Mark Millar's Nemesis, ironically one of the lamest supervillains ever

Superman has Lex Luthor; Clarence Darrow had William Jennings Bryan; I have whomever just met me at a party—everybody needs a nemesis. An opposite number gives definition and continuity to your life, like the page around the print. If you have no enemies, you’re forced to suspect that you aren’t doing anything worth thwarting. Fortunately, contemporary American culture is chock full of nemeses, given as it is to arranging every concept and endeavor around a series of dialectic* opposites. Most of those people are famous, which, for the normal person, makes the process of selecting a nemesis somewhat daunting. But that’s the beauty of nemetry: because it is, by definition, a reciprocal relationship, having a famous nemesis immediately situates you on the continuum of fame. Just look at Glenn Beck, whose inchoate hatred for the President has made him a figure of national attention. Or, better yet, look at the infuriating video of Bill O’Reilly after the jump, and feel your anger elevate you to the level of irrational commentator, too, if only in the form of yelling at the screen.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyHzhtARf8M&feature=player_embedded#

This “backstage conversation” with Bill O’Reilly is clearly shot in his den. Second, regular readers will recognize the continuation of his idiotic Tides Argument, in which he presents his failure to understand various natural phenomena as proof that there must be a god. My favorite part is when O’Reilly challenges any nonbeliever to explain why there is a moon and stars, a topic that literally thousands of books address. My second favorite part is when he becomes a millionaire with legions of dedicated followers.

Not that you have to be famous and powerful to make enemies. As Jesus demonstrated, you just have to suggest that we be nice to people for a change. This Slate/Financial Times essay by an Oxford professor who has decided to give most of his annual income to charity is remarkable for two reasons. The first is the simple elegance of his generosity, and the second is the insane vituperation it provokes in the comments section. Normally, I would never advise anyone to read internet comments, but in this case they really complement the piece. They almost never compliment it, though. Sample: “This will create redundancies (waste) in charity, deprive governments of revenues (non-profit rules), and cause the private sector to lose diversity (job loss due to loss of demand)… For one person doing this, it’s just a man doing as he sees best. When we attempt to make any kind of broader generalization, I think we start heading toward some kind of dystopia.” Ah, the dystopian horror of a society in which everyone gives his extra money to poor and sick people—oh god, the horror.

Some university geek on a used bicycle is a fine archenemy for John Q. Internet, but a famous person requires a higher class of nemesis. Glenn Beck, for example, has Karl Marx, Woodrow Wilson and Chis Matthews, whom he completely unloads upon in this video for his criticism of Michele Bachmann. Matthews took issue with Bachmann’s claim that John Quincy Adams “worked tirelessly to end slavery”—so tirelessly that, as Matthews pointed out, he didn’t prohibit it when he had the opportunity to help write the entire United States Constitution. Matthews called Bachmann a “balloon head” for this interpretation of American history, which is kind of an apt metaphor when you think about it. Beck, though, loses his shit even more than usual, probably because he and Bachmann are cut from the same cloth.*

How come progressives don’t have a Glenn Beck? Oh yeah—because then there would be two of him. That would suck, as astute conservative Conor Friedersdorf points out in a guest spot at the Daily Dish. The right’s ability to produce TV-friendly demagogues is a product of its ideological straitjacketing and vice versa, which makes the old “where’s our Rush Limbaugh?” complaint ring dumb. A shortage of knee-jerk blowhards is one of the left’s few advantages these days. If contemporary conservatism’s facility at producing entertainment personalities so popular they influence policy isn’t what’s wrong with the movement, then it is its most pronounced symptom. Do you wish that freshman Democratic representatives did everything Keith Olbermann said? Trick question—there are no freshman Democrats.

And now for my ongoing Kids In the Hall re-fixation. You thought that phrase in the headline was just a non sequitur, didn’t you? For shame:

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnyCJDYONSU&feature=player_embedded

Combat! blog is free. Why not share it?