The Technological Gasbag

We can safely say that men, more than women, are more susceptible to being technological gasbags, for there is something masculine about bragging about having the most potent technological gadgetry available, especially those gizmos that can be clipped around the lap or crotch area. Men like to clutter their crotch with cell phones, pagers, personal organizers, MP3 players. The male lap is a now a hive of activity, none sexual, to the point that when it comes to sex, the technological gasbag is stimulated by showing off his new cell phone camera since he is accustomed to using artifice as a demonstration of masculine strength. This gasbag is also less potent biologically and would rather demonstrate his potency by utilizing the contraptions that crowd his lap area, his 60-gig iPod, his Personal Data Assistant or his handheld GPS satellite tracking system.  The latter device allows him to boast to strangers that he is “triangulating” signals and makes him feel like he is tracking a spy or a terrorist on some TV crime show when in fact he is simply monitoring the whereabouts of a pizza-delivery truck that is fifteen minutes late to his office.

It should be noted that the technological gasbag’s propensity for cluttering his lap with electric gadgets generates heat, which is deadly to human sperm, so the technophile essentially negates his reproductive abilities in several ways, not the least of which is the sperm bake that is going on in his testicles on a daily basis. The male body was not designed for all these gadgets hanging on a man’s crotch like electric talons. Biologically speaking, the scrotum was designed to hang below savage loincloths and stay cool, but now it is bound up in jock straps, athletic underwear, tight corduroy jeans, and cups of hot coffee. Combine all these factors with the clipped-on cell phones, pagers, and organizers around the crotch area and over time the technological gasbag’s testes shrivel and make him even more dependent on technologically impressive phallic substitutes.

Creating a technological façade to conceal one’s inadequacies is nothing new. Many years ago the Spanish philosopher Jose Ortega y Gasset wrote that Americans are a primitive people camouflaged behind their latest inventions. What Gasset might have added is that many Americans aren’t really hiding behind their inventions at all. Instead, they are on the forefront as they try to persuade the world that these “inventions” are mankind’s salvation. The promoters of new gadgetry are, in other words, technological gasbags, true believers in the idea that we can indeed build an indestructible titanium Tower of Babel and be like the gods.

We’ve already witnessed the Technological Crotch Monger who uses gadgets to aggrandize his masculine potency. Another common type of technological gasbag is the Troubleshooter who does a house call when your computer is on the fritz. He is typically the friend of your brother’s wife’s sister’s cousin’s friend. He is typically in his thirties or forties, is fifty pounds overweight, has never had a girlfriend, has never had a real job, and still lives with his mother. You manage to contact him because you are too cheap to have your computer serviced through a reputable company. You’ve been promised that the Troubleshooter is a “real bargain” and actually knows more about computers than the legitimate companies. But as soon as this gasbag arrives at your home and dismantles your computer, you are disavowed of these notions and a sick feeling settles in your stomach.  The first thing you will notice is that he is lonely and is in no rush to return to Mother’s. He will therefore prolong his stay at your house unnecessarily, for over twelve hours, sometimes several days, as he scans for viruses, changes modem scripts, checks and resets IP addresses, formats and re-formats disks, and deletes supposedly conflicting software packages. For show, every twenty minutes or so this gasbag will exclaim, “Ah-ha—there’s your problem.” These minor updates and repairs, combined with dozens of “necessary” shutdowns and restarts, will extend the Troubleshooter’s stay at your home to the point that you feel obliged to have him sit with your family at dinner. Needless to say, his hygiene and table manners are so horrendous that you and your family will suffer from lost appetites as you watch this heavy-breathing man wolf down most of your casserole and after-dinner pie, ice cream, and coffee.

After dinner when you’re tired and wish he would go home, he feels “refreshed” and is ready to tackle your computer crisis with renewed vigor. Bear in mind this Troubleshooter is so lonely that it is in his interest to actually sabotage your computer in order to justify his staying longer. The more cunning of these Troubleshooters can embed elusive viruses and malware into your hard-drive so that you will forever be beholden to their “services.”

I have known people who have hired these Troubleshooters in the interest of saving money and are, a year later, still not even half-way done with their project. Aside from the unbearable aggravation, when you factor in all the coffee, donuts, and dinners that the Troubleshooter mooches off you, you actually lose money in these “build-your-own” arrangements.

We can sympathize with those who try to save money while trying to keep their computers up-to-date since the computer industry is hell-bent on making our computers and software systems obsolete within six months, a condition that keeps gouging our checking accounts. Feeling constantly behind in our software systems, constantly being harassed by our operating system to conduct software updates, always downloading patches to repel viruses and worms, forever afraid that we have to engage in these tedious tasks because our “whole life” is on our computer, we feel that our computer management is a re-dramatization of the Myth of Sisyphus--one step ahead, three steps backwards.

The Gym Gasbag

The gym gasbag exudes an obnoxious pride in his belief that self-punishment and dietary austerity make him superior to the unenlightened pot-bellied sinners who languish in their life of sloth and gluttony. He is also quick to judge those who neglect the gym’s rigors, accusing them of a particular brand of moral bankruptcy. Convinced of his moral superiority, the gym gasbag is eager to lecture the nonexerciser about his flaws and the burden his unconditioned body imposes on society. Escalating health care costs are the fault of the nonexerciser. As is the paucity of garden burger choices in the supermarket. Failing to conform to society’s belief that fitness is a sort of holy edict, the nonexerciser is a modern-day leper. As Mark Greif points out in his essay, “Against Exercise”: “The person who does not exercise, in our current conception, is a slow suicide. He fails to take responsibility for his life. He doesn’t labor strenuously to forestall his death. Therefore we begin to think he causes it.”

The gym gasbag is not content condemning those who avoid intense physical activity. He must also approach strangers in the gym, presumably workout novices, and give them pointers, which are often stretched out into lectures and longwinded critiques about the novice’s shortcomings.  These lectures will include demonstrations of proper exercise method and the insistence that the novice repeat the gym gasbag’s exercise to insure that he can implement the correct form in a meticulous fashion.  Out of politeness the stranger often complies with the self-appointed gym sheriff’s instructions. However, this acquiescent gym novice should be warned that if he complains that the gasbag’s method causes pain and discomfort, the gym sheriff will simply dismiss the complaints as the result of the stranger not having acclimated to the correct method and that even though he is experiencing excruciating pain, he should “work through it” because in the long run he will benefit immeasurably from the gasbag’s unsolicited tutelage.

Further distinguishing himself from the world’s bloated infidels, the gym gasbag engages in vulgar attention-getting rituals, such as keeping a workout journal, gulping bright colored “energy” drinks, and photographing himself between exercises with his cell phone camera.  His grotesque ostentation is well described in Mark Greif’s essay:

Exerciser, what do you see in the mirrored gym wall? You make the faces associated with pain, with tears, with orgasms, with the sort of exertion that would call others to your immediate aid. But you do not hide your face. You groan as if pressing on your bowels. You repeat grim labors as if mopping the floor. You huff and you shout and strain. You appear in tight yet shapeless Lycra costumes. These garments reveal the shape of the genitals and the mashed and bandaged breasts to others’ eyes, without acknowledging the lure of sex.

These rituals are part of the gym gasbag’s mask of supreme invincibility, his absurd belief that punishing exercise results in immortality. My gym is frequented by several gasbags whose very strict adherence to body conditioning betrays their limitations and their inevitable decay. A dramatic case in point was revealed to me by one of the gym’s personal trainers, Laura. One day while I was running on the treadmill, Laura told me she was in the woman’s locker room when she saw a seventy-five-year-old, artificially-tanned, bleach-blonde woman stripping out of her gym tights while lecturing to the other woman about how energized she was from her carrot juice drinks fortified with spirulina, a blue-green algae. As she rhapsodized about the health benefits of the protein-dense algae, she continued to undress, revealing her spectacular, smooth, milky white silicone breast implants. Laura said that about ten other breast-augmented women, mostly in their early twenties, had their eyes fixed on the seventy-five-year-old’s nude body and all at once their jaws dropped. It wasn’t the upward-pointing, massive artificial breasts that made the old woman such a frightening sight. It was the stark contrast of those missile-like breasts, the appendages of a nineteen-year-old, with the woman’s nicotine-coated, wrinkled, leathery body, her skin’s creases and grooves reminiscent of an aged elephant’s sun-cracked hide.

The old woman ignored the open-jawed looks of horror as she expounded on the “complete proteins” found in spirulina. What terrified the young women, Laura explained to me, is that in that instant that they knew they were on the same path as the old woman. Thanks to their chain smoking, their breast-enlargements, and their frequent trips to the tanning booths, they knew they would someday look just like her. While listening to the retired porn star lecture on the health benefits of spirulina, they had access to a sort of nicotine-stained crystal ball that afforded them a snapshot of themselves a half century later, and what they saw inside that crystal ball made them gasp and shudder with fear.

The aging porn star is merely one of several gym members who are, contrary to their self-image, deteriorating both physically and mentally. The gym’s most notorious gasbags are in denial of this fact. A prime example is Regina, the health club’s part-time smoothie bar hostess. If she wasn’t so overtly needy, she might be considered attractive. In her late thirties, she is naturally dark skinned with straight black hair, she has slightly oversized teeth and is noticeably svelte—perhaps too much.  Medium height, small boned and presumably blessed with a fast metabolism, she appears skeletal, anorexic and teatless in her white, body-hugging workout tights. Apparently energized from her cardio-induced leanness, she walks very quickly and urgently everywhere she goes with her hands clenched at her sides, signaling great purpose and mission.

Completely sexless with her military bearing, she doesn’t so much talk to people as blurt and bellow insufferable workout clichés at them: “Gotta make it past the pain barrier, babe!” and “When the going gets tough, the tough get going!” are two of her favorites. There is something hostile about her friendliness. She asserts herself on people with such perkiness and intensity that you get the feeling that if you don’t reciprocate her “kindness” with equal enthusiasm she will bare her sharp white teeth and harbor great animosity against you. And you will of course be quite accurate in your assessment.

Perhaps what is most repellent is Regina’s laugh. It is more of an ape-like shriek, actually, a forced sound effect designed to suggest camaraderie with the other employees and gym members. Her laugh is a hideous cry for help, the howling of a wounded psyche. Because she has no life at home and no friends that I can imagine, she is at the gym from early morning till late at night.

Consequently, her forced laughter echoes almost continuously throughout the gym like a soundtrack, the official health club chorus of existential angst and despair.

The gym members, men especially, avoid Regina and appear tense and weary in her presence. It isn’t that she is physically unappealing, as lots of underweight and undernourished women enjoy a certain sexual cachet in our society. It’s that she exudes a strong whiff of neediness that even the most coarse dullard can detect. She can’t help but advertise that she is looking to attach herself to a host with relentless tenacity. The result is a shrillness that breaks through her thin, fitness-hostess veneer and betrays her as the tightly-wound lunatic she really is. For example, she once drenched me with her pocket-sized anti-fungal and anti-bacterial sprays while she was cleaning the treadmills, explaining that, unwashed, they presented a health hazard to the public.

On another occasion, I was working out on the Stairmaster Crossrobics machine and noticed she had all three televisions tuned to her favorite soap opera. When a young woman changed one of the channels, Regina had a tantrum, explaining that she needed all TVs tuned to the same channel so she could see her program from all angles, depending on her vantage point. Once someone turned off the overhead fans in the Elliptical Cardio Station Room and Regina got off her Elliptical Cross Trainer, walked toward the fan breaker switches and turned the fans back on. Then baring her teeth and shaking her finger at the guilty woman, she said, “Only authorized personnel are to have access to these switches. Do you understand me?”

Regina’s status as “authorized personnel” seems at best ambiguous. Her job as part-time smoothie-bar hostess is somewhat sporadic and there seems to be some question as to just what her relationship is to the gym. My feeling is that she has imposed herself on the gym’s management and they pity her to a certain degree so they allow her to do menial tasks, sterilizing the exercise machines, putting away the weights and dumbbells and working the smoothie bar, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t pay her. In fact, she appears so desperate for a sense of belonging that she perhaps pay them to allow her to spend all her waking hours there.

Her status as a marginalized society member was reinforced one day when she passed me by and afforded me the stench of her gamey odor. Immediately, it occurred to me that she spent so much time at the gym that she did not have a clean change of clothes. Her only hygiene came from giving herself a “paper towel shower,” which is to say she was rubbing her sweaty body with dozens of wetted paper towels in the ladies’ room.

The use of the gym as a second home, or even a first home, is common with gym gasbags. Some have them perhaps once enjoyed CEO positions and were axed in cost-cutting measures. Unable to wield their authority in high places, they now haunt the gym and become self-appointed gym sheriffs, telling novices how to exercise and diet. Or they are escaping marital difficulties, finding in the gym a sense of control and mastery they cannot find in their chaotic domestic life. In other words, the gym gasbag suffers from a sense of frustration and personal failure and uses the gym as a fantasy where he is Lord of the Treadmill’s Start-Up Grid.

A more repugnant type of gym gasbag is the so-called “certified personal trainer,” whose personality is born from an overwhelming sense of inadequacy. One such specimen, Randy, embodies the desperate need to assert his masculine dominance. He is nineteen, stands barely over five feet tall, weighs no more than 155 pounds, but walks as if he were gloriously burdened with so much muscularity that if he turned around to acknowledge your greeting, you are supposed to be grateful that he has considered you worth the effort. He exudes a certain hostility that seems rooted, in part, by the fact that he is frustrated with himself—his puny, short-limbed body and his button-nosed baby face, his red chubby cheeks, his freckles, his dull, languid brown eyes. All his affectations are an attempt to compensate for what is essentially the face and body of a nine-year-old boy. He therefore goes for the “butch” look, wearing thick, black leather wrist bands, black Doc Martin boots with a pair of baggy black genie pants to minimize the unattractive squat shape of his legs. He often wears an oversized red flannel shirt with the sleeves cut off or an ultra tight white, crew-necked T-shirt. He also has a gold “pirate” earring and a cell phone attached to a Velcro fanny pack. His hair is difficult to describe, only because he seems to change it from week to week. It is naturally black and straight, but I have seen it permed into curls, I have seen it in corn rows, I have seen it buzzed Marine style, and I have seen it with thick stripes of white, yellow, and blue in order to achieve the “skunk” look. In his most recent styling, he has bleached his hair blond with some “spike” action on top. He seems pleased with himself for having hair that stands up like blades of grass. I imagine he enjoys what he believes is a fearless warrior image, but in fact the patch of erect hairs above his head make him look more like an effete ostrich.

But his far worst affectations are his attempts to compensate for his short man’s complex. For several years he has developed strategies to appear taller. He avoids standing in groups unless he can find a bench to stand on. He is very terrified of water grates as they represent the lowest point on a plane and getting caught on the lowest point is one of his great fears. His most drastic method of compensating for his short stature is walking for prolonged periods on his tiptoes, a habit that bent his spine so severely that I heard through the grapevine that he once required surgery.
Like Regina, Randy is a nuisance in that he is always giving unsolicited training advice, especially to the attractive women. When his exercise expertise fails to impress, he resorts to telling the women he writes children’s books.

Once, while I was running on the treadmill Randy had the audacity to approach me and ask if I was interested in hiring him as my personal trainer. His request was  ludicrous. Number one, I am stronger and have more shapely muscle mass than him. Number two, I have less body fat than him. Number three, I know more about nutrition and exercise in my prostate gland than all of him knows. I simply told him I was happy with my training progress and assumed he would leave it at that.

But he didn’t. He told me I should “stagger” my training and my diet in order to “shock” my body into making more drastic gains. I resented his implication that my body was not responding dramatically enough to my training regime. Nor did I have any interest in “staggering” or “shocking” myself into faster progress, so I politely refused his solicitation, hoping he would leave it at that.
But he didn’t. “If you don’t want to go to that higher level,” he said, “that’s your business.”

I ignored him, hoping he would stop talking to me. But he didn’t.

“How long have you been running?”

“Why?”

“You’ve been running a long time. At least an hour by now.”

“Yeah? So?”

“After ninety minutes your metabolism will go into shut-down mode and you’ll actually start to burn muscle tissue.”

“Thanks.”

“Check’s in the mail.”

“What?”

“Check’s in the mail.”

He shrugged and walked away. I thought our communication would be finished. But I was wrong. Now that he knew I would never hire him as my personal trainer, Randy showed his resentment by giving me a strange greeting whenever we passed. He would tighten his neck and make a mocking growling sound, which in some instances could be interpreted as playful, but which seemed belligerent.

Randy’s growling. Regina’s shrieking. And of course their constant talking. I suppose I should feel sorry for them. They are after all gym gasbags because of fear more than anything else. Kierkegaard was aware of the manner commotion was used to distract people from their worst fears. He wrote about the puritans, recently settled in America, banging pots and pans at night in order to drown the demonic howls they believed they could hear in the dark New England forests. Randy and Regina are compelled to make their own cacophony in order to distract them from their most abject fear, which is that the exercise gospel they preach is a patent lie.

Exercise does not result in eternal youth and immortality. Just take a look at the greasy spoon diner adjacent to our gym. In the blink of an eye, gym members wake up and find themselves tired, aching and incontinent—hapless victims to brutal old-age, indigestion, and decay so that faced with the humiliating prospect of wearing diapers and wetting themselves, they can no longer attend the gym’s grueling workout fests and must, against their will, find exile in at the diner, so accommodating it is to the geriatric demographic that basic table condiments like catsup, mustard, and A-1 Steak Sauce have been replaced with dark brown plastic bottles of molasses-flavored laxatives.

Peek through the windows at the diner and you will see senior citizens, former gym members, with glazed, enervated expressions squeezing liquid Ex-Lax over their runny eggs Benedict. In a stupor and apparently unaware of the bright egg yolk stuck to their gray mustaches, these over-the-hill exercise junkies seem to be asking themselves, “What happened? What happened to me?”

The Do-Gooder Gasbag

During a cold winter I had just finished playing dodge ball at recess. With my bulky corduroy coat still on, I rushed inside the classroom, sat down at my desk and prepared to listen to my second grade teacher Miss Sue explain who was going to get what roles in K.R. Smith Elementary’s annual Christmas Pageant. Students were still settling in their seats, taking off their damp scarves, their knit caps and their gloves while I sat snugly wrapped in my coat.  My coat had one of those bad zippers that kept getting caught on the fabric and I was content with leaving the coat on and not having to deal with the anxiety of struggling with the zipper in front of my fellow students. As I contemplated my warmth and wellbeing, I noticed Donald Beagle, an oversized bovine blond-haired kid, was looking at me with a look of consternation. He stood up from his desk, approached me, bent forward in a solicitous manner and politely whispered a warning: Keeping my coat on inside a heated classroom after playing outside would do something harmful to my internal body temperature making me at risk for catching the flu, rheumatic fever, or perhaps even pneumonia. Immediately, I suspected he was passing along some lame misinformation he had received from his idiotic parents, who no doubt relied on fear tactics to manipulate their children.  But the pity I had for Donald compelled me to thank him for his misguided counsel and to take off my coat. I did not want to hurt his feelings or burst his illusion that he was the possessor of invaluable health tips, which quite possibly could save a classmate’s life. After all, Donald Beagle was somewhat of a homely sad sack and it seemed his delusion that he was aiding his fellow students with bogus medical warnings was perhaps one of the few things that gave his dismal life any savor.

However, my pity for him turned to contempt a day later when I saw him saying the same thing to Tina Lambart and then the following week to Joe Skyles. These poor kids look terrified upon hearing that keeping their coats on in the heated classroom could possibly result in their deaths. It was then that I saw Donald Beagle for what he was, a particular type of know-it-all, the do-gooder, a needy soul groveling for attention under the veil of spreading valuable advice or performing good works, charity, and advocacy. I would later learn that Donald Beagle belonged to the most benign category of do-gooders, the lonely attention-getter who imposes all sorts of dubious advice on others in order that he may enjoy the high regard of an authority figure or expert. On the danger scale, this relatively harmless do-gooder sits at the bottom. There are far more malignant types of do-gooders who impose their “expertise” on the rest of the world.

One notch above the needy attention-getter in menace is the do-gooder who suffers from a protracted adolescence. His stagnation results from a variety of maladies, not the least of which are his laziness, his lack of talent, and his general incompetence. Desperate for change, this do-gooder resorts to re-inventing himself as a sort of shrill do-gooder rebel. He typically comes from an upper class background and feeling guilty for his excessive privileges he attempts to join some countercultural movement from which he can rail against his parents for belonging to a system that bestows upon them luxuries at the expense of exploiting the less fortunate. In truth, this frustrated adolescent scapegoats his parents for his own failing to define his identity and to mature into a productive citizen. His failing of course is his own. Spoiled, lacking initiative and without purpose, the privileged brat is too narcissistic to take responsibility for his own weaknesses so he relies on creating an imperious do-gooder mask from which he will taut his alleged moral superiority over others.

A young man whom we’ll call Prescott provides a striking case study. Coming from old money in Santa Barbara, Prescott attended college in a small, relatively obscure central California town in order to conceal his wealthy background to his fellow students. He left the brand new Mercedes his father had bought him as a high school graduation gift back home and drove a rusted Volkswagen Beetle to the small town in order to conceal his identity. He grew hobo dreads, a straggly beard and wore tattered clothing. He did not bathe.  He sought out the “oppressed,” working in migrant farms and living among the homeless. After two weeks of self-induced squalor, where he lived in a homeless shelter and slept on a thousand-dollar “posturepedic” mattress his mother had purchased for him, he felt he had suffered enough and returned to his apartment a new man, ready to take on the world as an angry outspoken member of the oppressed class. His self-proclaimed status as a member of the “downtrodden” became his excuse for his lack of popularity. It explained why people would stop calling him a few weeks after meeting him. It explained why he always got low grades on his college essays. In truth, his essays earned failing grades because they were incoherent rants. People avoided him because he had few real social skills, he had poor hygiene, he often smelled badly and he was rude and insulting, believing that people deserved to hear his blunt social critiques directly and should react positively to his derogatory stabs as if they were salient epiphanies.

Soon Prescott became infuriated that he wasn’t excelling in school, he dropped out of college and persuaded his parents to give him enough money to travel through Europe where he changed his name to Vandal, joined a German electronic band and performed “protest songs.” The band broke up soon enough, with the socially-conscious young men fighting over a couple of groupies, and Vandal, as he now insisted on being called, returned to California where he used his father’s connections to get a job selling organic, mildew-resistant melons to movie stars in Beverly Hills. The job was short-lived however when he drove the truck with thousands of dollars of watermelons, honeydew and cantaloupe to a political demonstration  and, leaving the truck unattended, had all his merchandise stolen.

Spoiled do-gooders like Prescott follow similar paths. They wander in and out of college. They travel to Europe to find themselves. They join political causes for the same purpose.  They identify with some oppressed group or other. They perform at poetry slams portraying themselves as victims of some hideous trauma revealed to them in hypnosis therapy. Or they join some religious cult that demands a life of complete self-denial while it siphons their hefty allowance and teaches them to hate their parents, who are of course the very source of that allowance. The pain they cause is usually limited to their family and themselves. Their shrill nature makes them far more annoying than the needy attention-getter but their ranking on the danger scale is far below that of a more virulent do-gooder, the bully.

The do-gooder bully usually belongs to an organization, often one with claims to divine revelation, that picks on phony societal issues while ignoring society’s real problems. Not wanting to address anything that would require complex thought or target an opponent that might fight back, these do-gooder organizations usually bully some harmless and helpless target, libraries and public schools being two common examples. The do-gooder bully will campaign against a book that is too gritty or shows a “lifestyle” that doesn’t conform to the bully’s puritanical, sanitized ideal or is simply “too disturbing” for a child’s consumption. Or these bullies will spend endless hours watching TV or listening to some juvenile radio personality while they eagerly wait for the utterance of a “bad” word, at which time they will salivate with glee and then post a report of the naughtiness on their website and congratulate themselves for performing such a good deed.

Another subcategory of the do-gooder bully is the Health Police, an organization dedicated to removing or taxing what it deems unhealthy sugar- and fat-laden foods such as movie popcorn, Mexican food, Chinese food, pizza, soda pop, and fast-food burgers. As someone well-versed in vegetarian cooking and the daily practice of yoga, I am, according to some, a likely candidate for supporting the Health Police’s agenda. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. I am much too pessimistic about the rapacious appetites that are so firmly entrenched in America’s culture that I see the Health Police’s mission to reform the typical American’s gluttonous, slothful lifestyle as a lame and feeble exercise.  Contrary to my skepticism, the Health Police will argue that we must “educate” the public. But “educating” the public has already proven to be a complete waste of time. The nutritional facts have long been available. It’s been pounded into our brains that inactivity combined with a diet of processed foods sodden with fat and sugar will make us obese, afflict us with diabetes and eventually kill us. Yet in the face of this obvious and all-too-easily-accessible data most Americans still indulge in troglodyte eating habits, venturing into all-you-can-eat buffets and slopping incongruous heaps of food matter on platters the size of surf boards and going to “steak houses,” which are in actuality fantasy theme parks, the fantasy being “let’s be Cro-Magnon Man for a day.”

If the Health Police wants to see how their attempts to stifle Americans’ appetites will end up, I refer them to the days of Prohibition when do-gooders attempted to curb America’s love of alcohol. Forbidding and taxing what people want simply creates a  underground market and violent crime. Of course, the Health Police are too busy congratulating themselves on their enlightened healthy lifestyle to take a an objective look at history.
Another group that ignores history and facts is the most dangerous of all the do-gooders, the ignorant and sanctimonious Westerner who feels compelled to enlighten other cultures but succeeds only in colonizing them. Or with the help of a humanitarian organization, he brings food and other supplies to a country afflicted with famine, draught and pestilence only to find that without the proper foresight and operational competence, cunning warlords in the region will steal those supplies and sell them to amass weapons which they will use against the very people the humanitarian supplies were intended. Or this Westerner will try in his ignorance to impose his notion of democracy on a nation so fragmented by ethnic and religious strife and so recalcitrant to anything resembling Western democracy that the Westerner’s presence only incites hostility, insurgency, and confirms the region’s deeply-rooted suspicions that the Western “intervention” has an ulterior motive, usually focused on exploiting the region’s natural resources.

One can look at America’s 2003 invasion of Iraq as a painful case study in the do-gooder’s utopian fantasy turning into a nightmare that is being grieved by people of all political persuasions and could very well make the small circle of do-gooder neocons, who arguably authored the Iraqi Invasion, one of the most ignominious, misguided political movements in U.S. history.

No matter his scale of importance, the do-gooder is a pious fraud and a frustrated failure who, as Eric Hoffer points out in The True Believer, hides his insignificance by joining mass movements that ostensibly exist to perform good deeds or force social upheaval throughout the world. But the do-gooder’s excessive zeal combined with his conspicuous absence of expertise cause his missions to end in disaster. The do-gooder’s role in creating unintended catastrophes combined with his chafing know-it-all personality justify our contempt for him, with the Western Imperialist being the most contemptuous of all.

The Proselytizing Gasbag

In the summer of 2005 Even Kleiman, the executive chef of Angeli Caffe and host of KCRW’s radio program "Good Food," ruined my life. In an act of recklessness bordering on the criminal, Kleiman featured Dr. Robert Small, professor of food and wine at Cal Poly University, Pomona, to discuss his “handcrafted” Dr. Bob's Ice Cream, some of which is made with Scharffen Berger chocolate. Dr. Bob, as he is called, brought some samples to the radio studio and Even Kleiman tasted them on the air, expressed her orgasmic delight, then proceeded to tell her viewers where Dr. Bob’s products could be found. Tragically, she informed her listeners that his ice cream is sold at the Redondo Beach Bristol Farms, about a mile from my house. My instincts told me that Kleiman’s praise of Dr. Bob’s ice cream was more than hype. I had to try some, the sooner the better, so before her show was over, I drove to the store in question and stocked up on Dr. Bob’s chocolate flavors, “The Works” and “Really Dark.” When I got home I skimmed the partially melted ice cream from the top and tasted it. Immediately, thousands of serotonin neurotransmitters buzzed inside my brain, tingled down my spine and raced all the way down to my big toes. My knees buckled. My head moved upwards. All you could see were the whites of my eyes.

While this euphoric chemical upheaval was going on inside of me, the phone rang. It was probably my wife, Carrie, making a long-distance call from Croatia, where she was spending a three-week vacation with her family. Because of the time differences between Croatia and California, there was only a small window in which we could talk to each other, but I could not answer the phone. Or rather I refused to answer it because it seemed sacrilegious to interrupt what I would later call my Dr. Bob’s Experience.

A half hour later my wife called again. This time I answered the phone but the entire conversation was not about the tender calamari she was having by her family’s seaside restaurant. It was about Dr. Bob’s ice cream. I urged Carrie to get home early, if at all possible, so that she could try some Dr. Bob’s before I ate it all. She had to have a taste of Dr. Bob’s ice cream, not just so that she would enjoy it, but so that, like me, her life could be gloriously “ruined.” In other words, nothing short of her having a religious experience would suffice in order to validate my own blissful encounter with my newly discovered ice cream.

Sharing the pleasure with my wife wasn’t enough. Soon I sent dozens of e-mails to friends and acquaintances about Dr. Bob’s. I told my students about it. I talked about it at parties. I warned people that eating Dr. Bob’s ice cream would render all other ice creams obsolete. I claimed that a single bite of Dr. Bob’s ice cream would provide the absolute template to measure all other types of ecstatic experiences. During a subsequent visit to Bristol Farms when the cashier bagged my Dr. Bob’s, she asked me if it was any good and I said, “Don’t eat it. Not unless you want to become a helpless addict to a food product that clogs the arteries and rots your teeth.”

People in line were moved by my “sales pitch” and they rushed to the ice cream section and had to try it because they wanted their lives, like mine, to be “ruined.” Further visits to Bristol Farms revealed that there were lower stocks of Dr. Bob’s. Often it was gone entirely. Dr. Bob’s had become a hit and while I was alarmed that there wasn’t as much for me as before I blabbed about it, I was deeply gratified that I was presumably responsible for Dr. Bob’s taking off the way it did. As the ice cream’s number-one advocate, I had become, in short, a proselytizer.

I am not referring to proselytizing in its limited definition in which people use their persuasive gifts and moral certitude in order to convert others to their faith.  I am talking about the broader definition, the one that has emerged in our blog-soaked world where everyone can post their worldview, not to mention their daily burps, trifles, and naval-gazing musings, so that a more prevalent form of proselytizing has been born in which the proselytizer zealously, and I might say obsessively, touts something he deems worthy of everyone’s attention—an obscure rock band, an herbal remedy, a fiendishly-readable book, a subversively hip television comedy, to name a few examples—so that people will be “turned on” to the proselytizer’s newly-found treasure.

This compulsion to “convert” others is rooted firstly in egotism, the need to champion and affirm one’s tastes and opinions by watching others become equally enthusiastic and then to take credit for their pleasure and satisfaction. The proselytizer’s impulse to point others to the way or lead them to places of heavenly delight arises from his need to see himself as a sort of pioneer or a Prometheus figure who, because of his superior instincts and courage, forages in places most people will not or cannot go, steals fire from the gods and in a act of magnanimity shares the fire with his worthy cohorts of which he in a way lords over, gloating with satisfaction as he watches them embracing something he discovered, fashion, art, music, food, which, without him, they would have never  had the privilege of enjoying.

Much of the proselytizer’s egotism is fueled by his need to see himself as an Ultimate Guide or Authority Figure who is constantly sought after by the media so that he may give the definitive analysis on his chosen specialty after which he gathers great delight from watching himself bloviating on television or seeing his words quoted in print or, for maximum ego gratification, listening to people in high places quote his expertise in order to bolster their credibility.

Secondly, the impulse to proselytize is rooted in loneliness. It is the unbearable feeling that comes with discovering a sublime pleasure or ecstasy and having no one to share that feeling with. Sharing this new discovery gives the proselytizer a sense of intimacy and community, which, due to his virulent egotism, is painfully lacking in his life. For it is in solitude that the proselytizer makes his discoveries, but it is only by casting his net into the marketplace of ideas and opinions that he has a chance of sharing those findings.

The proselytizer, however, can only enjoy so much mass appeal. A small but significant number of converts, equated with a cult following, is the proselytizer’s optimum number of enthusiasts, for the small but loyal clique attests to a certain intellectual elitism that confirms the proselytizer’s sense of uniqueness and genius. If too many people follow tow, then the authenticity and special quality of the discovery is cast into doubt. Therefore, when a mass following embraces the proselytizer’s findings, he sometimes feels compelled to abandon his crusade.

A cruel example of something I once loved being ruined by a mass following or overexposure occurred with the 1990 pop song, “Here the Story Ends,” written and performed by The Sundays. I was heading north to visit my family in the San Francisco Bay Area during the Easter vacation break when, passing along the Altamont Pass in Livermore, California at 3:34 P.M., I saw several majestic windmills atop the rolling green hills. This was the breakthrough point where my radio could finally receive more than country and fundamentalist AM signals. I tuned to San Francisco’s KRQR 106.7 FM and heard The Sundays’ Harriet Wheeler sing the band’s wistful single and stopped at the closest music store so that I could buy the CD. My family vacation then consisted of me calling people and telling them they had to buy The Sunday’s Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic CD.  Five years later I was not prepared to hear “Here the Story Ends,” in Muzak form, inside a Bakersfield supermarket while I browsed through the yams and Maui onions.

Perhaps an entire book could be written about beautiful songs ruined once they’ve been converted into Muzak or used in television commercials. Pink Floyd’s “Dark Side of the Moon” was bastardized in the San Francisco Bay Area when in the early 1980s a local electronics store aired that song on a television ad for several years so that it was impossible to hear the song without associating it with a perky-voiced gentleman announcing an unbeatable stereo sale and free popcorn and baby-sitting while you shopped.

The commercialization of a private experience kills the proselytizer’s drive to share that experience with others. He must move on to some other worthy obsession that will remain elusive in the minds of the masses while finding appeal in smaller, niche audiences.  Thus the proselytizer is constantly navigating a fine balance between broadening his following on the one hand and narrowing his following to a worthy, “educated” audience on the other.

Finally, the passion to proselytize is rooted in the need to find an Absolute and a sense of Transcendence so that the proselytizer can rhapsodize endlessly about a brand of sinfully rich ice cream, irresistibly creamy cashew butter, butter-soft comfortable walking shoes, or an especially sensitive radio in a way that sounds like he has just discovered a new religion. The use of religious hyperbole to tout his discovery makes the proselytizer a great marketer, a salesman who pitches Product as Salvation. Thus the proselytizer, when he is convincing, has much in common with Madison Avenue. When he’s not convincing however he is revealed for what he truly is, a longwinded crackpot who, in his obsessive quest to find the Ultimate Ice Cream, Transcendental Cashew Butter, or Radio Uber Alles has lost all sense of proportion and has become a sort of delusional Messiah figure trying in vain to convert others to his consuming chimeras and caprices. 

The Authoritative Gasbag

The authoritative gasbag is someone whose sense of incredulity and outrage at the world’s utter absence of common sense and moral decency forever vexes him. Tormented, he is overcome by the need to complain to anyone who will listen to him as he explains that he bears excruciating hardships because he alone assumes responsibility in a world of sloths, frauds, and libertines.

Like the novelist John Kennedy Toole’s rotund loudmouth fictional creation  Ignatius J. Reilly, the authoritative gasbag feels he is a genius surrounded by a “confederacy of dunces.” He deems himself as an unappreciated original thinker who longs to have more power, perhaps that of a monarch, to implement his views.

Why can’t people be as good as he is? Why can’t they see things as clearly as he does? Why can’t they at least attempt to conform to his worldview and thereby benefit from his superior ways? Forever befuddled and embattled, the authoritative gasbag assumes that the world’s hordes are obdurate, contumacious children who, incapable of being reasoned with, must be controlled by elaborate rules, regulations, and constant nagging. He of course takes it upon himself to do the nagging and therefore becomes in the process what is commonly known as a “busy body.” He will mettle in other people’s affairs and will often assume authority he does not possess.

For example, he will like to be the self-appointed life guard at a public pool. He will admonish people for running across the pavement while pointing at the “No Running” rule on a nearby sign.  Or he will remind people that bottled beverages and alcohol of all kinds are strictly prohibited. During the “kid’s time” in the pool, he will expel adults still lingering in the pool and vice versa during “adult’s time.” He will discourage loud splashing, rough-housing, and any other ruckus he deems inappropriate even though he has no credentials or official sanction to perform such policing.

When he cannot police and control others to his satisfaction, he will become a tattletale. For example, he will make a stink when he sees other airline passengers violating the no-more-than-two-carry-on rule and will gloat with self-satisfaction as he watches the airline attendant force the offending passenger off the plane in order to check in the third carry-on piece. Or he will notify an usher when he sees that a theater patron has, rather than purchase overpriced concession candy, smuggle champagne and fried chicken into the theater and he will watch with glee as the offending patron is expelled from the premises or forced to throw away his food stuffs and libations.

In true gasbag fashion, the authoritative gasbag cannot withhold his opinions so be leery if he is standing behind you in the grocery line. He will scrutinize the products in your cart and then admonish you for your lack of fresh fruits and vegetables and your preponderance for frozen microwave dishes rich in saturated fats, even going so far as to equate your shoddy food choices with the neglect and abuse of your children. A shopping cart full of too many sugar-laden cereals and trans-fats can spur this gasbag into getting out his cell phone and speed-dialing the Department of Social Services.
When not inspecting strangers’ grocery choices, the authoritative gasbag is commonly known to take on the mantle of neighborhood watchdog. In addition to keeping a sharp eye on suspicious loiterers, he will be the official dog crap monitor. Whenever a neighbor leaves a dog deposit on his lawn, he will insert a toothpick flagged with the time and date of the offense and photograph the deposit for evidence that he is amassing against the offending neighbor. The more high-tech gasbag will install security video cameras around his front yard and show, via live video streaming on the Internet, the dogs and their owners violating community codes of dog ownership, and in the process succeed at humiliating his neighbors for using his lawn as a dog dumping ground.

This gasbag’s love of wielding authority will draw him to types of employment that will maximize his dictatorial excesses. He may be a police officer. He may be a security guard at the shopping mall. He may be a school administrator or, as he likes to call himself, an “educator.” He may become a personal trainer, a nutritionist, a martial arts instructor, a fire safety expert, a neighborhood crime watch organizer, a health inspector, a social worker, a technology geek, a PTA leader, a marital advice columnist, or an inspector of television, radio and Internet smut.

Or if you are as unfortunate as I am, he may be your condo association president. I am thinking specifically of a man I will call Mel Barnes, the condo president of a condo unit I once owned. Mel was silver-haired and strong-jawed with cobalt blue eyes that roiled beneath a stare of perpetual self-righteousness and moral clarity. His proclivity for eating steak, a habit while growing up in Texas, gave him a pot belly on an otherwise slender body. He was, as are many condo association presidents, retired, and this gave him the time necessary to do all of a condo president’s duties, which were many. One of his most unpleasant chores was fining the condo owners, as laid out in the condo bylaws, fifty dollars every time they parked in the guest parking, or threw their weeds and garden trimmings in the dumpsters, or didn’t replace their batteries in their home fire detectors, or didn’t keep their cats inside their condos so that their cats illegally roamed the area and used other people’s flower beds as latrines, or didn’t lock the back gate that separated our collective back yard from the tennis courts so that any riffraff could get inside our property.

Mel Barnes was so distressed and frustrated over his vigorous condo duties that he had developed high blood pressure, ulcers, and Temporo-Mandibular Joint Syndrome. He grew to resent those who did not appreciate his vigilance and who did not follow all the rules and bylaws.

During my first week at the condo as I was tossing moving boxes into the dumpster Mel tapped me on the shoulder and said, “I hate to be persnickety but you need to tear those boxes into smaller pieces to make room for the rest of us.”

I did not want to get on Mel’s bad side and began shredding the boxes to his satisfaction.

About a week later I was in my little front patio area taking off my muddy shoes after jogging near the beach when Mel sauntered over, leaned over my wrought iron gate and told me a burglar had broken into our subterranean parking garage by squeezing through a window and using a garden hose as a ladder. Several items were stolen out of people’s cars, including a laptop computer. He told me the gardeners would have to disconnect the garden hose and keep it in the tool shed before and after every use. I apologized as if the problem were somehow my fault while he flexed his jaw muscles and looked down at my muddy shoes and my front patio with displeasure. After clearing out the weeds and brush, I had not planted anything yet. There was nothing but a bunch of dirt clods.
“My, your front patio looks rather bare. I suppose you weren’t planning on doing anything to it?”

I immediately went to a garden store and bought a bunch of “hearty” flowers, hoping that might keep Mel off my back.
He was appeased but only temporarily. A week later he came over to tell me my downstairs toilet was too loud. He could hear it all the way from his condo. He speculated that perhaps the water level in the tank was set too high. Or the tank ball was rotted and not sealing correctly so the tank got too low and was always filling. Or perhaps the fill valve was too long and was siphoning into the overflow pipe. I pretended to understand what he was saying, then called a plumber who recommended that I just get a whole brand new toilet, which I did.

The next morning I heard someone standing on a squeaky stepladder behind my master bedroom. I stepped outside and saw Mel using his bare hands to apply gobs of Crisco shortening to the top of our gate. I asked him what he was doing and he explained that kids had been trying to climb over the seven-foot high enclosure. The shortening would help deter their efforts.

“They could slip and break their necks,” I said.

“That’s not my problem. If they want to ignore our ‘No Trespassing’ sign that’s their business.”

He explained that we might have to tap our emergency fund to add another five feet, including barb wire, to the gate. Then he said, “I hate to think what this place would do without me.”

A week later he informed me that the mud clumps collected under my rafters were wasp nests. I knocked down one of the nests with a broom stick and almost got stung by a testy wasp. When I told him what happened, he chastised me for not using the proper equipment. He came over with his stepladder and a can of wasp spray. As he climbed up on the stepladder and sprayed under my rafter, dozens of pale winged insects flew outside. He said I had a problem far worse than wasps—termites. Winged termites, known as “swarmers,” provided evidence that termites were breeding inside my house.

“Any termite droppings inside your house?” he asked me.

I described some strange gritty substance I kept finding on my living room carpet. It looked like orange pencil shavings. Mel admonished me for not telling him about this earlier, disappeared, then returned with a flashlight and a pad and pencil. He knelt before a small mound of termite droppings on my living room carpet, then announced we had an infestation. He would sue the termite exterminators who, three years ago, gave the condo a ten-year guarantee when they fumigated the premises. The litigation could be lengthy and we didn’t have the reserves to pay for another full-out fumigation. But there were cheaper and safer alternatives that would not require that we tent up the entire condo and subject ourselves to poisons that would harm us and our pets.  He had a relative in Orange County who could get him a special deal on XT-2000, a termite killer made from orange peel oil. He would also look into other phenolic compounds, liquid nitrogen, high heat, baiting, and topical fungus. His eyes gleamed and he sounded excited as if he were planning for a great war. For the next several days I would see him flooding other condo owners with technical information they did not want to know about the killing of termites. Polymethoxylated flavonoids just might do the trick, he said.

I realized that Mel was never so happy as when he was immersed in a crisis that allowed him to assume the role of an authority. Yes, he was a malcontent who loved to complain and talk about the enormous difficulties he faced as our condo manager, but take those difficulties away and Mel would have lost something vital to his being, something that kept him happy and alive, his excuse to talk ad nauseam about the woes and challenges that had befallen him.

The Nihilistic Gasbag

The nihilist is someone who denies any absolute truth or reality because he believes that all our life experiences are doomed to a muddled ambiguity and are subject to infinite, arbitrary interpretations. His belief in the futility of pursuing absolute truth is the foundation of all his other beliefs. First, there is no right or wrong, no moral paradigm, no universal law to govern his behavior or to compel him to participate in the shared values of the community. Second, he believes, like Thomas Hobbes and Alexander Hamilton, that man must, in the absence of an innate conscience, contrive a variety of laws, a “social contract,” to keep the barbarians from taking over and that those who are in power can most effectively inculcate these laws into the masses by proclaiming these laws to be “natural” or “divine.” The nihilist is resigned to the widespread belief of this “lie” since he deems the collective delusion of divine or universal law a prudent manner to keep the “savages” relatively tame.

Third, the nihilist is resigned to his belief that he cannot truly know another person or even himself. All his perceptions of men, women, gods, and demigods are “guesses.” His attempts to grasp a firm understanding of someone, no matter how painstaking, are doomed to fail since his “understanding” is influenced by mythology, self-interest, tribalistic prejudice, and unconscious fears and desires.

His belief in the futility of knowing or understanding another person compels him to a life of solitude. Friendships are shunned for two reasons. Either people are not enlightened as he is and not worthy of his company or they are as nihilistic as he is and therefore they have nothing to talk about since their agreement regarding the emptiness of life also makes for feeble and redundant conversation. Perhaps a third reason he avoids his fellow nihilists is that their presence reminds him that he is not as unique as he would like to believe.

Further isolating the nihilist is his pessimistic attitude toward marriage. Since the nihilist believes we are hopelessly blind to one another, he looks upon marriage as a complete sham.  As he sees it, living with a spouse for fifty years, contrary to Hollywood’s glorious narratives, does not lead to a  continuously evolving intimacy that finds its happy conclusion with physical and spiritual oneness. The best case scenario for the nihilist is to simply acclimate to his spouse’s annoying habits, her quirks, her chafing remonstrations, and her unpredictable mood shifts. But getting used to her presence is hardly “knowing” her or enjoying a sense of nuptial unity. The marital arrangement simply means the nihilist must increase his tolerance for friction and irritation in what for him is not so much a marriage but an interminable prison sentence. Needless to say, the nihilist’s low expectations of marriage do not provide enough motivation for him to seek matrimony.

Fourth, the nihilist believes there can be no real order, only an illusion of order. Chaos is the norm. The reasons for this are simple. One is that people of good will and high scruples tend to be incompetent and abysmal in their self-promotion so that they rarely enjoy positions of power that would spread their harmony and good will. The nihilist agrees with Henry James who observed that “morons and madmen reign in high places.” Their reign results in chaos, incompetence, corruption, and a complete lack of accountability.

The nihilist is not shocked by the grotesqueries of the powerful; he has come to expect them and in fact almost relishes in their egregiousness, the worse the better, for the travesties of the powerful feed the nihilist’s appetite for cynicism.

Finally, the nihilist rejects the notion of self-improvement. He believes that we are forever stuck in whatever predicament we find ourselves in. This is because the overwhelming forces that stamp us as human beings—our genetic code and our environment—defy any notion of “free will” and personal transformation. Whether we are lazy, self-pitying, cowardly, melancholic, concupiscent, it does not matter. We are hard-wired a certain way so that our defective personalities do not respond to our most arduous attempts at change. As the Chinese put it, “Mei banfa”—nothing can be done.

Most often the nihilist does not know he is a nihilist. Rather, he lives in his learned helplessness and feels trapped within his limitations with a resigned stoicism. Not surprisingly, he does not exert any energy articulating his nihilistic condition.  His nihilism has caught him unaware since he gradually has surrendered to his despair and is too apathetic to find the precise language to define his state of affairs. This is a logical consequence of his belief that all endeavors are futile ones.

The nihilistic gasbag is quite a different beast altogether. Overcome by giddiness that he has “discovered” that life has no meaning, he feels the need to trumpet his nihilism to others. The reasons are several. The first is to assert his intellectual superiority over those who the nihilist believes live in a childish illusion of absolute reality and moral order. The nihilist is so proud of the enlightenment he has found that allows him to, like Nietzsche, live “beyond good and evil” that he wants to make sure others know of his grand accomplishment. With a hearty flair, he will therefore advertise to the world that he has read and reread Fredrick Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Albert Camus’ The Myth of Sisyphus, Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot, Franz Kafka’s The Trial, Jean-Paul Sartre’s Being and Nothingness, and E.M. Cioran’s The Trouble with Being Born, On the Heights of Despair, and the Short History of Decay. Possession of this Holy Canon of Nihilistic Musings will make the nihilistic gasbag exuberant, a condition that is contrary to the depression he is supposed to feel from reading the masters of nihilism and existentialism.

Why does the nihilistic gasbag tend to be so giddy? For one he feels that having no laws, natural or otherwise, gives him license to get in touch with his inner tomcat. Since he believes we are biologically hard-wired in a way that contradicts society’s notions of morality, he feels no need to prick his conscience with such dreadful and unnatural burdens as generosity for the less fortunate or fidelity to his mate.  Determined to repel the inevitable criticism he will surely suffer for conforming to the excesses of a hedonistic satyr, the nihilistic gasbag will be prepared to retort any admonishments. To defend his incontinent carousing he will be well versed in the huge body of anthropological and bio-psychological work that proves conclusively that primates, including man, are incapable of monogamy. He will love to cite studies that show that over 95% of married men cheat on their wives and that in fact the number is probably higher, something like 99.99%, since men tend to lie on the various questionnaires that ask about their faithfulness. He will also love to throw in the “fact” that all married Parisian men have mistresses. He will point to other cultures as well where having a mistress or a concubine is a common fact of life and he will take great delight in showing that the more metropolitan, educated and productive classes embrace the illicit pleasures of the demimonde while it is the backward peasant classes who cling to primitive, oppressive notions of marital fidelity.

In a patronizing fashion, the nihilistic gasbag will concede that fidelity is a “good idea” for the mentally-challenged masses who need a crude moral structure in order to keep society relatively intact. As long as the bovine hordes stay married and make their mortgage and car payments, the economy and the metropolis should enjoy a modicum of stability. However, the nihilistic gasbag, fancying himself too smart to be duped by artificial moral laws, sees his debauched existence as proof that he is a member of an elite club of saturnalian intellectuals who are unshackled by backward society’s “neurosis” and “hysteria” that repress sexual fulfillment.

Another type of nihilistic gasbag will articulate his hopeless philosophy in order to justify his sloth and squalor. He is someone who hides his laziness and apathy behind an elaborate screen of nihilistic aphorisms. He will of course be fond of quoting Ecclesiastes which states that no matter how great our achievements we are all doomed to turn into dust. Since all aspirations are doomed to futility, he is resigned to an inert life of low expectations. Or put a different way, there is the famous scene in Woody Allen’s Annie Hall where Alvy Singer’s mother complains to the family doctor that her son isn’t doing his homework. Alvy replies: “The universe is expanding. Everything will fall apart and that would be the end of everything. . . . What’s the point?”

What is annoying about the nihilistic gasbag is his use of nihilism to justify his sour grapes, dismissing what he can not attain.  For example in the 1960s, some nihilistic gasbags indulged in countercultural nihilism during their nomadic, “soul-searching” adolescence when it was easy to reject middle-class values and home ownership because they had no resources. But as soon as they made it big in the stock market or enjoyed an inheritance, they forgot all about their nihilistic treatises, which they had once so fondly disseminated with blow horns and microphones. Well-fed property owners, they now barricade themselves in gated communities while they look at the riffraff from afar, usually television or their home security surveillance cameras, hoping the mob “out there” does not get too excited by the very nihilistic doctrines of mayhem these gasbags used to promote.

In other words, the nihilistic gasbag is both a fraud and a malcontent who is either too lascivious, too slothful or too disenfranchised to commit himself to an ideal or a work ethic but who pretends to be superior to the rest of the world by expounding a philosophy that inverts his abysmal character flaws as virtues to others and himself.

The Misogynistic Gasbag

A misogynist, the technical term for an emotionally-arrested male who scapegoats women for all his problems, is very often a gasbag because he feels compelled to over-explain to the world his ongoing “predicament.” His problem, as he sees it, is with women and all of their “flaws,” but of course the real problem is that he is a disaffected narcissist who, too cowardly to examine his own shortcomings, blames others, and women especially, for his suffering. He has much in common with the Bill Murray character, who plays the misanthropic weatherman Phil Connors in Groundhog Day, and as such is so imprisoned by his bitterness and self-absorption that his life is a recurring cycle of self-destructive behavior for which he learns no lesson or wisdom that might free him from his ongoing torment. 

Unlike the cantankerous weatherman who eventually frees himself from his cranky ways and learns how to become a grateful lover to Rita, the beautiful Andie MacDowell character, the misogynist has a low recovery rate and his journey goes from self-centeredness to an even worse degree of self-absorption, what academic gasbags call “solipsism.” His bleak prognosis can be attributed to his psychological profile that thrives on pathological lying and at the same time repels outside checks and balances to his skewed view of reality.

To give an illustration, I refer you to an athletic coach I used to know whom I’ll call “Ted.” He once boasted to me that his girlfriend came to their shared apartment to find Ted in bed with another woman. There was the predictable outrage and hostility. Pots and pans were thrown. Ted suffered punches, kicks, and scratches. But Ted remained calm and collected through it all, quietly dabbing the blood from the corner of his mouth. You see, he had a plan. His plan was both simple and diabolical. As he giddily explained to me, he simply denied to his irate girlfriend that there was a woman in bed with him.

“But Ted,” I said with disbelief. “Your girlfriend saw you in bed with another woman. With her own eyes. There’s no denying that.”

“But there is,” he said smugly. “By repeating the denial over and over, you plant the seeds of doubt and eventually she’ll see it your way.”

In his case, it took his girlfriend six months before she doubted what she saw with her own eyes. She finally apologized for questioning Ted’s fidelity.

The story is sick enough if we end it right there. But it gets worse. Ted explained that after his girlfriend said she was sorry, it was almost impossible for him to “forgive” her. In other words, he had come to believe in his own lie.

This manner of deconstructing reality and eventually believing it to be bedrock truth strikes the misogynistic gasbag as a show of strength and an opportunity to brag to his fellow misogynists about his trickery. In the company of men, the misogynist becomes his worst gasbag self, boasting about how brazen and imaginative he is in coming up with all sorts of fabrications that leave women powerless and bewildered. He operates under the undying conviction that his ability to lie and get away with it shows his triumph over women and life in general. He assumes that other men, like him, see women as “the eternal enemy” and any opportunity to dupe them is a victory for the Men’s Team. But in reality as the misogynistic gasbag believes in his own lies he will discover when it is too late that he has made a deal with the devil and must enter a condition of perdition for which there is no return.

One such gasbag who journeyed down the Path of No Return, we’ll call “Leonard.” I met him at an apartment complex I lived at in Bakersfield in the late 1980s. In his mid-thirties and recently divorced, Leonard was an attorney who had just transplanted to Bakersfield from Los Angeles. He had the long eyelashes of a camel, lambent blue eyes, and a head of curly sandy brown hair.  Jogging five miles every morning, the six-foot Leonard had a long-limbed, slender body and tanned albeit wrinkled skin, which he showed off by wearing an expensive collection of hand-painted Speedo briefs, some of which were adorned with leopard spots, others with zebra stripes, and others with tropical flora.

Leonard liked to “hold court” by the pool, bragging to men about his exploits with women or complaining about their inadequacies. He seemed to be a man of extremes, either exulting in his sexual conquests or ranting about how he was the victim of a world that was unbelievably stupid and that the other men at the pool should infer that he was, because of his intellectual superiority, someone so misplaced that the only way to soothe his pain was through endless forms of carnal self-indulgence.

The first day I met Leonard at the apartment pool he remarked to me in his high-pitched scratchy voice about how quickly his Speedos faded. He put the blame on the apartment janitorial staff who was obviously dumping too much chlorine into the pool, and these idiots continued to do so even after he had complained to the apartment manager repeatedly. As long as he believed the stupid janitors were conspiring to ruin his custom-painted bikini briefs, he had good excuse to be peeved. After all, they cost him seventy bucks a pop and he had to periodically drive back to L.A. to pick up fresh replacements.

His ongoing struggle with the pool’s high chlorine concentrations was just the first of a long litany of complaints that day. He also grieved about his state of affairs with women, especially the women of Bakersfield. Compared to the sophisticated, “fast and loose” women he dated in L.A., the Bakersfield women were “dumb hicks” who wanted to rush him into marriage, pop out several babies, and deprive him of the intellectual stimulation that he, a highly-educated attorney, thrived on. He said that Bakersfield women were so dumb that when he had put a personal ad that stipulated that he wanted “educated women,” he received several calls from women who had, they boasted, graduated high school.
At first, I found the cynical, snake-tongued Leonard engaging and hilarious. Like him, I too had recently transplanted from a big city to the smaller town. We had that in common, at least, and Leonard invited me to his apartment so that I could listen to what turned out to be a drawn-out lament of his personal woes, especially as they related to “the Bakersfield dating scene.”

As I looked around his apartment, I realized Leonard’s inability find “the right woman” had less to do with his living in Bakersfield and more to do with himself. The bare apartment wasn’t really a home but a cavernous holding tank, a sort of limbo for someone who refused to believe had had really moved to Bakersfield. Inside, I saw the beige drapes closed, keeping out most of the hot summer sunlight. The walls were bare save the serpent-like shadows cast from the dozen ties that were draped over his ironing board. The brown imitation leather sofa was covered with a plain white sheet. He slept there. Uninhabitable, his bedroom was crammed with strewn clothes, mostly running gear, law books, and suitcases, which he still used as drawers. In the center of the living room was a small television perched on two cinder blocks. It was permanently set on MTV with the volume turned all the way down. In the adjoining kitchen was a metal fruit bowl full of Tootsie Rolls. By the sink was a garbage bag of old popcorn. His refrigerator only held boxes of cheap white wine.

In spite of his high-status job, Leonard had much in common with a homeless person. He lived in unnecessary squalor. He had poor hygiene. He had dandruff, he smelled of alcohol, sulfur, and other fetid body odors. For all his pride and his fanatical attention to his custom-made Speedo briefs, he was incredibly blind to the fact this his breath smelled like rotten eggs.

In addition to living like a bereft homeless person, he pitied himself for living in Bakersfield, claiming that he had settled, however tenuously, in this “armpit” because a lucrative law firm had tempted him with a five-thousand-dollar bonus and a leather executive chair with his initials carved in it. In other words, Leonard had moved to Bakersfield for a measly six-thousand dollars’ worth of enticements.

I believed none of this. The real reason Leonard wanted to live in Bakersfield, as far as I could tell, was that he loved being a big fish in a little pond and he could enjoy preying on his victims in a town with less competition than in bigger cities. And prey he did. Every couple of months or so, the whole apartment complex would be rattled by the enraged screams of a young woman, wailing “You promised!” or “You liar!” After a while, everyone knew Leonard had just broken things off with another woman whom he had led to believe was in a serious, committed relationship. On one occasion the aggrieved woman became so spiteful that she made hundreds of photocopies of his mug shot and stapled it around the complex with a caption: “BEWARE! MAJOR SLEAZOID ON THE LOOSE!” I saw one of the photocopies high on a telephone pole and imagined the aggrieved woman must have used a ladder to get it so far beyond anyone’s reach. Leonard looked exhausted after spending the whole day tracking down the photocopies and spent the evening nursing his wounds by the apartment hot tub while drinking wine coolers and uttering inanities to himself.

The aftermath of his monthly breakups with their usual tantrums and retributions weren’t the only source of Leonard’s grief. In fact, there was something that caused him a far deeper sense of self-pity: After being emancipated from Leonard’s clutches and dating men who took them more seriously, these women would invariably enjoy a sort of rebirth whereby they matured, regained their physical and emotional health, and became, ironically, suddenly “fine catches” for Leonard who, seeing them in their newly transformed state, would seek to get them back into his life again. But now these women would have no part of him since he had come to represent a time in their lives when they were lost and imprisoned inside his pathology.

For example, one of his girlfriends seemed like a ditz as I heard her talk in her mousey voice all day at the pool. She whined constantly and seemed to have no self-respect as Leonard bossed her around and criticized her in front of all the other sunbathers. Inevitably, he broke up with her and I had forgotten all about her until about a year later when I saw her managing a restaurant. I barely recognized her. Her demeanor looked confident, poised, and mature. She stood taller. Her hair was attractively yet simply styled. She didn’t have the same lurid make-up caked on her face. Seeing me stare at her with disbelief, she smiled graciously, then said hello. I was still having a hard time believing it was her. I was about to tell her how much she had changed,  but before I could say anything, as if reading my mind, she said, “I know. I’ve grown up. I’m married now. I’ve got a job. Life after Leonard. It’s done wonders.”

She was just one of many who had undergone a similar rebirth. The After Leonard testimonials had become so abundant that the forlorn attorney was having a harder and harder time meeting women who had not heard of his bad reputation. And worse, all around him Leonard could see the wounded women he had dismissed as losers suddenly blossoming into mature, confident ladies. And he resented it. “Why couldn’t they be like they when they were with me?” he’d ask. “Why did they wait for me to break up with them before they grew up?”

He complained that it wasn’t fair. He believed their good fortune was obviously the result of their exposure to him, a worldly man with a “genius IQ”, and that it was he who had spurred them into the right direction. He would get drunk at the pool and tell everyone who would listen that he was their “starter boyfriend” whom they had used in order to prepare themselves for the “real” relationships that lie ahead. And they didn’t even appreciate what he had done for them. To the contrary, they had accused him of deceiving and exploiting them. The world wasn’t fair! Women were liars! Women were users who took the valuable experience they had gained from the great Leonard so that they could apply it to another, better relationship, all the while leaving poor Leonard in the lurch. “They were nothing before they met me,” he was fond of saying. “They were a blank canvass and I was the artist who painted their newly-shaped identities for them. And did they ever thank me? Ha!”

Pitying himself for being the “unappreciated artist” who had given life to a bunch of “blank canvasses,” Leonard medicated himself with greater quantities of alcohol and dated women who shared his fondness for drinking and who lived more and more on the fringes.
To justify his dating of marginalized alcoholics, he had developed a philosophy for which he was eager to share with the other men at the pool: Love was a joke. All you could expect was a relationship that, from its very beginning, was based on a clear foundation of superficiality and cynicism. You had to realize that all human behavior was rooted in self-interest and that love, therefore, was nothing more than a self-flattering illusion. It was better to have no illusions whatsoever and in fact it was far better for couples to actually hate each other from the very beginning. The hatred was more honest and realistic, rooted in the reality that relationships are all about exploiting your partner as far as she will allow you to. Armed with his “insights” and having no expectations of fidelity, Leonard felt safe from disappointment and believed that, wise and world-weary, he was smarter and better than everyone else.

It was around this time that the apartment manager evicted him. Leonard’s violations were legion. He broke all the pool and hot tub rules, drinking wine and beer out of glass containers and staying in the hot tub beyond the 10 P.M. curfew. But most of all, it was the noise he made in his apartment as his scorned girlfriends, overcome by tantrums, made such a ruckus that on several occasions the police had to be called.

After he unceremoniously left the apartment complex, I didn’t see him for over two years. Then one evening I went to a club to celebrate my new full-time teaching job in Los Angeles and I saw him by the bar. I did a double-take because I didn’t believe it was him. His looked shrunken and his skin was more leathery than I had ever seen it. His loose skin on his small head reminded me of a geriatric elf. I said hello to him and he seemed to struggle to recognize me as well. But then in a great outburst he called me “Hank,” tightly grabbed my hand, and pumped it up and down in an exaggerated handshake. I tried to let go of his reptilian claw, but his grip was firm and my struggle caused him to spill his red wine on my shirt. His breath was insufferably rotten and I tried to step back but he insisted on keeping his face close to mine.

“Shit, Hank. You’re still here? I thought we promised each other we’d get out of this hellhole a long time ago. Oh well. We’re still here, aren’t we. No place to go now. No one would have us.”
As if this last thing he said was funny, he erupted in a spray of bitter laughter and I smelled a billow of dank rot. I tore loose from him and backed away several feet. I decided not to tell him my name wasn’t Hank. Instead, I told him it wasn’t too late to leave this town. I was leaving for a new job at the end of summer. He narrowed his eyes at me as if my leaving was an act of betrayal. He then shrunk away from me, wobbled toward the bar, ordered another wine and turned around again. This time he wasn’t looking at me or anyone in particular. He was looking at the sea of women’s faces on the dance floor. He had no doubt dated dozens of them. Nodding his head, he looked proud as if he were acknowledging this fact, but then his face turned to an angry scowl. He pointed at the women on the dance floor, shook his finger, and shouted, “You were nothing before I met you! Do you hear me? You were nothing but a blank canvass in need of an artist. And did you ever thank me? Ha!”

He continued with his tirade like a homeless person on a busy street corner. Parachutes of spittle flew out of his mouth as he jabbed his index finger. He was writhing in the torment he had created for himself, a self-proclaimed expert on women who appeared to be trapped inside a bad Hollywood movie and who, unlike Phil Connors, would enjoy no character arc, no transformation, no redemption, no Third Act. Just the Second Act for which there was no end.

The Iconoclastic Gasbag

An iconoclast, in the best sense of the word, is an intellectual, a philosopher, a film maker, a cultural critic, a novelist or some other original thinker, who courageously skewers society’s sacred cows with razor wit and a supercilious playfulness that let’s others know how assured he is in his position. When he is authentic and effective at his craft, he is a vital presence to society, providing the necessary contrarian voice to those cloying icons that the mainstream too often blindly embraces as being sacred or beneficial to the human race. He is, like Mart Twain and H.L. Mencken, typically skeptical and contemptuous of sanctimony, piety, celebrity worship, political cant, alleged panaceas, and self-aggrandizing knaves and fools being elevated to the level of deities.  Not only does he target these overrated figures, pieties, and political ideas, he shows the danger behind the very idea of giving someone or somebody “a pass” or making them somehow beyond scrutiny and criticism. One striking example is the writer Christopher Hitchens who in his book The Missionary Position has excoriated one of the world’s beloved saints Mother Teresa as a fraud whose charity missions have, he argues, done far more harm than good throughout the world. He further accuses her of being a dogmatist first and a humanitarian second. Whether or not you agree with Hitchens, his critique of Mother Teresa stirs substantial debate about the manner in which charity and foreign aid can be misguided and create more problems than they solve. He also exposes the dangers of giving a person a license to do as she pleases and operate under a double standard because she enjoys sainthood. At the same time, though, his critics would point out that he exposes himself to unnecessary rebuke by some of his extreme vituperations, which have become part of his iconoclastic trademark.

Engaging in this type of iconoclastic exercise against a cherished figure can result in the critic being blacklisted, demonized, physically attacked, even killed. One film critic complained that he wrote a review in favor of Saving Private Ryan but that he criticized the sentimental ending. His generally favorable review of the film was ignored. What the film’s most ardent fans focused on was his minor criticism and they sent this film critic hate mail and death threats. People were so in love with the way the film had brought them in touch with their  “heightened humanity” that they were now going to have do defend the film against its adversaries, even if it meant kicking this film critic’s ass. The iconoclast is keenly aware of the contradiction between the “heightened humanity” people derive from their icon and their irrational compulsion to attack anyone who diminished, however slightly, their icon’s pristine virtues.

Another danger of the popular icon is that it is groupthink-driven. Its appeal is the result of people conforming to views they deem essential if they are to enjoy a sense of belonging. Therefore, people will agree that certain things are “good,  not because they really believe it to be so but because they fear that their disagreement will make them pariahs. One of my students, a seventy-five-year-old man from China, said that when he was in the first grade there was a rich boy who made a sculpture of a butterfly. Everyone in the class, including the teacher, gushed over how beautiful and well-crafted the butterfly was, largely in part because they were intimidated by the power of this boy’s rich parents. But my student, who was raised in the country and had no impulse for sycophantism, blurted in the class that he had seen real butterflies all his life and he knew something was wrong with the sculpture. The problem, he explained to the class, was that the butterfly had only two wings. My student knew that in fact butterflies had four wings. He had made the mistake of pointing this out while the students and the teacher were in the middle of rhapsodizing about the rich kid’s sculpture. After hearing his criticism, everyone in the class turned on him and the irate teacher sent him to sit by himself in a corner where he was scorned and shamed for the rest of the day. He had committed the sin of not only criticizing this popular rich boy’s sculpture but of violating the group’s communal veneration of a mediocre object.

Little did this student know, he was fulfilling the role of an iconoclast and as such he had to suffer the wrath of the people who want their icons left alone. The iconoclast is aware that his work will get him into trouble. He will be despised by the masses in part because he has the ability to see the demonic underbelly of sanctimony and piety, especially when the pious assert their self-proclaimed righteousness by persecuting the innocent. For example,  Shirley Jackson’s iconoclastic short story, “The Lottery,” shows how pious traditionalists can become barbaric in their determination to maintain their illusion of purity. Every year a small, isolated town has a lottery in which the “winner” is sacrificed for the sake of appeasing the townspeople’s tribal god and in turn of insuring a bountiful harvest. Jackson’s story depicts a Norman Rockwell apple-cheeked crowd who perform the lottery with all the politeness of church-goers. Behind their genteel manners, however, is their bloodthirsty need to “cleanse” themselves of impurities,  stoning an innocent woman to death in the name of maintaining tradition and group loyalty. Jackson’s story inflamed the passions of many readers and in 1948 after it was published in The New Yorker, it generated hundreds of hateful letters. There was something too painfully true about Jackson’s ability to depict in a short story the juxtaposition of piety, conformity, and ruthless violence. In other words, Jackson’s story held a mirror to thousands of “nice, average” Americans who found in the story a mirror reflection too disturbing to contemplate. In many ways the story foreshadowed the dull-eyed malignant pieties of Senator Joseph McCarthy who embarked on a witch hunt in which he attempted to cleanse America of its Communists, traitors, seditionists, and other phantoms he created for the sake of his self-promotion.

Americans’ pathological obsession with “purity” and their hysterical reflex to purge themselves of their perceived contaminants is also addressed by another great iconoclast Philip Roth in his novel  The Human Stain.  Writing about the irrational fervor that surrounded the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinski scandal, he describes America’s penchant for allowing itself to get caught up in a rabid form of “stone-throwing” suggestive of the townspeople in “The Lottery":

Ninety-eight in New England was a summer of exquisite warmth and sunshine, in baseball a summer of mythical battle between a home-run god who was white and a home-run god who was brown, and in America the summer of an enormous piety binge, a purity binge, when terrorism—which had replaced communism as the prevailing threat to the country’s security—was succeeded by cocksucking, and a virile, youthful middle-aged president and a brash, smitten twenty-one-year-old employee carrying on in the Oval Office like two teenage kids in a parking lot revived America’s oldest communal passion, historically perhaps its most treacherous and subversive pleasure: the ecstasy of sanctimony. In the Congress, in the press, and on the networks, the righteous grandstanding creeps, crazy to blame, deplore, and punish, were everywhere out moralizing to beat the band: all of them in a calculated frenzy with what Hawthorne . . . identified in the incipient country of long ago as “the persecuting spirit”; all of them eager to enact the astringent rituals of purification that would excise the erection from the executive branch, thereby making things cozy and safe enough for Senator Lieberman’s ten-year-old daughter to watch TV with her embarrassed daddy again.

The “persecuting spirit” that terrified Hawthorne in his day and the “ecstasy of sanctimony” that outraged Philip Roth was embodied in Kenneth Starr who represented both the Puritan’s hypocritical urge to castigate while bearing a voyeuristic, salacious grin. Great iconoclasts like Philip Roth and Shirley Jackson see the bullying, the posturing, and the hypocrisy behind the sanctimonious and the pious. These writers are members of a small iconoclastic confederacy that includes Gore Vidal, Camille Paglia, Stanley Crouch, Christopher Hitchens, George Carlin, Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and the writers for The Simpsons, to name some examples.

Alas, authentic iconoclasts with the kind of talent evinced by the aforementioned writers are hard to come by. A more common presence in the market place of ideas is the iconoclastic poser or gasbag, one who vainly enjoys seeing himself as an iconoclast and employs cheap gimmicks to posture himself as an iconoclastic thinker. He will for example assail easy targets, making fun of Michael Jackson, Geraldo Rivera, Courtney Love, Paris Hilton and other commonly ridiculed figures whose foibles, vanities, and delusions are so self-evident that one as to wonder why anyone bothers mocking them. This type of bullying in which the gasbag shoots dead fish in a barrel, as it were, says more about the gasbag than it does the target of satire.  Not surprisingly, iconoclastic gasbags never mock anyone until they deem it safe to do so, allowing the real iconoclasts to criticize something deemed sacrosanct before the gasbags piggy-back on the genuine iconoclast’s remarks.

When I was twelve years old, for example, I was too afraid to reveal my pent-up scorn for the piously popular TV show The Waltons, the sanctimonious film Billy Jack and the even more sanctimonious film Bless the Beasts and the Children until I saw them lampooned in the iconoclastic Mad Magazine. Only then did I feel I had permission to say nasty things about those pretentious productions. I would show my disgust for the shows by standing on the outdoor basketball courts during PE while singing their theme songs in a mocking voice, thinking I was a cutting-edge wise-ass. But in reality I was a coward who needed to wait for Mad Magazine to give me permission before I unleashed my invective. Iconoclastic gasbags are just as cowardly. They wait for society’s once beloved figures to suffer a backlash before they join the bandwagon.


But there is no reason to lament a twelve-year-old iconoclastic poser or the adult third-rate thinkers who try to pass as iconoclasts. The real cause of concern should be those authentic iconoclasts who, falling into their self-made traps, lose their edge and allow themselves to become iconoclastic gasbags.

The first trap is for the iconoclast to pander to his fans. They expect him to say the same old contrarian remarks about the targets they love to hate and, knowing who pads his wallet, he doesn’t disappoint them. He also fulfills his fans’ expectations because he knows he must face their wrath if they perceive him as a “sell-out” or as someone his fans can no longer define and call their own. When Bob Dylan didn’t cater to his fans’ expectations of his image as an Anti-Establishment Folk Messiah, he was labeled a betrayer and worse but in true iconoclastic fashion he blithely ignored his fans and deconstructed his own iconic image, re-inventing himself in ways that eluded his starry-eyed acolytes and consequently stirred their ire and disappointment. Lesser iconoclasts know what their fans expect and become slick, predictable, pre-packaged iconoclastic figures who let their followers write their script so that they and their disciples live happily ever after inside their self-imposed echo-chamber.

One example of the iconoclast who becomes so predictable and stale by conforming to his fans’ expectations is David Letterman. When his show was vibrant during its early years, Letterman deconstructed the late-night talk show, making fun of the hype, the celebrity worship, and the self-congratulation that comes with being a talk-show host. But at a certain point his ironic take on the late-night talk show became boring to him and he projected to his viewers that his show was a lamentable, dumbed-down enervating waste of time. His fans loved participating in Letterman’s self-loathing and misanthropy because they were “in” on the joke. But there was one problem: Letterman wasn’t joking. His contempt for the show seemed real, as it still usually does. But he keeps walking through his show while flattering his fans’ appetite for being hipster ironists.

The iconoclast’s second downfall is to become over strident, to the point of paranoia, with the target of his disdain and to lose his sense of proportion, even his sense of reality. One sad example is the great Gore Vidal who in his zeal to excoriate the American “corporate empire,” seems to lose his usual rational discourse in his profile of Timothy McVeigh, published in the September 2002 issue of Vanity Fair. In that essay he compares McVeigh to Paul Revere and refers to the soon-to-be executed killer as a “Kipling Hero.” Writing in Salon, Gary Kamiya observes that Vidal’s sympathy for McVeigh is a “grotesque and morally offensive position” and signals a downward turn in Vidal’s critique of the United States government:

At its most florid, which is frequently, Gore Vidal's prose style resembles the well-oiled musings of a professional wit on the banquet circuit, who regales his moist, heavily breathing listeners with elegant postprandial tales just outré enough to stir their digestive juices. But with his bizarre essay in the September Vanity Fair, "The Meaning of Timothy McVeigh," the expat contrarian has crossed into creepier territory. Vidal's increasingly untethered rage at the federal government, combined with his sympathy for a man he regards as misunderstood, leads him to more or less explicitly argue that McVeigh's murder of 168 people was more defensible than the government raid at Waco that killed more than 80 Branch Davidians.

Kamiya writes of Vidal’s “well-oiled musings,” which can produce the iconoclast’s third downfall: That he becomes too enamored, intoxicated even, with the sound of his own pungent voice so that his style blinds him to the deficiencies of his substance. One tragic example is H.L. Mencken downplaying the Nazi threat before World War II. He was too pleased apparently by the insouciant manner in which he grasped the rational realm of human behavior to fathom the demonic component raging inside Hitler and his sympathizers and thus failed to use his platform of newspaper columns to help warn the world of the evil threat to come.

If the iconoclast falls into any the above traps he will, to use the popular term coined by Jon Hein, “jump the shark.” He will have crossed the line between being an authentic iconoclastic and a raving gasbag whose bloviations have degenerated into self-parody. All the iconoclastic gasbag can hope for is that as people look back on his body of writings, his authentic iconoclastic critiques will be the ones most remembered. If not, his daring gadfly role will be ruined by the very thing that made him great—a rhapsodic voice that sounded so sweet to his ears that he forgot to exercise his sublime critical faculties on himself.

The Hipster Gasbag

Abby and I were both nine years old when, having a private conversation inside my room, she told me I could not be her boyfriend because I was not, like her, a “true hippie.” I had done my best to prove her wrong. I had grown my hair down to my shoulders. I had adorned myself with beads and a necklace featuring the peace symbol. I had made several flattering drawings of hippies, which had I taped to my bedroom walls. But to no avail. After Abby made her judgment that I was not of her rank, I vainly pointed to my art work, pulled at the hair over my ears, and reminded her of the many anti-Vietnam marches I had attended with my grandfather as I made my case that I deserved to be called a hippy just as much as she did. I will never forget her cocksure expression as she told me that, in spite of my sincere efforts, it was impossible for me to be a hippie.

And just why couldn’t I be like her? I asked, tears welling in my eyes.

She crinkled her nose at me in disdain and looked down at me with a supercilious gaze, then said, “Because you don’t know who Coyote Shreveport is, do you.” I shrugged and looked at her helplessly as she continued: “All real hippies know that Coyote Shreveport was the first woman to ride a chopper across the Golden Gate Bridge.” And then to rub it in she explained that she and her mother had recently had Coyote Shreveport over at their house for dinner. I knew nothing about Coyote Shreveport. I had not even heard of her name. Of course that was precisely Abby’s point: My ignorance of this hippie legend proved conclusively that I had no hippie credentials to speak of and that I was therefore unworthy of Abby’s affections.

I got over Abby quickly enough. But I will never forget her expression of smug certitude because she believed her knowledge of Coyote Shreveport made her vastly superior to me. Looking back at her childish arrogance, I now see that she had much in common with the modern hipster, a phony elitist who creates some arbitrary test that the initiate must pass in order to become a member of the club. Possession of some arcane knowledge or other becomes the gold bullion by which these self-described hipsters assert their alleged superiority over others.

Even more annoying, the hipster’s entire life is centered on proving how cool he is by obtaining knowledge about fashion trends, artistic movements, and budding stars, knowledge which remains elusive to the doltish masses and proves that the hipster is “in the know.” Because the hipster’s reputation of being cool depends on his ability to constantly demonstrate that he is in possession of knowledge that is on the “forefront” and “cutting edge,” he must by definition be a gasbag, giddily sharing his secrets with fellow aspiring hipsters and showing to them that he has “the pulse” of what’s new and important.

Because novelty is such a premium in the hipster gasbag’s life, he must be the first to declare that something is passé or obsolete. He in fact is responsible for coining the expression “That is so last week,” or “That is so five minutes ago.” Looking up the hipster lexicon in Robert Lanham’s The Hipster Handbook, we see that the outdated has been coined by hipsters as being “fin.”  Even the term “cool” is not cool enough and has been replaced with “deck.” Knowing what is “fin” and what is “deck” requires that the hipster exact ongoing diligence in monitoring what is new and what is passé. Once something that has become assimilated into the mainstream and is no longer hip, the hipster gasbag must pretend to have contempt for it, even if he secretly likes it. As Lanham points out: “Hipsters understand that cultural trends become fin the moment they hit the mainstream. Many Hipsters still like Radiohead, but they know better than to say so.”

Having first dibs on what is “deck” makes hipsters highly competitive so that they are always trying to upstage each other. For example, aspiring hipsters wear G-Star jeans, which not only look cool but cost over $150 a pair. Leave it to the hipster gasbags, however, to point out that there are the conventional G-Star jeans available at department stores for the masses, but then there are the more exquisite, hard-to-find G-Stars that have to be purchased underground. The hipster initiate, who doesn’t want to be like t