|
Woe
and Thoreau fill hockey arena
At one minute before the period break, the capacity crowd at the KY Coliseum stands to scream some more, the beast of a man in front of me with a mullet and visible stink lines rising from his butt crack downs beer numero viente y ocho and I have the urge to pee in Walden Pond. I have nothing better to think about. I don’t like hockey, I don’t like Rustlers and I want to kick Rusty in its flat androgynous crotch, so that’s why I’m content thinking of interesting places to relieve myself. On the way down the steps I imagine the funky suction hose toilets used on space shuttles and that scene in “Apollo 13” when Jim Lovell watches his urine fly through the cosmos after a flush. Unless E.T. ran into it on the way home, there’s a little bit of Jimmy still flying though space at this very moment. Back to Earth though, and as I leave the bathroom I decide that Walden Pond would be a thinking man’s place to do business despite the solitude of space. That’s why during that first period of hockey I invented a game I like to call “The Henry David Thoreau Challenge.” To understand the challenge, you need to have read “Walden” or at least have an idea of what Thoreau was trying to accomplish by living in solitude for over two years of his life in a log cabin he built by a pond in 1845. It was what he called an “experiment in living.” It was his theory that man is rich in proportion to the things he can do without. In other words, by living a minimalist lifestyle separated from society, true happiness can be found. He explains himself by saying, “I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived.” He grew beans, observed nature, and wrote in his journal. That’s the book for you, a giant “Dear Diary” filled with bean growing stories, and it blows my mind to know that English teachers make you read that crap. Today he would be an unemployed marijuana farmer. He would reek of the ganja and tell you to “never let the man get you down!” before writing a song about a flower. It was his goal to do as little as possible, lengthen the days as long as possible, and learn about man in his individual element. The “Henry David Thoreau Challenge” examines exactly that. To play, look the Bud-light zamboni straight in the eye and ask yourself, “Could I possibly be happier living my life alone if the people in this coliseum represent what mankind has to offer? ” As “I’m Too Sexy” blasts through the coliseum speakers, I tell myself it would definitely be simpler. Since my introduction to these ideas in high school, I’ve always contended that Thoreau was a jackass who wasted two years of his life, but attitudes can easily change when you realize how stupid other people can be. If going to hockey games makes me uncomfortable, why have I been three times? Perhaps I feel that there is something to learn about our culture amidst the chaos of Wichita’s pride and joy. Karl Marx would notice the separation of the classes with the nobility staring down at the mullet mongers and bourgeoisie from their private boxes. Freud would call the hockey sticks phallic symbols hinting at repressed homosexual desires among the players. Jim Morrison would expose himself and perform “Light My Fire” as a duet with Susan Knowles to save the populous from a traumatic billionth playing of “We Will Rock You” at a sporting event. Jesus would show up to do experiments on how much beer a man can drink before it becomes a sin in preparation for a killer kegger he’s throwing in Jerusalem. I would notice that despite how much I dislike many of the individual elements seen at this spectacle, I can still have fun. Annoying, yes, but this is my city in a nutshell, and I should never want to ignore it completely. Ideally, the amount I learn should be worth more than the peace of mind I would have saved by staying at home. As much as I would like to be a hermit, and as much as I would like to never see this place again, my instincts won’t allow me to be an unsocial animal. Thoreau was the original hippie, but a hippie without friends. Being by myself teaches me nothing except that I exist…one minute left. I’m outta here. Terrell, a junior English major, hails from Wichita Falls.
Who
should win war is wrong question
“Who do you hope wins this war? Saddam Hussein or George W. Bush?” This was the final question presented to an Iranian Ambassador during an interview on CNN’s “Wolf Blitzer Reports” Saturday evening. I expected the Iranian to become indignant, I would have, but he did not. He merely answered the question without answering it. The truth is, it was the wrong question. Since when has this current war in Iraq, or any war in history, been about more than disagreements between two men? Better still, is this war about the personal differences between Hussein and George Jr.? Perhaps we have been mistaken in believing that it is the will of the people that matters. However, if we are to understand Wolf Blitzer correctly, this entire war has been reduced to a grudge match between Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and U.S. President George W. Bush. As the total number of dead and wounded continues to increase into the thousands, perhaps it is time for the people of those countries involved to ask their leaders, “Exactly what are our young men fighting and dying for? And why?” Some say the current conflict with Iraq is a continuation of the United States’ War on Terrorism. Many people associate the Arab community’s mindset with that of fanatic suicide bombers. And even more Americans are incorrectly inclined to associate the so-called “Iraqi Regime” with the terrorist activities of Osama bin Laden, with or without any actual concrete evidence to back this opinion up. Sadly, both of these common perceptions are actually extreme misperceptions. The United States’ War on Terror began as a defensive measure, justified by the need to prevent another tragic incident such as the one we experienced on Sept. 11. However, we have no evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda have anything to do with one another, aside from a mutual dislike of American politics. Well, there is one other commonality shared by these two groups—both came to power as a direct result of past U.S. actions and interference. Yes, the monsters that terrorize us now are the past creations of our own government. When the United States unofficially assisted Afghan freedom fighters (as we then referred to them) in their battle against Soviet occupation, we trained, supplied, and armed the very groups that we now refer to as “criminals” and “terrorists.” But in true U.S. fashion, we came, we saw, we left. And the Afghan people were left to fend for themselves. We helped them when it was convenient--when it hurt our rivals in the then-Soviet Union. All we left them to recover their war-torn country with were loads of stinger missiles, the power vacuum that ensued was all too easily filled by men like Osama bin Laden. And how about all those stinger missiles that Iraq has been using to shoot down American and British aircraft? Where do you think they got them? That’s right, from the United States. Or how about their ability to make chemical weapons? Where do you think that technology came from? That’s right, the United States. We have Donald Rumsfeld to thank for that little present. And now we’re in Iraq fighting a war that seemed impossible to stop, no matter how many voices protested it. George W. Bush spent so long hunting down the monster of our government’s creation, Osama bin Laden, alongside the good people of the Northern Alliance that the American people began to get bored with it. These are the same good people who still ship loads of opium into the world, some of which ends up on American streets. Is this Bush’s answer for keeping his public opinion ratings up? Insert bad guy here…enter Saddam Hussein, the United States’ “old reliable” on the list of bad guys. After all, it is a proven historical fact that a good hate target has always been a sure-fire tactic for rallying the people to your will. In the words of the late, great Mr. Rogers, “Can you say Fascism? Sure, I knew you could.” Brown is a sophomore English major.
Historical hysterectomy “I” is given for incomplete, and MSU’s history department deserves one. On the basis of what freshman history courses cover, students could easily be left with the impression that the United States ceased to exist after President Kennedy. The majority of history professors at MSU admit that due to poor planning, they never find time to teach beyond 1960. Many teachers barely tiptoe past World War II—an era they usually stomp on in detail for at least two weeks. It leaves students wondering what happened in the last four decades. MSU and the state of Texas require all undergraduate students to take two history courses: Survey of American History to 1865 and Survey of American History since 1865. Granted, it’s a Roman Empire-size amount of dry facts to cover in two semesters, but time is no excuse for leaving students dangling before the Beatles even made their first appearance on “The Ed Sullivan Show.” Freshmen who want to learn anything more recent must get professor approval to take specialized advanced undergraduate courses like Contemporary America 4163 or History of Women in the United States 4673. Better judgment should be used by history professors in pacing the course curriculum in the required undergraduate courses. The teaching of recent U.S. history is more important now than ever. While the United States is fighting another war in the Persian Gulf, many students don’t understand the first Gulf War. They have no idea where U.S. troops have been in the last two decades or even which president sent them there. By historical standards, it’s not too early to talk about recent events. Those who believe students will absorb the facts of recent history in an autodidactic approach are sadly mistaken. If tenured professors aren’t willing to talk about Korea, the Civil Rights and Women’s Movements, Vietnam, the fall of the Berlin Wall and communism, it’s a good indication nobody else will say much either. Imagine writing a biography and leaving out an entire 40-year span of your life? That’s what’s happening and it shouldn’t be. Editorial by Alexis Stoddard, managing editor.
Letters
to the Editor
|
