My Spidey Sense about Burning your Suit

Jim Hall creates a near perfect metaphor concerning most people’s fears regarding the lack of power they have to change their lives, to become someone different, something new. Spiderman believes that once he recreates and changes himself all the boredom of the life he has now will simply disappear. This is false he will soon grow tired of racing in circles all day and he will then need to once again recreate himself.

It is nearly impossible for a person in modern society to wake up one morning and just reinvent themselves. Society stresses normativity, outsiders and people who are drastically different or who burn their suits a lot are seen to be less productive, less successful than those who stay in the same suit their whole lives. Spiderman forgets that who we are is not determined by the inability to burn our suit but the scratches and stains on said suit. These scratches and stains define our personal experience; to burn these scratches to recreate our lives we would simply erase part of ourselves that would forever be forgotten. The boredom of life is something that can be easily over come. Although he can never stop being a crime fighting super hero he can in fact change how, when, and where he responds to the commissioner’s calls.

Although I would say the act of burning your suit is bad in all cases is it necessary in some. After a great disaster, or a uncontrollable change in someone’s life you are able in my mind to change yourself for the better. You can change your suit only if the matching suit that your partner wears is also burned. The act of burning our own suit is only advisable when your current suit is torn and you must fill the void. A person’s suit is part of themselves and it is unadvisable to quickly change their suits based purely on boredom with their lives.

Creon and W. Bush Stepping Over the Line

In Antigone, Creon states that the safety and security of the state trumps the rights and liberties guaranteed to the individual. Creon’s position is identical to that of our previous President George W Bush. Creon and Bush agree that when it comes to safety and well being of the state as a whole the rights of the individual are not as important. Creon uses this logic to justify his laws regarding the movement of the deceased. Bush used this logic to justify two wars, warrantless wire taps, the passing and extension of the Patriot Act, the use of torture, and countless other offenses.

I agree that in times of great distress and danger certain measures must be taken to counterbalance any opposing force. Yes it was necessary to eliminate a terror network that had attacked our sovereign land. But was an extended occupation and forcing of western culture and morals into the void necessary? Bush twice invaded a country on the sole basis that they where a threat to the state. Granted the first was more warranted than the second but threat to the state alone does not justify full scale military operations that are nine years later still in full force. Bush and Creon both take these justifiable measures to the extreme, where the measures become a harm to the individuals they try to protect. Bush has undoubtedly crossed the lines of constitutionality with his War on Terror. Republicans and other war hawks are quick to jump to the defense that anything possible to protect the state is required during a struggle.

The extent to which one can take away individual rights by using this justification is unlimited. Sure it was important to gather intelligence about the inner workings of Al Qaeda but water boarding a human for two and a half minutes is too much. Creon does the same as Bush; he suspends and violates a practice and action that even the Gods find important and meaningful. Bush and Creon both face repercussions based on their use of this vacuous justification. Bush witnessed among other things a decrease in foreign approval of the actions of the United States. Creon faced the outrage of Antigone who invoked the power of the gods and Haemon who appealed to his fathers logical side.