4th of July continues America's obsession with the mutilated body

In reviewing recent editions of the NY Times, I was struck by the July 4th edition, the front page of which is graced by a centered, in-color picture of one Brendan Marrocco, 23, who lost all four limbs in Iraq. I can't think of a better illustration of America's obsession with mutilated bodies than this choice for a front-page picture to commemorate the nation's birth. Not families in the park having a picnic, or attractive young ladies in bikinis soaking up summer rays, but a human being reduced to a head and torso. And I can hear mainstream America's sugar-coated spin on Mr. Marrocco's "situation:" "The young man is lucky that he lives at a time when we have the medical technology to get him on the mend. With perserverance and faith in the Lord, he'll be able to get back on his feet . . . er, I mean abdomen cartiledge. If he were living in another part of the world, there wouldn't be any hope for him!" Gee, maybe if America weren't a war-mongering shithole, the guy would still live in an intact human body and it wouldn't be an issue in the first place. I'm not sure that losing all four limbs is any better if you're an American than if you're not. After all, the guy can't even drive a car! Personally, I feel bad for Mr. Marrocco, but I don't see the point of putting his picture on the front page of the Times. I see it as an unconscious expression of a national pathology wherein humans accept the destruction of the human body as a necessary part of human life. What do people think happens in war? How many burnt, bloodied, mangled bodies does one have to see before one gets a point that is pointless? What difference does all this information and communication about the human cost of war matter when the wars never end? As always, Americans have better things to do and think about like . . .

. . . buy and wear circle lenses--colored contacts imported from Asia that make one's eyes appear larger because they cover part of the whites of the eyes, not just the iris. It would be bad enough if it were just braces-wearing teens sticking these things into their eyeballs, but even women in their thirties are caught up in the puerile, vapid craze. The FDA has warned that these lenses can deprive the eye of oxygen and result in blindness, you know, like when the eye--which is there to provide the human with sight--can't see. But the obsessive trend has caught on with women even in their thirties, like Joyce Kim, who says wearing circle lenses is just like "wearing mascara or eyeliner." I can't think of a more shallow perspective on one's own body than to regard one's own eyeballs as nothing more than an ornament. How alienated from one's own body does one have to get to equate putting a potentially-blinding lens on one's own eyeball with using makeup? How does this person think she is able to have vision? Does she think she is just a digital link or projection screen or something? Are her eyes there for her to be able to see or just for other people's aesthetics? As always, the obsession with circle lenses is fueled by the extreme conformity that typifies the digital age. Originally, Ms. Nina Nguyen, a student at Rutgers, resisted wearing the circle lenses, not wanting to risk her eyesight. But because everyone else at Rutgers was wearing them, she decided she had to also, and now she is a self-professed "circle lens addict." Since everyone else is doing it, that makes Ms. Nguyen think it's OK. Boy, the internet really has improved communication hasn't it? Now people conform and do things because they see everyone else doing it. Now how's that for the independent thinking online communication promotes! Clearly a step forward, no doubt. And also an encouraging sign that American universities promote an atmosphere of critical thought that resists blindly following whatever is popular at the time. For me, the circle lens is just another form of bodily mutilation: it poses a risk to one's eyesight that is completely pointless. Some advice for the females: if you're attractive, you don't need circle lenses. If you're not attractive, potentially ruining your eyesight will not change your bland physical appearance. The only thing worse than a physically unexciting woman is a physically unexciting woman who is so fucking stupid she is voluntarily blinding herself so she can look like everyone else. "Hey, meet my unattractive girlfriend-wife. Our relationship was kind of dull, until she went blind and now I have to do everything for her and we can't do things like go to museums or sight-seeing. Next month she's going to have an operation to have her body covered with tree moss, apparently that's a big hit in Mongolia." Whether they are pretty or not, your eyes are there for you to be able to see, not to be seen. You have objectified yourself to the point of turning your own eyes into the opposite of what they are obviously meant to be. Women who wear circle lenses are conformists with mundane perspectives on beauty and the meaning of their own human existence. The circle lens craze reinforces American's obsession with the mutilated body and illustrates how the digital era promotes stupidity as much as anything else.