
I know enough about war to realize it’s a kind of subconscious global pastime. I don’t pretend to know much more about it, which gives me a sense of defiant joy (which I protect fiercely). But I will say that over the past month, there’s been plenty of wartime montages going through my head and living space. For me, this leads to cool bouts of existentialism and return trips to the refrigerator for microversions of beer. I am not making light—I am just telling you how I deal with hazy information. All of war is hazy. In practice, and in truth. The beer is for the freedoms I’m meant to exhibit.
Anyway, three events occurred in rapid succession for me—I watched The Tillman Story, I received news that Osama Bin Laden was killed a full 24 hours after everyone else, and director/photojournalist Tim Hetherington was killed in Libya as he went about trying to search out the heart of the haziness with a video camera. These are all unrelated events, ranging from semi-recent to entirely recent, with a common denominator being “killed.” All of them are dead—atheist, pantheist, fanatic. All of them were individual parcels of manias, religion, neuroses, convictions and passions. All of them obscured at some point by media. All o
f them mysteriously driven.
Starting with Pat Tillman, who walked away from a coveted position in the definitive American psyche—an NFL football player for the Arizona Cardinals—to join the Army. Why he did this? Presumably because of a gnawing sense of obligation to live up to his military examples (relatives) in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. The Tillman Story goes so far beyond what you’d expect, particularly when you’re not sure what you’re expecting. The documentary is fascinating not for capturing the All-American football player with the mysterious, patriotic bent, but because it demystifies. It plays at the fog of war itself, the underlying agendas, the cover-up of how he was killed, the family of his who won’t stand for it, and the size they become (pebble-like) when up against The Thing (high-ranking, untouchable military officials). It serves as a small, barely visible lantern in the haziness of war, zeroed in on in a courtroom and in the Afghanistan mountains. In effect, it is a story of obfuscation being at heart of things, with Pat Tillman’s face attached as a hero-tinted campaigning tool. The trick the film turns is a co-mingling sense of trust and distrust, the rising and falling ceilings of each. This thing touches on the outposts of what we know we don’t know. Hell, even Jon Krakauer wrote a book about Tillman,
Where Men Win Glory: The Odyssey of Pat Tillman, that could be shelved in either fiction or nonfiction and be right in both instances.















comedy Western spin on the Wile E. Coyote and Roadrunner cartoons. In that movie, Arnold Schwarzenegger is a dipstick do-gooder protecting Ann-Margaret from the villainous Kirk Douglas. Douglas' character is wittier, more charming and all-around more creative than the dullwitted hero, but the forces of order are constantly working against him, just like poor Wile E. Coyote, super-genius. The Coyote is a fundamentally repressed part of the modern psyche, which has been stripped down and mass produced by the homogeneous order. We want to side with the villain against the stifling forces of control and celebrate true individualism, until we realize that cute bird would be eaten. The Coyote cartoons maintain the agony of the paradox (between desire and morality), whereas The Villain cheats and lets Douglas get the girl.
Back when I was living in Detroit, I had a philosopher friend who was as smart as they come, but as bugfuck crazy a right-winger as they come (well, the right-wing can get pretty goddamn insane, so maybe I exaggerate a bit for rhetorical effect, but he was a good deal nutty, regardless). He was an atheist with a militant libertarian streak whose silver tongue could convince you of the rational basis for just about any right-wing position if you didn't have every 't' crossed and 'i' dotted in your own arguments. Over drinks, we'd see who could one-up each other in our beliefs of how many freedoms a person should be permited. I'll save our conclusions for the faint/pc of heart, but suffice it to say that his ideas for what should be socially permissible (at least, by law) might make the most ardent ACLU attorney blush. On social issues, having his view in ascendancy in the political world would only make for what I would consider a much better society. But, then again, he'd also proclaim his admiration for dipshits like Jesse Helms. 
