Nothing
It may not seem apparent to some as to why I should name this entry "Nothing." But when we see what the President's answer to the question of what the 9/11 attacks had to do with the war in Iraq, you'll see that the title becomes much clearer. Yes, we went to war in Iraq because it had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. How ingenious, Mr. President.
During a news conference last Monday, some irreverent reporter dared to ask the President a serious question. "What did Iraq have to do with that?" In response to the President's usual answer, "the terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East." Ah yes, all of the machinations of the Administration are unraveled here and now, in this simple little word- "Nothing." And so why is it that what happended on Sept. 11, 2001 must now reverberate in a country that had "Nothing" to do with the act of war comitted on our soil by Mr. Bin Laden? And why haven't we caught him yet? Maybe it's because we don't wish to catch him, and never did. We know that the Administration came into office itching to invade Iraq in January 2001. And yet the President makes use of twisted logic to this day. No, I don't believe that the President ever thought that Iraq attacked this country. I never heard such things mouthed in the media, though there were probably quite a few who did think so. But that isn't the point. What should galvanize every American was that the President sent us to Iraq precisely because it had "Nothing" to do with 9/11. Will he ever admit that he is wrong?
How Common Place the War has Become!
I am no longer frightened by the war in Iraq. I was frightened, however, during the lead-up to the war in late 2002/early 2003. What I thought would plunge America into an endless war of bloodshed has been true afterall, but why should I fear anything? I am in college, whereas I feared that I might get drafted to go and fight either this war, or some other one that the Administration thought expedient to start. But, alas, no draft has ever come. And I am in college! But should I think in so selfish a manner, when others no too older than I am have already died far more horrible deaths than I could imagine, who never had the chance to go to college, marry thier sweathearts, have kids, fashion a nice carrier, etc. ? OF course, we are lucky ones, those of us who are not left as charred remains, the lucky ones! But no! None of this dread matters at all. It is an illusion to deaden the conscience to the sufferings of others, kids even! Whether Americans or innocent Iraqis are slaughtered makes no difference. The rich man's war and the poor man's fight will never be inverted. It makes the entire meaning of human life absurd, even on the biological level, seeing as how those young men killed in the wars never had the chance to reproduce! But what am I to say concerning this utter absurdity, the fact that the young human male is starved for sex, but wastes his own species away in war? Perhaps this really is Darwinism playing out: the most masculine, the more virile, the most aggressive gender of species wiping itself out! Maybe the world will soon have more women than men. Has it ever occured that women account for so much less violence in this world? Perhaps we should have the added benefit of greater intelligence, seeing as how we have all heard the repeated mantra that women are smarter than men. Although I see an exception to this. I will name every man on my mind who revolutionized the way we think:
Plato
Aristotle
Epicurus
St. Paul
St. Augustine
St. Thomas Aquinas
Niccolo Machiavelli
Martin Luther
John Calvin
Galileo
Rene Descartes
Isaac Newton
John Locke
Voltaire
Leibniz
Kant
Hume
Nietzsche
Einstein
Hawking
(all geniuses)
And yet, NO WOMEN!
Ah, but I should at least count in Simone de Beauvoir (the only name apparent to me), who carried on an existential love relationship with Jean-Paul Sartre. They rejected all the conventional attitudes regarding romance and sexuality, and they lived in seperate appartments, leading seperate lives. But of course, i should probably include a section about the entire subject of the existential matter of the lowest, the seemingly lowest rung of the male gender being shipped off to war. It is because, I think, that young men are starved for sex, that they do not wish to die. But what makes them fight? I think it is only because we are viewing this current war in the age of the unbridled sexual revolution in which the idea of drafting young men could never work, all because the allurements of sexuality would create an aversion to sudden death, even gory and grusome death, where the frailness of the human body itself can be ripped apart, when our whole biology screams out for the "tenderness" of sexual gratification precisely because we live in the sexual age! I really think that there is an entire length of analysis, sociological, psychological, and physiological, that can go into the whole concept of machismo identity, and why it is that the human male may become extinct due to the lack of incredulity among so many of its members. Men are more starved, more urging for sex as a method of satisfying urges, seeing as how the female doesn't have several billion eggs looking for fertilization at the same time. Could this uniquely male trait of pointless aiming and aspiration be the explanation for his aggressive urges. Notice there being a unique allegory in the sense that the egg fulfills its purpose upon fertilization, while billions of sperm are wasted away in excess. There you have the male predicament. So little efficiency for the bulk of males, mainly young males. Perhaps, then, this really is their purpose in life, to be wasted away for the sake of those mature and older men at the top who are smart enough to rule nations and empires. At least some purpose is effectual. At least we take refuge in the fact that the military age male is bulky, strongly virile, and pumped up for action, ready to die if necessary.
But of course, I may sound too much like a feminist in saying of all these perceived anti-male things. But I realize that male domination may stem from a lack of existential consciousness, as Simone de Beauvoir noted in her book The Second Sex. Perhaps we should utilize her existentialism regarding the difference between sex and gender. Accordingly, gender roles are created through cultural conditioning, while sex is reduced to mere biological traits. Now, of couse, I realize that this runs counter to the thoughts I have considered earlier. But, if existentialism be true, then men can equally make themselves to be more feminine as women can make themselves to be more masculine. By this, I mean that males can end the trait of violence and domination given to them, while females can be of greater influence in the social and political sphere. I think that it is worth considering.
All that I have attempted to do is to show how I think that war and sex have somewhat of a deep relationship between each other. I have always considered unfair, in part, that in societies where men and women had greater equality, as in 1960's America, the young men fresh out of high school went to fight and die in Vietnam. We never asked women to do the same. Does this mean one is possibly condemned to death because of sex difference?
Of course, to think that men are as numerous in the world of academia as are women in most areas underscores the idea that all men are stupid or have a violent nature. Yes, there is that existential, as opposed to that biological element in that the poor men, the men at the bottom of the barrel are the ones sent to war. It is only a continuation of the western cultural attitude in ascribing to the male the virtue of courage, along with strength, which is nothing more than brute courage and brute strength, as opposed to the chivalry often credited to them. But yet, it is only on the condition that the male has more muscles than brains. But the whole culture is messed up.
It would be convenient for me to provide more Leftist cultural analysis stemming from all of the dominant academic circles, to include neo-Marxist, existentialist, psychoanalytic, post-structuralist, and critical theory views regarding this issue at hand in a latter entry.
It may not seem apparent to some as to why I should name this entry "Nothing." But when we see what the President's answer to the question of what the 9/11 attacks had to do with the war in Iraq, you'll see that the title becomes much clearer. Yes, we went to war in Iraq because it had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. How ingenious, Mr. President.
During a news conference last Monday, some irreverent reporter dared to ask the President a serious question. "What did Iraq have to do with that?" In response to the President's usual answer, "the terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East." Ah yes, all of the machinations of the Administration are unraveled here and now, in this simple little word- "Nothing." And so why is it that what happended on Sept. 11, 2001 must now reverberate in a country that had "Nothing" to do with the act of war comitted on our soil by Mr. Bin Laden? And why haven't we caught him yet? Maybe it's because we don't wish to catch him, and never did. We know that the Administration came into office itching to invade Iraq in January 2001. And yet the President makes use of twisted logic to this day. No, I don't believe that the President ever thought that Iraq attacked this country. I never heard such things mouthed in the media, though there were probably quite a few who did think so. But that isn't the point. What should galvanize every American was that the President sent us to Iraq precisely because it had "Nothing" to do with 9/11. Will he ever admit that he is wrong?
How Common Place the War has Become!
I am no longer frightened by the war in Iraq. I was frightened, however, during the lead-up to the war in late 2002/early 2003. What I thought would plunge America into an endless war of bloodshed has been true afterall, but why should I fear anything? I am in college, whereas I feared that I might get drafted to go and fight either this war, or some other one that the Administration thought expedient to start. But, alas, no draft has ever come. And I am in college! But should I think in so selfish a manner, when others no too older than I am have already died far more horrible deaths than I could imagine, who never had the chance to go to college, marry thier sweathearts, have kids, fashion a nice carrier, etc. ? OF course, we are lucky ones, those of us who are not left as charred remains, the lucky ones! But no! None of this dread matters at all. It is an illusion to deaden the conscience to the sufferings of others, kids even! Whether Americans or innocent Iraqis are slaughtered makes no difference. The rich man's war and the poor man's fight will never be inverted. It makes the entire meaning of human life absurd, even on the biological level, seeing as how those young men killed in the wars never had the chance to reproduce! But what am I to say concerning this utter absurdity, the fact that the young human male is starved for sex, but wastes his own species away in war? Perhaps this really is Darwinism playing out: the most masculine, the more virile, the most aggressive gender of species wiping itself out! Maybe the world will soon have more women than men. Has it ever occured that women account for so much less violence in this world? Perhaps we should have the added benefit of greater intelligence, seeing as how we have all heard the repeated mantra that women are smarter than men. Although I see an exception to this. I will name every man on my mind who revolutionized the way we think:
Plato
Aristotle
Epicurus
St. Paul
St. Augustine
St. Thomas Aquinas
Niccolo Machiavelli
Martin Luther
John Calvin
Galileo
Rene Descartes
Isaac Newton
John Locke
Voltaire
Leibniz
Kant
Hume
Nietzsche
Einstein
Hawking
(all geniuses)
And yet, NO WOMEN!
Ah, but I should at least count in Simone de Beauvoir (the only name apparent to me), who carried on an existential love relationship with Jean-Paul Sartre. They rejected all the conventional attitudes regarding romance and sexuality, and they lived in seperate appartments, leading seperate lives. But of course, i should probably include a section about the entire subject of the existential matter of the lowest, the seemingly lowest rung of the male gender being shipped off to war. It is because, I think, that young men are starved for sex, that they do not wish to die. But what makes them fight? I think it is only because we are viewing this current war in the age of the unbridled sexual revolution in which the idea of drafting young men could never work, all because the allurements of sexuality would create an aversion to sudden death, even gory and grusome death, where the frailness of the human body itself can be ripped apart, when our whole biology screams out for the "tenderness" of sexual gratification precisely because we live in the sexual age! I really think that there is an entire length of analysis, sociological, psychological, and physiological, that can go into the whole concept of machismo identity, and why it is that the human male may become extinct due to the lack of incredulity among so many of its members. Men are more starved, more urging for sex as a method of satisfying urges, seeing as how the female doesn't have several billion eggs looking for fertilization at the same time. Could this uniquely male trait of pointless aiming and aspiration be the explanation for his aggressive urges. Notice there being a unique allegory in the sense that the egg fulfills its purpose upon fertilization, while billions of sperm are wasted away in excess. There you have the male predicament. So little efficiency for the bulk of males, mainly young males. Perhaps, then, this really is their purpose in life, to be wasted away for the sake of those mature and older men at the top who are smart enough to rule nations and empires. At least some purpose is effectual. At least we take refuge in the fact that the military age male is bulky, strongly virile, and pumped up for action, ready to die if necessary.
But of course, I may sound too much like a feminist in saying of all these perceived anti-male things. But I realize that male domination may stem from a lack of existential consciousness, as Simone de Beauvoir noted in her book The Second Sex. Perhaps we should utilize her existentialism regarding the difference between sex and gender. Accordingly, gender roles are created through cultural conditioning, while sex is reduced to mere biological traits. Now, of couse, I realize that this runs counter to the thoughts I have considered earlier. But, if existentialism be true, then men can equally make themselves to be more feminine as women can make themselves to be more masculine. By this, I mean that males can end the trait of violence and domination given to them, while females can be of greater influence in the social and political sphere. I think that it is worth considering.
All that I have attempted to do is to show how I think that war and sex have somewhat of a deep relationship between each other. I have always considered unfair, in part, that in societies where men and women had greater equality, as in 1960's America, the young men fresh out of high school went to fight and die in Vietnam. We never asked women to do the same. Does this mean one is possibly condemned to death because of sex difference?
Of course, to think that men are as numerous in the world of academia as are women in most areas underscores the idea that all men are stupid or have a violent nature. Yes, there is that existential, as opposed to that biological element in that the poor men, the men at the bottom of the barrel are the ones sent to war. It is only a continuation of the western cultural attitude in ascribing to the male the virtue of courage, along with strength, which is nothing more than brute courage and brute strength, as opposed to the chivalry often credited to them. But yet, it is only on the condition that the male has more muscles than brains. But the whole culture is messed up.
It would be convenient for me to provide more Leftist cultural analysis stemming from all of the dominant academic circles, to include neo-Marxist, existentialist, psychoanalytic, post-structuralist, and critical theory views regarding this issue at hand in a latter entry.
posted by Bob at 9:56 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home