| George Costanza’s mother got it wrong.
I don’t know whether you caught the story last week, but Australian scientists have just proved what most of us knew all along: masturbation is good for you. Men aged 20-50 who engage in "risk-free" ejaculations five times a week, it seems, are a third less likely to develop prostate cancer than those who don’t. Why? Frequent "flushing" of the system prevents the buildup of dangerous carcinogens.
So, we enter the era of guilt-free wanking. Schoolboys everywhere need no longer disappear furtively into their bedrooms, mumbling something about "homework" or "Nintendo." Instead, they can proudly declare that they’re off to engage in some preventative health care. "Back in 10 minutes, Mom."
It was, of course, a sense of guilt that we originally imposed on ourselves. As Billy Bragg once said, "If God didn’t mean us to masturbate, how come He made our arms this length?" Yet Victorian sensibilities about sexuality – or their denial thereof – shrouded that most natural of acts in a dense layer of myth. You know – boys who "did that" went blind, got hairy palms, developed warts, became listless, and so on.
And so masturbation entered the broad catalogue of 19th-century imperial hypocrisy. The British Empire spread ideas of democracy and liberty around the world, while routinely trampling on their practice in the countries it conquered. At home, womanhood was idealized and sanctified, while women themselves were denied such basic rights of citizenship as the vote. And nobody admitted to masturbation, yet everyone carried on doing it.
And that brings us to last week’s other story: the Bush-Blair mutual admiration society.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair flew to the U.S. last week in the wake of mounting domestic and international criticism of his support for the war against Iraq. In particular, he sought to defuse criticisms that no Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) had been – or were likely to be – found. "If we are wrong," Blair told Congress, "we will have destroyed a threat that at its least is responsible for inhuman carnage and suffering."
This is fair enough. There can be few sane people who lament the downfall of Saddam Hussein, however it was achieved. Indeed, and to no-one’s great surprise, Congress gave Blair numerous standing ovations for his vigorous backing of Bush’s decision to wage war on Iraq. "I’m deeply touched by that warm and generous welcome," Blair responded. "It’s more than I deserve and more than I’m used to, quite frankly."
But in the press conference that followed, the show of mutual support between the two men reached even greater heights. "Tony Blair is a leader of conviction, of passion, of moral clarity and eloquence," President Bush gushed in front of reporters. For his part, Blair thanked Bush for his leadership "in these difficult times," and declared that he had acted with "tremendous conviction, determination and courage."
The press stared on, dutifully scribbling down the words, but on TV the exchange resembled nothing so much as an act of mutual masturbation. Both Blair and Bush exited the exchange looking remarkably satisfied, having stroked each other’s ego and salved each other’s conscience. The rest of the world, meanwhile, looked on – a passive, somewhat embarrassed witness to this little display.
What had just happened?
Well, the original causus belli – Iraq’s ownership of and preparedness to use WMDs – was no longer an issue. The failure of the allies to discover even one usable nuclear weapon or a single flask of anthrax in post-war Iraq did not matter. The war was justified because… well, because it was justified. Even if they had been mistaken on the question of WMDs, Blair announced, "That is something I am confident history will forgive."
Well, maybe it will, maybe it won’t. Who knows? After all, "history" does not exist as some abstract sort of observer, casting Zeus-like judgments on the world below. Instead, it is the product of both partisan and impartial human beings, who seek to arrange past events a logical and comprehensive manner.
Again, I am sure that most historians will concede the outcome of the war – the apparent ousting of Saddam Hussein – to be an admirable result. Whether they will so enthusiastically endorse the deception and duplicity employed by Bush and Blair to commit their respective nations to war in the first place, however, is more open to question.
Does it matter? Have we entered a post-UN era of international relations, where even the pretence of justifying military action is no longer taken seriously? Will the U.S.-led war on Iraq serve as a precedent for future raids on Iran, North Korea, Syria and so on – not on the basis of the imminent threat that each nation poses, but simply because there is no longer the international will to oppose such offensives? In short, shall history be reduced once more to the role of lackey, meekly endorsing the will and action of the mighty?
Like a pair of schoolboys accused of masturbating, Blair and Bush have long denied any inappropriateness in their actions. The alleged threat of WMDs was, in effect, equal to the alibi of "just doing some homework." But now that that alibi has been blown – thanks in part to disclosures made by weapons inspector David Kelly, whose sudden death has yet to be fully explained – both men have abandoned even the pretence of denial.
Instead, they are content to appeal vaguely to the future verdict of history, much as the rest of us may now refer, without guilt, to the findings of Australian scientists.
Pass the Kleenex, please…. |
Copyright ©2003 FFWD. All rights reserved.