I try to write a parody of Bill O'Reilly's "truth" article "When the truth is a casualty," and it starts out like this:

When a truth is a commodity

Perhaps the most disconcerting thing about the Iraqi war press coverage has been the misleading headlines that have appeared in nearly all American newspapers. The words "fierce fighting" and "ferocious resistance" have been used time and time again to keep the American television viewer preoccupied while wizards on Wall Street reap, weep, keep, etc. On more than one occasion, I thought I was reading about Bill Clinton's escapades with Monica Lewinsky, then I realize it's all entertainment and distraction; that's what I'm hired for. But there was always one major problem with all the articles: American and British casualties have been light -- very light. And there's no way to bring attention to the socioeconomic class doing the actual fighting if things stay that way. I can't believe I [Bill O'Reilly] am writing this

but I, mtb, cannot finish the parody. It can go in a hundred directions, even a hundred directions at once, and it's as easy as pie to write such stuff, and it's always been fun, but what's the use? Why would it change an O'Reilly reader, or how many would it change? Why would it be worth entertaining myself, or targeted others, and how could I possibly desire to profit from that? Surely, it'd be the same exact commodifying of "truth" that my fake title pretends to ridicule...

The impulse to write satire and parody is there. It always has been. It's a pleasure to laugh and I've always enjoyed having that kind of fun and some friends have enjoyed my humour and liked my sharing it. Nonetheless, even if there is humour to be enjoyed, humour to be created, and a need to experience humour, I do not feel like laughing. I haven't, in fact, felt like laughing at things or enjoying myself for a few years now.

Perhaps others feel or have felt the same way. If that were so, then I would be inclined to think that other, uniquely human and nourishing emotions and psychological states are missing from the collective psyche as well. And if that is so, then I believe "we" have at least a hint as to where to go to counter the tremendous force by which the intolerance of ambiguity crowd of sociopaths are leading folks away from their souls and spirits.

These are, of course, deeply and genetically inherited richnesses of human experience that I am suggesting the Bushwackers are, perhaps even unbeknownst to them, themselves, hacking away from the present mindset. That is to say, such genetically vital stuff cannot truly be repressed for a long period of time (unless, perhaps, such repression would lead to considerable craziness, which, actually, probably would be the case), but I guess what I'm trying to say/think is that subsequent generations will, obviously, resusitate these "emotions" because they're plainly always within us, for good, in the first place. Perhaps, though, some of us can figure out ways to present the repression of these deeper, inherent emotions or the emptiness caused by their repression... Sorry if this is not so clear.

The Bushwackers cannot, for example, easily laugh at themselves, overdo their rubbing this "victory" in, show genuine compassion for others, etcetera ad infinitum. (My apologies that more particular and better described examples don't come to my mind just now.) Just the same, given the fact that they are, underneath their desperately macho and entirely fake personas, severely restricted in their emotional range and authenticity, how can their inauthenticity be revealed to the greater general population that they have beguiled, coarsened, numbed out, hypnotized into believing that, for example, watching a silly grinning automaton like Tiger Woods play in Hootie Johnson's Personally Owned National Treasure Master's Course Augusta is more pleasurable and nourishing than going out and playing golf, themselves, perhaps even on the vast majority of golf courses that permit both genders membership?