2002-10-14 - 2:40 p.m.
Whoops, who forgot to write an entry for an entire month?
Tomorrow is the last day of my job. I'm trying to tear madly through all of my tasks today so I can spend good time trying to copy onto disks all of the images and fonts I've accumulated over my last year and a half (plus) at this place.
I am not sure what to say about this fucking war, by the way. Except perhaps that if George W. uses the term "cowardly" one more time, I will shit. This seems to have emerged as his (or perhaps his speechwriters') characterization of choice, beginning with the 9/11 "cowardly attacks on America" and continuing with his assessment of the recent bombing at a dance club in Bali. I suppose it is some transparent polarizing technique. Or perhaps a reassurance that the U.S. is still the hugest, manliest, toughest nation. But is anyone truly buying it? I don't condone these acts, but am I the only one who understands them to be somewhat gutsy, though terrifying and entirely objectionable? I don't condone the U.S. "leaders'" armchair warfare, either, or the ways in which the U.S. military utilizes the G.I. Bill to prey on class disparity for the few bodies that the nation will be willing to sacrifice to battle. And who is calling whom cowardly? This question of bodily harm and which bodies it affects (and how that may or may not weigh into these reductive accusations of "cowardice") makes me think about Ward Churchill's
Pacifism as Pathology, in which he comments on tendencies within non-violent and pacifist organizations in the U.S. One of the most interesting points he brings up is U.S. pacifists' support of armed struggle elsewhere in the world, for example in Central America, which contrasts markedly with their politics of resistance within the U.S. For me, this brings up questions of the ways in which U.S. residents (most specifically middle- to upper-class white residents) assume that bodily safety is an unalienable "right" for themselves. It also brings up the concept of armed conflict and distance, which ties into both these pacifist alignments with armed revolutionary struggle abroad (but certainly not in the U.S.), and also with the U.S. government's cocky decisions about bomb-hurling from the protected comfort of their well-guarded chambers and bulletproof vehicles. In any case, the strategic and manipulative use of the concept of cowardice to attempt to pull people into this puzzling war we have somehow ended up in is the weirdest kind of macho posturing on the part of the nation. I'm sick of boner-related, comic book good-guy/bad-guy politics.
Last week, I went to an anti-war rally. I'm still at work on a zine that is generally about the change in political and cultural climate in the U.S. and abroad after Sept. 11, 2001 (please contact me about submissions, we are still taking them for a couple more weeks: newwavepirate@yahoo.com). But it's feeling like the same routine of resistance, and its familiarity is making me nervous. I wonder what others are doing, what work we can do to articulate resistance against this new U.S. penchant for preemptive everything (check out this (article on the "preemptive arrests" in DC written by Will Weikart). Because it's freaking my shit out.
I wonder also what ideas people have around the ways in which this concept of preemption and the ways in which it is circulating at this political moment (and historically). The ways in which it uses anticipation and protection (as distinguished from defense) as justification has some pretty creepy implications on many levels.
Anyway, those screws are out of my arm. I have a cute scar. Inspired by this and other pretty scars I've seen on many of my friends, some of us are hoping to open up a fashion line entitled "Scar-Bare Fashions ™." The clothing items will consist of a variety of little numbers (coats with tails, tube socks, elbow-length gloves, hot pants, etc.) with clear panels to expose and feature our highly attractive scars. Keep your eyes peeled. Perhaps we'll open some sort of boutique.
I haven't ceased my minor amateur obsession with copyright law. The other night, after hearing about a couple of slightly odd occurrences of some people finding themselves in photographs hanging up at art shows and in cafes (having taken part in parades and/or performances and being photographed there), I have extended that curiosity to incorporate legislation around photography, rights, privacy, and so forth. Do stalking laws intersect with laws around who one can take pictures of and when? Does a person's role in a public event weigh into it (e.g., who was performing and who was a spectator, etc.)? Does anyone else find this rather fascinating?
If anyone has any words of advice for this poor sod who is going to be using monster's soon-to-be unemployed time writing up lots of graduate school applications, please let me know. Example statements of purpose are especially appreciated!
Supersonic,
Boots.
