Peer review of paper number 104
1. Please do not change somebody else's review. 2. Please put your name at the end of your review.
Enter plain text and/or HTML tags.
I must admit that I am not entirely sure of what this paper is all about, but then again if I am to be one of those little shits ("Definition of a little shit is that heís always right" ) then what I have to say is right - or better yet neither right nor wrong, to remove morality from the equation, but instead just me and my own cracked subjectivity trying to make some sense out of this paper and the world that spawned it. I read accounts of New York post-9/11, the smell of smoke and dust still lingering on near "ground zero", and my own thoughts dodge New York for a trip to Japan where ground zero meant something entirely different. Even more ironic is that American soildiers now lead you on guided tours of Hiroshoma and Nagasaki. The poverty of international relations and understanding is blindingly glaring as a war against terror cannot sustain itself so the war on terror becomes a war on states - ah now we can understand its them that are the bad guys. Bush points his finger emphatically and declares a sure shot as bombs are dropped on a car in Yemen. No war declared in that area, yet an extra-judicial killing is justified - no trial, no evidence needed. "Hundreds of thousands visit the www dot counterpunch dot org website daily. Why? For its radicalism without cant. Because itís fresh, jargon-free, and full of facts you wonít find anywhere else..." The problem is that you can't inspire people with facts you need a symbol. Bush has America and its resultant mythology that is drawn upon in the suppossed crisis. People counter with the facts are bound to fail, and fail they do as the war machine gears up once again. Its an interesting read as it breaks with standard academic writing conventions yet still says soemthing about the world we live in. The confusions and contradictions, the turmoil and lack of direction, the absurdity of political divisions based on left-right, ideologues hiding behind facts twisted to their perspective, or facts presented as truth to refute the other side. The ultimate proviso is that at some point you fall into one or the other's trench as a body for counting and not for what or who you are. You are either with us or against us (Bush again), the political rhetoric obscures more than it elucidates. Just a few impressions that leapt to mind as I read this paper. Michael Francis
Exit without saving