So, are you gonna watch tonight's V.P. debate? I'll probably listen to it on the radio, if only to remind my radio how lucky it usually is that I usually listen to something better, like John Tesh.
It's hard to care when you not only don't care, but you don't even want to care. You would punch yourself in the nose for caring. I mean, I want the extra hideous candidate to lose, and I want the slightly less hideous candidate to win with such a slight margin that he gets a hernia from watching the TV so hard on election night. But ask me to care about a debate between the people these two paragons of hideousness have chosen to play their professional besties on TV? Bleah.
I tell you what, arrange me a debate with someone else, anyone else, and I'll listen up. Here are some ideas:
1. Padre Pio vs. Gianna Molla. Oh, sure sure, they're both saints and whatnot, with the stigmata and the martyrdom and so forth. But mainly what they stood for in their lifetimes (at least, heaven help me, in the circles that I travel in) is that Gianna Molla wore pants -- PANTS! -- when she was skiing; and Padre Pio once set a woman on fire when she went in to his confessional, and he refused to give her a bucket of water until she promised to get rid of her pants. Or something like that.
And then I ventured into the comment boxes below the post.
And thought, as I so often do when I read comments at the Register: Holy cannoli, what are these people smoking?
You had a commenter chiding Simcha for the sin of making light of holy things/people over the suggested debate between Padre Pio and Gianna Molla--oh, I'm sorry, not "chiding," but giving a "gentle reminder," in the same way that smacking the wrong fork out of someone's hand at a fancy restaurant is a "gentle reminder" re: etiquette. You had a commenter taking Simcha's tongue-in-cheek suggestion of a debate between Ann Romney and Sarah Palin over their children's unusual names to be a slam against children. Or children's names. Or children with interesting names. I'm not too sure.
You had commenters fuming over Simcha's rough equivalence-that-wasn't between the evil baby-killing monster Barack Obama (said in all charity, of course!) and the wise and saintly men God has raised up to end abortion in America once and for all (despite the fact that neither has promised to do any such thing--that's irrelevant!). You had a commenter (clearly one who doesn't know Simcha) suggest that the reason Simcha doesn't much care about the election is because Simcha is disgustingly rich and thus doesn't have to worry which man is elected in terms of social policy.
You had a few forays into the pants-debate, but on the whole these were mild compared to the other sorts of comments. Thank the dear Lord nobody brought up veils; the Register's servers might have experienced a total flaming meltdown.
Seriously: what gives in Catholic comment boxes these days?
Sometimes I think it's all just a huge game of signaling along the lines of what people sometimes did in high school. Commenters are just trying to sort themselves into the following categories:
- I honestly agree with the blogger.
- I honestly disagree with the blogger.
- I say I agree with the blogger because I am/want to be one of the blogger's Super Secret Inner Circle of Cool Friends.
- I say I disagree with the blogger because I am too cool to belong to the blogger's SSICCF, and/or because I belong to some rival blogger's SSICCF, from which I frequently take potshots at other bloggers including this present one whose comment boxes are my plaything.
- I am holier than the blogger, and will prove it by my strong charity and abrasive humility and the sheer violence of my kindliness.
- I am clearly not as holy as the blogger, by which I mean that I'm perfectly holy enough but the blogger is holier-than-thou and should go to confession immediately for being such a sanctimonious hypocrite (so unlike myself).
- I am highly amused that the blogger attacked one of Other People's sacred cows (such as homeschooling, attachment parenting, Republican candidates, or giving children snacks).
- I am highly outraged that the blogger attacked one of MY sacred cows (such as homeschooling, attachment parenting, Republican candidates, or giving children snacks).
- I'm just here to attack the blogger's grammar/spelling/punctuation.
- I'm just here because I love to tell Catholic bloggers I've never read before how disappointed I am in them. I do the same thing to my children on a daily basis, because I love the word "disappointed" and the power it has to rob sweet little faces of their innocent smiles (mwuahaha)...