Fox-y Whore

Really, is there anything more American than Parkinson's-afflicted Michael J. Fox whoring out his diseased body, complete with its useful, irresistibly tragic tics and convulsions, to the Democratic party and the Culture of Death?

Okay, that sounds harsh, if not to Mr. Alex P. Keaton aka Marty McFly, then to A-mur-ica itself, but then the truth is often harsh. I don't envy Mr. Fox for what he has to endure these days from his terrible, progressively deterioriating condition. But appropriate sympathy for a person who is acutely suffering a severe variation of what Shakespeare's greatest character called "the heartache and the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to" doesn't mean that person ought to be viewed as above criticism. If a person who is suffering uses his suffering to advance a sinful cause in a sleazy manner, he ought to be called on it. Herr Limbaugh, while not terribly responsible in his rhetoric on the subject, was correct in the substance of his critique of Micheal J. The spectacle of a suffering man does not make what's wrong into what's right, or vice versa, nor does it convert disengenous political doubletalk into truth.

Unfortunatly, these points are lost on most Americans today. We are awash in sentimentalism (see my point from last week under the title "Crowd Shots"), and we enjoy the maudlin, unseemly activity of wallowing in the victimhood of others.

But that isn't the worst of it. Not only do we enjoy the sight of others in terrible suffering, we feel ourselves made virtuous by such tawdry voyeurism. There is a tendency toward self-righteousness that invariably seems to seep in, as can be seen in the reactions of some to Limbaugh's supposed "insensitiveness." When someone reasonably questions the motives or the inherent goodness of an outwardly suffering person, the questioner is met with the typical "how dare you!!" riposte. The sufferers, it seems, are beyond reproach-- as long as they are on what the elites deem to be the "proper" side of the issues. (Has anyone shed any tears lately over, say, the increasing infirmity of the aging Hutton Gibson, Mel's dad? Well, no, of course not-- he's a reactionary Catholic and a Holocaust denier, not a crusader for the killing and harvesting of babies... One holocaust is bad, the other good; get it?)

Overheard on Talk Radio-- Giving the Devil His Due

Neal Boortz: I find him obnoxious much of the time, and often not in a good way (there's good and bad obnoxiousness-- "good" obnoxiousness is crass but entertaining; "bad" obnoxiousness is crass and unimaginative), especially when he engages in Christian-baiting or boorishly mocks pro-lifers, but I'll give my fellow opinionated baldy his due-- he's brighter than your average talk radio host, and more willing to think for himself. Example: yesterday I heard him actually break from the GOP cheerleader talk radio party line and express doubt about the efficacy of voting Republican in November.

"If we vote them back in," he said (paraphrasing), "after they've done little but increase spending and the size of government for the time they've been in office, they'll be incredibly cocky-- they'll feel like they can get away with anything, and the suckers in their constituency will still vote them right back into office!" Excellent point, and indicative of a sentiment that indicates a man who can't be bought off, even after being feted by the powers-that-be (including being invited to the White House for a special get together with the prez, along with lots of other talk show blabbers, almost all of whom are more careful to toe the line of said prez).

Gratuitous Crowd Shots-- alternate title: The GAME is the game, damnit!

I used to be into professional sports a lot more than I am today. One reason I still retain some semblance of interest today is because I think it's a good way to stay "grounded," as it were. People who profess to "hate" sports are usually insular and pretentious jerks. They look down on the vulgar mass of humanity for caring about whether team X will make the playoffs or if player Y will be voted into the Hall of Fame, and other such issues. The insufferable anti-sports snots also love to complain about the "obscene" amount of money professional atheletes make.

Such critiques are cliched and tiresome. If some people are into sports, why should that matter to anyone else? We're all allowed our interests, as long as they aren't evil and as long as they don't become unhealthy obsessions. Likewise, why should we care if athlete guy is making a ton of dough, more than most of us will ever see in our lives? They're able to make that money because they have a talent that lots of people are willing to pay lots of money to go and see. Good for them. Too bad for the rest of us, but it's not their fault that they're talented in this way and we're not. Resenting them for the money they make is like hating Kelly LeBrock, of 80s shampoo commercial fame, for being beautiful.

Of course, the insufferable anti-sports snots aren't completely off the mark in every way. There are plenty of sports fans who are thoroughgoing testosterone-overloaded boors (and bores), who take it all too seriously, who look down on young men who aren't interested in sports, call them "sissies" and "faggots" and altogether take delight in tormenting them. In short, there are those who are as arrogant in their advocacy of sports as the snots are in their contempt for sports. Yet the vast majority of sports fans, I think, don't share this proclivity to bash non-athletes; they figure, in the words of whatever generous chap coined the phrase, "to each his own." Likewise, lots of folks are simply indifferent to sports; they aren't terribly interested themselves, but they don't look down their noses at those who are interested; again, they reckon, "to each his own."

None of the above, of course, is terribly relevant to the point I aimed to make in this post, except that as I watched game 7 of the NLCS last night, I realized that I wasn't the same sports-watcher that I used to be. But as I was watching the thrilling end of the game, in which the St. Louis Cardinals edged the New York Mets 3-1 to win a atrip to the World Series, I got just plain exasperated with the number of crowd shots that the FOX network saw fit to use in between pitches. As the faithful at Shea stood in the rain and hoped against hope that their team could stage a comeback in the bottom of the 9th (a hope that failed to materialize; as the ubiquituous taunting bully on the "Simpsons" would say: "HA-ha!"), the televison camera was sure to include close-up shots of fan after fan wearing rally caps, with hands clasped together in prayer, with stressed-out, pleading expressions on their faces.

It got to the point where I almost shouted: "stop showing the fans, fer cryin' out loud!!" Maybe I'm just old-school, but it seems like this is an effort by the network to overdo the "drama" aspect of the game. Yes, it's very interesting that fans get so bent out of shape over every pitch (in my more ardent sports-guy days, I was one such fan), but it's not really what the network should be focusing on. Their job is to show us what happens on the field, and to leave the reactions to us. The fans are not the game, the spectacle of the fans' nervous reactions to the events on the field is not the game; rather, the game is the game.

I take this trend as yet another example of the sentimentalization of everything in our culture, and our ever-decreasing aptitude for dignified reserve. We can't just take an event for what it is; instead, coverage of the event has to involve the sight of people having an emotional response to the given event. If it weeps, it leads. And sells.

Chapter 2 of POSSESSED BY DEATH Now Posted

My work in progress continues to progress: www.possessedbydeath.blogspot.com

Democracy Sucks, But It's Interesting

I must say that I find the system of democracy to be both fascinating and repugnant at the same time. It is certainly a system of paradoxes.

When one looks at the matter plainly, one can see that the rulers of any democratic society are blatantly contemptous of their subjects, treating them as mere means to an end, puppets to be manipulated. Yet democracy masquarades as a system under which the "common folk" are highly valued, and in the course of its regular rites designed to confer legitimacy upon itself--known as elections-- that entity called "the people" are commonly fawned over, stroked, and flattered.

It's a system under which perception almost inevitably comes to be valued more than reality. To be elected, after all, a candidate must say the right things at the right time, push the right buttons, stoke the fires of the right prejudices with the right constituency. Such is the path to the throne; it cannot be otherwise. Honestly, I'd admire one who seizes authority of the state by fiat in a military coup a little bit more than most of the characters we see running for office today. The military dictator at least isn't pretending to hold me in high esteem as he makes his naked grab for the ability to run my life; he's not blowing smoke, claiming that his lunge for the levers of power stems from a desire to "serve the public."

And don't get me started on the phenomenon of opinion polls! Okay, get me started, but I can't finish right now. More later.

First Entry of New Nowicki Masterwork!

Those of you tired of my constant gloom and doom over current events and what not (i.e., what you see regularly posted on this blog) are hereby informed of a new site in which I will be composing my latest masterpiece in serialized form. It too will probably be gloomy and doomy, in addition to hilarious, prescient, and profound, but at least it won't be about current events and what not. It will simply be about death. The name of the work is, in fact, "Possessed By Death." I have written my first entry today, and it can be found over at www.possessedbydeath.blogspot.com

I will keep my faithful reading public informed about regular additions to this project here, in between regular Dyspeptic Myoptic entries . You are invited to take up and read. It's free! Read it here (or rather, there) before everyone else does...

The Shills Be Illin'

Man, do I ever hate election season. Try as I might, I find I can't avoid hearing the shills for Republicans and Democrats expostulate disengenously. The same tired old slogans, the same scare tactics, the same "if you don't get out there and vote something terrible will happen!" nonsense. Face it, hepcats; it doesn't make a damn bit of difference who you vote for or if you vote at all. It's out of your hands. Don't listen to the shills, and don't pay attention to the operatives from both sides who aim to manipulate you with nebulous stories intended to fill you either with false hope or false despair. Don't do their bidding. Opt out. Realize that politicans are basically interested in nothing but power, and are only interested you as a means to that end. Don't be their tools. Don't vote-- it only encourages them.

V2 Revisited

After an exchange of posts of the Jimmy Akin blogsite (www.jimmyakin.org) (under the post of late September entitled "Schism and Mortal Sin") regarding the meaning of Vatican 2, and after some consideration of the whole issue of the dire state of the post-conciliar Church, I have been able to come up with a historical comparison that I think might just be helpful in illustrating my skepticism of the party line stance of many anti-reactionary conservatives within the Church, namely "Vatican 2 wasn't bad in itself, it's just been interpreted badly."

The historical comparison is to Communism. It's often been said, by leftist progressive types, that Communism isn't a bad idea in itself; in fact, it's a very good idea-- it's just never been properly implemented. But history, I think, puts the lie to this facile notion. Every time Communism has been implemented, from Soviet Russia to Maoist China to the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia to Castro in Cuba, has resulted in oppression, misery, and atrocity. One can reasonably conclude from this fact, I think, that it's not just the application of Communism that's to blame-- rather, that there is something very much to blame in the whole underlying idea of the ideology of Communism itself.

Simiarly with Vatican 2. The conservative anti-reactionaries, who accuse groups like the Society of St. Pius X of being schismatic, say that the problem has never been with the Council itself; instead, the widespread perfidious movements within the Church that have sprung up since the Council have been the result of modernist liberals hijacking the Council's good and proper call for reform and running with it in strange and unseemly directions.

The anti-reactionary conservatives often complain about the disengenous phrase "the spirit of Vatican 2" often used by liberals to justify doing things that have no ground in the actual letter of the documents produced by the Council, but that are nevertheless supposedly legitimized by the Council's attempt at reform.

On this point, I will admit, the conservatives do have a leg to stand on. But only one leg, not two. That is to say, the conservatives are right to complain that the liberals have improperly used Vatican 2 as cover to pursue their radical, modernist agendas. However, I think the conservatives ought to consider being just a bit more critical of the Council itself, considering that every single application of its principles has been an abject failure, resulting in hippie-dippy touchy-feely folky-dokey aesthetics at best, and the introduction of patently heretical notions at worst.

This is why I tend to side with the reactionaries on this matter. Perhaps there is some jaundice in their eyes, but at least they aren't wearing rose-colored glasses, like the anti-reactionary conservatives are.