Norman Mailer: Articulate, but incredibly dumb?
Perhaps you'll agree when you read this:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16470
From the link: The Unburdened White Male
I mean really. REALLY. I roll my eyes when I hear people here and elsewhere repeat the old "No war for oil" line. I roll them again when I hear Bush compared to Hitler. I disagree with those who think Bush lied.
But this? Well, it it is just the most absurd thing I've ever heard. I cannot believe he is actually saying that George Bush went to war under false pretenses not for oil, not for domination, not for revenge of the father, not for distraction....but for the white male's ego.
Please tell me there is someone here who agrees that this is utterly insane. I know lots of folks who didn't agree with the war...but this particular reasoning just floors me.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16470
From the link: The Unburdened White Male
Quote:
As a matter of collective ego, the good average white American male had had very little to nourish his morale since the job market had gone bad, nothing, in fact, unless he happened to be a member of the armed forces.
As a matter of collective ego, the good average white American male had had very little to nourish his morale since the job market had gone bad, nothing, in fact, unless he happened to be a member of the armed forces.
I mean really. REALLY. I roll my eyes when I hear people here and elsewhere repeat the old "No war for oil" line. I roll them again when I hear Bush compared to Hitler. I disagree with those who think Bush lied.
But this? Well, it it is just the most absurd thing I've ever heard. I cannot believe he is actually saying that George Bush went to war under false pretenses not for oil, not for domination, not for revenge of the father, not for distraction....but for the white male's ego.
Please tell me there is someone here who agrees that this is utterly insane. I know lots of folks who didn't agree with the war...but this particular reasoning just floors me.
Comments
Originally posted by SDW2001
Please tell me there is someone here who agrees that this is utterly insane. I know lots of folks who didn't agree with the war...but this particular reasoning just floors me.
He's not the only one. I think it plays a part, even if subconsciously. I think Bush's 'cowboy' attitude is what's really being questioned here, and the influence that attitude had on the process.
Did Bush really say 'hey, I want to make the white men feel good so I'm going to war'? No, I don't think so.
I watched Town Bloody Hall at a friends house a year or so ago and it was a quite entertaining. What a prick he is.
But this? Well, it it is just the most absurd thing I've ever heard. I cannot believe he is actually saying that George Bush went to war under false pretenses not for oil, not for domination, not for revenge of the father, not for distraction....but for the white male's ego.
Please tell me there is someone here who agrees that this is utterly insane. I know lots of folks who didn't agree with the war...but this particular reasoning just floors me. [/B]
The war was so heavily sold for months and months (on the WMD premise) that Bush had no option to step back, no way out, no matter what the circumstance. Ari Fleischer was even asked during a White House press briefing a few days before the war started "if Saddam and his brass went into exile, could a war be averted, and he flatly said "NO". There was definitely a testosterone thing going down there...the administration could never, ever, in a billion years turned down this war: it is impossible to imagine Bush conceding to the anti-war crowd. The white male ego was a factor..not so much as massaging it, but more in not losing face.
Man, some of you have no sense of humor, Mailer is a lot of fun in his own abusive way.
Originally posted by Matsu
Man, some of you have no sense of humor, Mailer is a lot of fun in his own abusive way.
Not as much fun as P J O'Rourke.
" I have often been called a Nazi, and although it is unfair, I dont let it bother me anymore..for a simple reason.....
No one has ever had a fantasy about being tied to a bed and sexually ravished by someone dressed as a pinko liberal..."
from " Give war a chance " 1992
Originally posted by aquafire
Not as much fun as P J O'Rourke.
" I have often been called a Nazi, and although it is unfair, I dont let it bother me anymore..for a simple reason.....
No one has ever had a fantasy about being tied to a bed and sexually ravished by someone dressed as a pinko liberal..."
from " Give war a chance " 1992
This wasn't about testosterone. I agree Bush couldn't and wouldn't back off...but it wasn't for reasons of ego. Really guys...you don't believe that, do you?
Look, you know my thoughts on the war. You know I supported it. I know that many here disagree with it. Some have said it was simply Bush finsishing the job of his father. Some have said it was for oil and/or empire building. There's really no support for either of those notions (except to say that our attitude towards the Saudis would be different if we didn't need their oil, now wouldn't it?) There IS some support for Bush and company wanting to project American power into the region, stabilize Iraq and thereby begin to change the mideast...presumably with the main goal of reducing the breeding grounds for terror.
The point is, we can argue the above points all day (and we have). But, when Mr. Mailer comes out and says we did this basically just for the white male ego...that's just ridiculous. Oh, don't get me wrong...the war was very much about us showing that region whose shit is whose (so to speak), but it had nothing to do with ego. Think about the notion for a second: We did this because white males don't get as much satisfaction from sports? (He actually says this in the article). Wow.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh, don't get me wrong...the war was very much about us showing that region whose shit is whose....
To me, that means we did it for ego.
This wasn't about testosterone. I agree Bush couldn't and wouldn't back off...but it wasn't for reasons of ego. Really guys...you don't believe that, do you?
If it wasn't ego that prevented Bush from backing off, then what do you reckon were the reasons?
Originally posted by sammi jo
... it is impossible to imagine Bush conceding to the anti-war crowd...
Is it even remotely possible to imagine the anti-war crowd conceding to Bush? Their hatred for Bush is visceral, intense, almost palpable. What's behind their broken psyches?
Originally posted by SDW2001
Seriously,
This wasn't about testosterone. I agree Bush couldn't and wouldn't back off...but it wasn't for reasons of ego. Really guys...you don't believe that, do you?
Look, you know my thoughts on the war. You know I supported it. I know that many here disagree with it. Some have said it was simply Bush finsishing the job of his father. Some have said it was for oil and/or empire building. There's really no support for either of those notions (except to say that our attitude towards the Saudis would be different if we didn't need their oil, now wouldn't it?) There IS some support for Bush and company wanting to project American power into the region, stabilize Iraq and thereby begin to change the mideast...presumably with the main goal of reducing the breeding grounds for terror.
The point is, we can argue the above points all day (and we have). But, when Mr. Mailer comes out and says we did this basically just for the white male ego...that's just ridiculous. Oh, don't get me wrong...the war was very much about us showing that region whose shit is whose (so to speak), but it had nothing to do with ego. Think about the notion for a second: We did this because white males don't get as much satisfaction from sports? (He actually says this in the article). Wow.
The white male ego as per topic at hand is just useless bunk.
Bush putting America to war against Iraq has me a bit pissed.
Brace yourself for a Fellowship rant: (being this thread has an ounce to do with why we went to war in Iraq)
I have supported Bush with my vote both in Texas for Governor and in the last Presidential election. In the begining with all the mention of WMD etc. Bush used to sell this war I was for it. If Iraq was near able to produce nuclear WOMD I was for the war. After all, Saddam paid families of Murder Bombers who killed in Israel. My reasoning to support the war in Iraq was so that Israel or other neighbors would not be a target of WOMD produced by Iraq.
That was then,,,,
Now I ask myself as do countless others.. "Where are these WOMD?"
I want to know just where exactly these WOMD are...
I have to say that at this point in time Bush has lost my support.
Leadership is not when you lie to people to advance a cause, leadership is when you advance a cause based on support of truthful ideas.
I believe Bush has been a fraud to the American people.
End of Rant. Fellows
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
... I believe Bush has been a fraud to the American people.
Yeah, I'll bet Texas is just teetering on the brink of falling for Dean. With all due respect Fellowship, who are you kidding? You were swooning for Kerry months ago - long before you even dreamed of the missing WMDs as an issue.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Yeah, I'll bet Texas is just teetering on the brink of falling for Dean. With all due respect Fellowship, who are you kidding? You were swooning for Kerry months ago - long before you even dreamed of the missing WMDs as an issue.
Did I say Bush was not popular? No i did not.
I speak for myself zap not the state of Texas. I hope you can understand there is a bit of a difference there.
As for Kerry I am not voting for him either.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Did I say Bush was not popular? No i did not.
Did I say you said Bush was not popular? No I did not. I was simply needling you about how irrelevant your anti-Bush vote would be.
I speak for myself zap not the state of Texas. I hope you can understand there is a bit of a difference there.
Come on. Did you really think I didn't?
As for Kerry I am not voting for him either.
Whatever, you did defend Kerry when he got dissed in a thread several months back.
As for Mailer, he's blowing hot air, but it's certainly worth talking about. I see a lot of empty, macho talk coming out of the Oval Office (like the latest 'bring it on' challenge to Iraqi militants).
There is certainly an itch for the U.S. to go to war at least once in a generation. It's sad to see, but the old adage that "war is the only thing that makes real men" still lives, even after the horrors of two world wars.
What is it about our US leaders that causes them to pick a fight with weaker foes for little or no reason? See: Spanish-American War, Korea, Viet Nam, Grenada, Panama, Gulf War I & II. What's the deal?
Originally posted by Gizzmonic
Ah geez, I'm really sick of every thread degenerating into a self-indulgent attack on Fellowship. Grow up, please. That's not why this topic was created...
I know Fellowship gets attacked a lot but not by me. He chose this thread for his little rant and I called him on it. You don't like it? Too bad.
As for Mailer, he's blowing hot air, but it's certainly worth talking about. I see a lot of empty, macho talk coming out of the Oval Office (like the latest 'bring it on' challenge to Iraqi militants).
Empty? Where ARE our troops?!!!
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Is it even remotely possible to imagine the anti-war crowd conceding to Bush? Their hatred for Bush is visceral, intense, almost palpable. What's behind their broken psyches?
Oh I don't know.....maybe broken trust from their president?
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
I know Fellowship gets attacked a lot but not by me. He chose this thread for his little rant and I called him on it. You don't like it? Too bad.
Empty? Where ARE our troops?!!!
For the first time I agree with Fellowship on something.
Look Dubbya probably will win the next election knowing how things go. I do think he will be in trouble by then because of the economy but even when things are bad the republicans always seem to pull another rabbit out of their hat. In this case it may be in the form of no strong front runner for the democrats. That doesn't vindicate a single thing he's done.
About the macho thing. I do think it was ego. Only an immature jerk would dare an attack on our troops over there. Saber rattling and breast beating at it's most obvious.
Originally posted by jimmac
For the first time I agree with Fellowship on something.
Look Dubbya probably will win the next election knowing how things go. I do think he will be in trouble by then because of the economy but even when things are bad the republicans always seem to pull another rabbit out of their hat. In this case it may be in the form of no strong front runner for the democrats. That doesn't vindicate a single thing he's done.
About the macho thing. I do think it was ego. Only an immature jerk would dare an attack on our troops over there. Saber rattling and breast beating at it's most obvious.
Now why couldn;t you have admitted that earlier? That's really all (OK..well not ALL) I've been saying. You don't have to agree or like Bush, but at least admit the political reality. He's going to win unlesss something extradinary occurs, like a depression.