties, going on expensive vacations, buying fancy homes, etc. I don't disparage them their wealth, but it just seems to me that when you make such evil statments, you ought at least to have the courage of your despicable convictions. These guys seem to be cheating.

At least a man like Kurtz in Heart of Darkness walked the walk. The Abu Ghraib prison guards, likewise, got down and dirty. They didn't just yammer on about how we need to get "tough"; they got tough, which is to say, they did the dirty work. Now they are paying the price, as Kurtz did, as have all thoughout history who have been caught with blood on their hands. Yet the O'Reillys and Boortzes and Limbaughs of the world strike me as wannabe Kurtzes, who are nevetheless eager to escape suffering Kurtz's consequences. They want to be rhetorical war criminals, and still live the lives of normal people. They want the bloodshed without the accompanying shell-shock and nightmares.

It's hard, in some ways, not to admire the actual war criminals more. They have the benefit of being true "lost, violent souls," while the radio blabbers are only "the hollow men, the stuffed men."

I cannot help but wonder if the actual war criminals may be closer to actual repentance, and thus to genuine salvation, than the smug, hollow men who populate the AM airwaves these days.

Go Daddy Go!!

(By "Daddy" I mean "Holy Father")

Yes, I admire Benedict Ex Vee Eye greatly for taking a controversial stand for the truth regarding the uglier side of Islam. (For those who haven't heard, he quoted some 14th century philosopher who remarked that Muhammad's legacy included a tendency to spread faith by force-- aka "jihad"-- a tendency that B XVI condemned.)

Quite a refreshing change after John Paul 2's marked tendency to go soft on the pointing out the disagreeable elements of other faiths, all in the interest of fostering ecumenical diologue. (His kissing of a Koran at the behest of a foreign official was perhaps the nadir of his papacy.)

Of course, I'm not in favor of the neocon's "clash of civilizations" rhetoric, which sees fit to slam Islam at every turn en route to shilling for Israel, and wishes to draw America into total war with the Arab world. But I know Ratzi ain't a damn, dirty neocon, so his criticism of Islam isn't tainted by ulterior motives. In fact, I'll bet ol' Ratzo little knew the firestorm he would ignite with his words, which were measured and respectful.

I must admit, it's a little amusing that some Muslims get offended when someone implies that they have a legacy of intolerance... and then they react to his statement with acts of intolerance (burning the pope in effigy, firebombing churches, general ranting, raving, fit-throwing, screaming for apologies, etc.), thus proving his point.

My Latest At the Last Ditch

www.thornwalker.com/ditch/nowicki_loving_death.htm

So... The Clinton People Are Bitchin'...

And I don't mean "bitchin'" in the surfer parlance, where it means the same thing as "really great." For one thing, I'm not a surfer dude, and I don't use surfer dude expressions. For another thing, I don't like that scuz Prez Clinton or his vile cronies, so I wouldn't use any word synonymous with "great" to desribe them.

No, I just mean that they're bitchin', as in complaining, about the new ABC 9-11 docudrama, which they say treats them unfairly. They say that it doesn't tell the truth. Well gee whiz, ain't payback a bitch? Make a habit of treating the truth with contempt, and see if it doesn't come back to bite you eventually.

This is how I hope the conversation between President Gropefondlerape and the ABC representatives went:

Clinton: But this stuff in your movie, it isn't true!
ABC: That depends on what your definition of "isn't" is, Mr. President.

That said, I really have no dog in this fight, if the fight is between the Clinton presidency's foreign policy and the Bush presidency's foreign policy. I don't know if the Clinton people are actually telling the truth (though it's hard to imagine, given the source) when they say the movie is unfairly biased against them. Obviously, Bush is a far more palatable person than Clinton, but I'm not sure he's been that much better of a president.

Clinton-hatred is highly understandable, but it ought not get one sidetracked. We should recognize that our culture is the real villain; the fact that a man like Clinton got easily elected-- twice-- points the finger at us, not him. No one forced him on us, and he didn't even force himselves on us (which is more than a lot of women can say). We chose him.

Looked at this way, it's almost easier to see the events of 9/11/01 as a kind of divine retribution, or at least a very forceful sort of divine chiding. No, I'm not saying that the people who died that day, or who lost loved ones, deserved what they got. But I'm not sure, in a deeper sense, that our country didn't deserve what it got. Too bad, five years later, that we don't seem to have learned our lesson.

Morbid Reflections

Though I haven't seen the actual document, I am told that someone in Al Qaida or some such group has spelled out why he believes the cultural West is doomed to lose the so-called "War on Terror," why the West, in fact, is fated ultimately to be supplanted by fundamentalist Islam.

He writes, and I paraphrase, "You infidels of the West, you love life and fear death. We Muslims, however, do not fear death. We love it, and we embrace it. You are afraid of us killing you, but we aren't afraid of you killing us. Therefore, you will lose (in spite of your far superior weaponry) and we will win."

The guy, whoever he is, has a point. We in the West do love life, and fear death. It only seems natural to us. But is it natural? After all, death is "natural." It's part of our design; we were "made" to die. You could even say that we were born to die. Yet we can't make peace with this circumstance. We don't want to die, we want to live. This mindset affects us, even, or maybe even especially, if we are unselfish. We don't want our loved ones to die any more than we want ourselves to die-- in some cases, we want them to live more than we want ourselves to live.

Fundamentalist Muslims, on the other hand, don't think twice about their children being "martyred." Parents of suicide bombers celebrate wildly when their sons (and sometimes daughters) blow themselves to smithereens. Such a reaction is utterly foreign to us. No matter how much we console ourselves that a deceased loved one is "in a better place," more often than not we don't actually believe it. At the very least, we have grave doubts.

For the last few months, I find that I have been "much possessed by death," constantly seeing "the skull beneath the skin," as T.S. Eliot once wrote. Nothing dramatic has happened to provoke these morbid thoughts. But then is death itself really all that dramatic? It's just something that happens, everyday, everywhere, in many different ways. Death seems like an exotic thing to us, but in fact it is anything but exotic. It should be a very familiar thing. We should know it intimately. Yet somehow we are unable to comprehend it. Is this state of being the result of immersion in a hedonistic, affluent, secular culture? Somehow I think it is.

Somehow, we have to learn to become like the fundamentalist Muslims, only better. We have to be able to conceive of death as a thing not to be feared, in fact, as a thing to be embraced, even loved. At the same time, we must retain our appropriate horror towards murder and mayhem, which fundamentalist Muslims also appear to embrace and love, at least when they are the perpetrators.

I'm not sure this can be done. We are too weak-willed, too indulgent, and most importantly, too lacking in faith. The vultures are circling around us, we know it, and we know there's nothing we can do about it. We are only able to console ourselves with platitudes about a "better place," pious utterances we don't even actually believe. Good Lord, how wretched we have become!