Me, Me, Me

The Entertainment & Culture section of today’s Wall Street Journal features an article from columnist Dorothy Rabinowitz entitled, “The Other Letterman Show”. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420423963143201.html) The topic of the piece is talk-show arrogance . . . which there is no shortage of in today’s mass media.

The majority of the article focuses on David Letterman’s vindictive response to John McCain’s last-minute cancelation of his scheduled Sept 24 appearance on “The Late Show”. Apparently Letterman’s ire was further stoked when he discovered that, conversely, McCain honored a scheduled appearance for that same day with Katie Couric. Here’s a snippet of Rabinowitz’s commentary:

“In the course of his complaints, Mr. Letterman lurched from fury to fervent wonder at John McCain's wartime heroism, to jibes that somebody had been putting something in the candidate's Metamucil -- a joke consistent with the Letterman show's now standard brand of comedy. It was impossible, needless to say, to mistake any of this for joking -- nothing in Mr. Letterman's tireless emissions on the subject spoke for anything but his rage.”

Arrogance is virtually a prerequisite in Hollywood, so Letterman’s response was typical. Rabinowitz relates how Arthur Godfrey attempted to bury young singer Julius LaRosa in the early 1950s because LaRosa—a regular on Godfrey’s popular variety show—had the audacity to hire his own agent: “Godfrey informed the audience that they had just heard LaRosa's swan song. In response to the tide of public hostility that followed, Godfrey announced that the problem was that the singer had ‘lost his humility.’”

Don Imus is also mentioned in the piece. Prior to his eating crow for calling the Rutgers’ women’s basketball team “nappy-headed hoes”, Imus had a reputation for personally attacking anyone who disagreed with him: “Over a decade ago, one of the most legendary names in broadcasting told me of the dangers of making any public criticism of Imus. ‘He'll never stop,’ he warned. ‘He'll go on and on, to attack every day. He won't care what he says.’”

Amusingly, it’s not uncommon to have a clash of egos among co-hosts themselves. Chris Matthews and former ESPN Sportscenter anchor Keith Olbermann—perhaps the king of blowhards—were both bumped from their MSNBC presidential election anchor chairs because of their rabid anti-conservative views and their personal animosity toward each other. So ridiculous had their spats become that former MSNBC anchor Connie Chung slammed both in the Wall Street Journal stating, “My reaction to that is: 'Grow up!' They have to just grow up." (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB121989105850778775.html?mod=blog) In a laughable example of delusional self-importance, Olbermann allegedly demanded that the network provide him with bodyguards since he feared his life was in danger. Sorry, Keith, but the only protection you need is protection from yourself.

Lest anyone think talk-show arrogance and clashes of egos are solely a male phenomenon, let’s not ignore The View: a talk show dominated by four self-absorbed women who argue amongst themselves daily and who “view” the program as their personal soapbox from which to pontificate. It’s no wonder the show has replaced its hosts as often as the New York Yankees replaced managers in the 1980s.

Truthfully, it doesn’t matter who the host is or the genre of the talk show. Once a personality starts believing his/her own press clippings—watch out. Magically it becomes their world and the rest of humanity is merely permitted to live in it.

Donald Tremblay

What Makes a Saint?

What Makes a Saint?

At the age of three Audrey Santo nearly drowned. Although saved she would spend the next 20 years of her life “kept alive by machines and unable to speak or move”. (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/10/13/bid_to_canonize_girl_draws_mixed_reaction/) Since her death in April 2007, Audrey’s supporters have lobbied Rome to consider her for sainthood. The request has touched off a debate as to what makes a saint.

Generally, in order for a candidate to be canonized or beatified, he/she must have lived a life “marked by the exercise of heroic virtue, and only after this has been proved by common repute for sanctity and by conclusive arguments.” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm) As explained by Monsignor F. Stephen Pedone in the above-mentioned Boston Globe column, the problem with Audrey’s case is that there are no examples of this heroic virtue: “They might be hard pressed to prove that she had this will to embrace Christian virtues and to live them . . . She probably didn't even know what they were."

Yet, one could argue that ultimately a saint is one who draws others to Christ and His Church. If that’s the case, then Audrey’s supporters believe she is more-than-deserving:

“Over the next 14 years [after her near-drowning], the bed-ridden girl, Audrey, became an object of intense devotion for thousands who came to peer through a window cut into her bedroom and pray. Time and again, they reported seeing miracles in her presence: hosts bled, oil formed in a priest's cup, the sick were healed. In 1998, 10,000 people celebrated Mass in a stadium in Worcester with Audrey, who was brought there by ambulance.”

Audrey’s mother believes her daughter was a victim soul—“someone chosen by God to accept the suffering of others”. Perhaps that is true, but even this assessment is problematic because in Catholic literature victim souls choose to suffer for others, such as Sister Josefa Menendez does in The Way of Divine Love. There is no proof that Audrey viewed her sufferings as a sacrifice for others.

Tough call.

Donald Tremblay

Adaptation and Desensitization – Two Sides of the Same Coin

Mankind’s ability to adapt is one of its greatest gifts. Put people into the most difficult situations and somehow they manage to survive—and in some cases even thrive. Yet, the very characteristic that enables us to endure as a species is also the characteristic most responsible for the disintegration of our societal mores and values.

The problem with adaptation is that too often it leads to desensitization, as is the case with the incessant images of violence and sex that bombard our minds daily. Our minds adapt by hardening against the increasingly disturbing images, creating a shield over our sensitivity to moral outrage. Without this shield people would be unable to satisfy their innumerable daily responsibilities in this hectic world. The shield is a defense mechanism, a survival method—one that is best summarized by the expression, “I have my own problems to worry about.” Hence, over time the same images that would have offended us barely register on our inner moral radar. The state of video games is a prime example, as indicated in a New York Daily News article today:

“The over-the-top Saints Row 2 encourages players to butcher cops with chain saws, smoke drugs, annihilate rival gangsters and run prostitution rings. . . . Players earn money or street credibility in a host of criminal and despicable ways, like mutilating cops and enslaving women.” (http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/arts/2008/10/13/2008-10-13_letting_game_players_kill_cops_and_smoke.html)

Nice, huh?

NYPD union boss Patrick Lynch appropriately argues that “these horrible and violent video games desensitize young people to violence while encouraging depravity, immorality while glorifying criminal behavior." Saints Row 2-designer THQ is clearly trying to out-deprave the granddaddy of all tasteless video games, Grand Theft Auto. GTA is now in its fourth version, and its latest “has sold more than 6 million copies since April.”

There will be no uproar about Saints Row 2. People will argue that it is just a game. And months from now when THQ has earned several million dollars in sales from this trash, we will once again wonder why children are committing violent crimes at ever younger ages and why these same youngsters refer to women as “bitches and hos”.

Don’t blame the children. They are just adapting to their circumstances.

Donald Tremblay

The Day of the Triffids

The most dangerous people in the world are not those who knowingly commit evil, but those who convince themselves that their actions are noble despite evidence to the contrary. I’m amazed at the number of people I’ve encountered over the years who are capable of rationalizing the most ridiculous, the most hypocritical, and even the most illogical actions. Maybe its narcissism. Maybe it’s ignorance. I don’t know. But one thing I do know is that it’s frightening.

Case in point: We live in a world where with each passing year human life is further cheapened. Western society not only refuses to reject abortion, but seeks to spread its availability to developing nations. Assisted-suicide and euthanasia exist in Europe and are making inroads in the United States. Civil wars across Africa have killed millions, and now tens of thousands of Christians have been murdered by Hindus in India.

Yet, what is on the minds of the Swiss: plants rights.

According to the Wall Street Journal (“Switzerland's Green Power Revolution: Ethicists Ponder Plants' Rights”) Swiss scientists who genetically modify plants must now ensure that they are not “trampling on a plant's dignity”. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122359549477921201.html?mod=todays_us_page_one

Stop laughing.

Believe it or not the Swiss Parliament created a panel of various “experts” from a collection of disciplines—including philosophers, lawyers, geneticists and theologians—to “establish the meaning of flora's dignity”. Among the examples given by the panel of immoral behavior towards plants is “decapitation of wildflowers at the roadside without rational reason”.

Would that be a mortal sin or a venial sin?

After all if a young man is going to risk eternal torment for pulling a flower out of the ground to give to the woman he loves, he should at least be warned ahead of time.

Think the Swiss’ nuttiness ends here? Not quite. Here are a few other gems:

“Last month, Switzerland granted new rights to all ‘social animals.’ Prospective dog owners must take a four-hour course on pet care before they can buy a canine companion, while anglers must learn to catch fish humanely. Fish can't be kept in aquariums that are transparent on all sides. The fish need some shelter. Nor can goldfish be flushed down a toilet to an inglorious end; they must first be anesthetized with special chemicals, and then killed.”

Too bad the Swiss don’t have the same regard for the dignity of humans, as witnessed by their sanctioning of abortion and assisted suicide.

Perhaps the pro-life movement in Switzerland should change its approach: instead of arguing that a fetus is a human life, they should argue that it is a form of plant life. They’d receive more sympathy.

Donald Tremblay