Sometimes I Read Complete Nonsense
Last week, at my annual physical, I was shooting the shit (once it was established that my 70-year-old body is in relatively good shape, knock on wood awaiting blood tests) with the family GP, a smart and reassuring man that we’ve had the pleasure of knowing for 23 years. I have a somewhat obscure blood disorder (diagnosed in 1997), which is most peculiar to men of Irish ancestry, and untreated, eventually causes the liver to explode from too much iron stored there. The treatment, in my case, is an every-eight-weeks trip to the hospital for a phlebotomy to rid the body of bad blood. It’s a pain in the neck, but so many people in my age bracket (and younger) are afflicted with conditions far worse, so no woe-is-me complaints are warranted.
Anyway, he asked if I’d researched new studies about the disease, and I answered in the negative since if I waded through (often bogus) medical “white papers,” I’d emerge two hours later convinced that chemotherapy was immediately necessary to “cure” a malignant tumor screwing up my big left toe. He laughed, and admitted that like me, that after a day’s work of internet inundation, he’s cleansed by reading a book or watching a film from the “old days,” meaning 1972-present, which I suppose does qualify as “old.”
My line of work requires a lot more sifting through nonsense online than his (although he’s been ambushed aplenty in the Vaccine Era that became omnipresent just six years ago), and though I’ve lost any capacity for disgust or outrage upon reading what’s disguised as “journalism” today—even the spate of film celebrities hopping on the monkey-see-monkey-do bandwagon about the loss of freedom of speech, such as the forgettable Molly Ringwald and fine actors Ethan Hawke and Edward Norton, barely causes a stir, although one respects liberal stars who keep political views to themselves, like James Spader—I’m still puzzled about what happened to the milk-carton editors at newspapers.
In a Wall Street Journal “light” feature (which is most of the paper now) last week, headlined “A Parent’s Only Wish: ‘I Just Want to Sit in My Car and Scroll,'” written by Julie Jargon (perhaps one of 45 “trend” reporters employed by WSJ), the gist of which is that “stressed” parents who are employed often need some “me-time” and do that in the car, mindlessly flipping through social media before heading inside to see their families, help the kids with homework and eat dinner. A daily happenstance that once was routine, and not examined.
Jargon quotes Adam Olson, a father of four in Tampa: “It’s possible that technology has fractured our attention so thoroughly that we need these stolen moments in our cars. We’re grabbing back the mental space that technology itself has eroded… On the other hand, it could be that technology has stolen the last refuges where we used to accept boredom.”
Translator, por favor! I didn’t understand a word that “car scroller” said; if the article wasn’t such piffle, I’d have appreciated footnotes provided by a sane WSJ employee to explain.
On the topic of nonsense-written-for-an-exorbitant fee, there was New York Times pop sociologist/Morality Czar David Brooks’ announcement that he’s leaving the paper for—all betting was closed a year ago—The Atlantic. The column was interminable, though I won’t call for a translator, but his second paragraph was memorable (at least for a minute). He writes: “It’s been the honor of a lifetime to work here, surrounded by so many astounding journalists. But after 22 wonderful years, I’ve decided to take the exciting and terrifying step of leaving in order to try to build something new.”
Brooks, in the remainder of his essay, doesn’t mention by name even one “astounding” journalist he shared print/digital space with. Could be that a lot of those “astounding” colleagues think Brooks is an asshole. Second, his phony self-deprecating note that his move to The Atlantic (and Yale University) is “terrifying” belongs with the garbage piled up on NYC streets today. He works hard for the money—perhaps—and this “terrifying” move will undoubtedly escalate the “elite” status he revels in, even as he’s made pains to blame the “elite” for many of the country’s perceived problems.
If you can decipher the following, there’s a caramel apple coming in the mail: “The forces of humanization are needed not just on campuses but within every company, community and organization where people are engaged in the vital search for good conduct, ethical leadership and a greater wisdom of what is truly significant. My books [gauche plug] have been attempts of bring humanistic thinking to popular audiences, and wherever I go I confront people who long to feel uplifted, who hunger for the wisdom that has been handed down by sages and prophets through the centuries.”
And that’s Father Brooks’ “building something new” sermon upon taking flight from The New York Times. The sages and prophets are scratching their bones and saying, “Who the fuck is this imposter?”
—Follow Russ Smith on Twitter: @MUGGER2023