There Was Only One Catch...

I am back in New Jersey for those of you that knew I went home. I thought I would have posted pictures and stuff, but breaks are made for breaking promises. Sorry to all (or any) of you that wished to see pictures. I might post some later.

I have recently been reading War As I Knew It by General George S. Patton, Jr. It makes for a compelling read given the current military situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also serves as an interesting comparison to Catch-22. I am not sure if Heller read War As I Knew It, but Colonel Paul D. Harkins's footnote on page 184-6 so strongly resembles an episode in Catch-22 that I laughed out loud in the airport as I read it. Here it is, in its entirety:

"On or about the fourteenth of December, 1944, General Patton called Chaplain O'Neill, Third Army Chaplain, and myself into his office in Third Headquarters at Nancy. The conversation went something like this:

General Patton: 'Chaplain, I want you to publish a prayer for good weather. I'm tired of these soldiers having to fight mud and floods as well as Germans. See if we can't get God to work on our side.'

Chaplain O'Neill: 'Sir, it's going to take a pretty thick rug for that kind of praying.'

General Patton: 'I don't care if it takes the flying carpet. I want the praying done.'

Chaplain O'Neill: 'Yes, sir. May I say, General, that it usually isn't a customary thing among men of my profession to pray for clear weather to kill fellow men.'

General Patton: 'Chaplain, are you teaching me theology or are you the Chaplain of the Third Army? I want a prayer.'

Chaplain O'Neill: 'Yes, sir.'

Outside, the Chaplain said, 'Whew, that's a tough one! What do you think he wants?'

It was perfectly clear to me. The General wanted a prayer --- he wanted one right now --- and he wanted it published to the Command.

The Army Engineer was called in, and we finally decided that our field topographical company could print the prayer on a small-sized card, making enough copies for distribution to the army.

It being near Christmas, we also decided to ask General Patton to include a Christmas greeting to the troops on the same card with the prayer. The General agreed, wrote a short greeting, and the card was made up, published, and distributed to the troops on the twenty-second of December.

Actually, the prayer was offered in order to bring clear weather for the planned Third Army break-through to the Rhine in the Saarguemines area, then scheduled for December 21.

The Bulge put a crimp in these plans. As it happened, the Third Army had moved north to attack the south flank of the Bulge when the prayer was actually issued.

PRAYER

Almighty and most merciful Father, we humbly beseech Thee, of Thy great goodness, to restrain these immoderate rains with which we have had to contend. Grant us fair weather for Battle. Graciously hearken to us as soldiers who call upon Thee that, armed with Thy power, we may advance from victory to victory, and crush the oppression and wickedness of our enemies, and establish Thy justice among men and nations. Amen.

REVERSE SIDE

To each officer and soldier in the Third United States Army, I wish a Merry Christmas. I have full confidence in your courage, devotion to duty, and skill in battle. We march in our might to complete victory. May God's blessing rest upon each of you on this Christmas Day.

G. S. PATTON, JR.

Lieutenant General

Commanding, Third United States Army

Whether it was the help of the Divine guidance asked for in the prayer or just the normal course of human events, we never knew; at any rate, on the twenty-third, the day after the prayer was issued, the weather cleared and remained perfect for about six days. Enough to allow the Allies to break the backbome of the Von Rundstedt offensive and turn a temporary setback into a crushing defeat for the enemy.

We had moved our advanced Headquarters to Luxembourg at this time to be closer to the battle area. The bulk of the Army Staff, including the Chaplain, was still in nancy. General Patton again called me to his office. He wore a smile from ear to ear. He said, 'God damn! look at the weather. That O'Neill sure did some potent praying. Get him up here. I want to pin a medal on him.'

The Chaplain came up next day. The weather was still clear when we walked into General Patton's office. The General rose, came from behind his desk with hand outstretched and said, 'Chaplain, you're the most popular man in this Headquarters. You sure stand in good with the Lord and soldiers.' The General then pinned a Bronze Star Medal on Chaplain O'Neill.

Everyone offered congratulations and thanks and we got back to the business of killing Germans --- with clear weather for battle. P.D. H."

So there you have it. That screams Catch-22 all over it. Patton's demand for the prayer, the fact the cards weren't issued on time for the planned attack, the very prayer itself, it all is disturbingly comical. I wonder if literary analysis has been done comparing Catch-22 and War As I Knew It. That's something I want to look into, but given that school starts tomorrow, I probably will not have time.

I pray that everyone enjoyed their holidays.

Call Me (Ish)Camel

First:

"In the fields the plowing is done with the most peculiar combinations of animals. The peasants either use a horse and a camel, a burro and a camel, a bull and a camel, or a bull and a horse. I am informed that they cannot use two camels because they fight each other. Any animal hooked up with a camel becomes disgusted and loses interest in life" (War As I Knew It, p. 19).

Maybe I'm hooked up to some invisible camel.

Second:

"Only the learned read old books and we have now so dealt with the learned that they are of all men the least likely to acquire wisdom by doing so. We have done this by inculcating the Historical Point of View. The Historical Point of View, put briefly, means that when a learned man is presented with any statement in an ancient author, the one question he never asks is whether it is true. He asks who influenced the ancient writer, and how far the statement is consistent with what he said in other books, and what phase in the writer's development, or in the general history of thought, it illustrates, and how it affected later writers, and how often it has been misunderstood (specially by the learned man's own colleagues) and what the general course of criticism on it has been for the last ten years, and what is the 'present state of the question.' To regard the ancient writer as a possible source of knowledge--to anticipate that what he said could possibly modify your thoughts or your behaviour--this would be rejected as unutterably simple-minded" (The Screwtape Letters, p. 150).

This relatively long passage came to my mind immediately this morning as I watched Banned from the Bible on the History Channel. The show dealt with questioning why many early Christian texts were not included in the New Testament. The issue of the validity of those texts was not raised. The Gospel according to Mary was not included because the Church would not accept a defiant female voice. Some of the other apocryphal books were too Gnostic. No one discussed, or even raised the possibility, that the apocryphal books were not included because they were not true. They looked at nearly every possible angle: the influences of the texts on early Christians; how the apocryphal books were consistent with the New Testament, and where they differed; how early or late the various books were composed, and their possible authors; how they were recently discovered; what motives the early Christians had for including and excluding certain books; everything except the question: "are these true or not?" It shocked me that such an obvious question was not raised at all.

I guess even a devil cannot lie all the time.

That's all I care to post for now. I'll try to get some pictures up.

Disarm

I'm coming home,
I'm not bound anymore
On the brink of nothing
I'm just starting something.

I am dog boy,
Overwhelmed,
Unemployed
An arsenal of outbursts,
But I'm just saying it first.
I don't want to lose
Everything that we grew.
I'm not cutting you down,
I'm just carrying the axe.

Knowing it's half bad,
Knowing its a little sad,
And there's blood on our hands;
I hate this.
No one at the wheel,
Everyone is here to feel.

I'm coming home.
We aren't sound anymore,
I can't build a purpose
In this falling structure.

I'm not tearing it down,
I just can't find the sound.
I'm disarming the bomb before it goes off.

Knowing it's half bad,
Knowing it's all smiling sad.
And the gun in my hand is empty.
I am Mr. Guilt;
Everyone is here to feel.
I thank you all so much for my next trick,
Next trip,
Drive home.

(What's happening)
(Let's go)

No hard feelings.

~Bad Astronaut

Does Anyone Read This Anymore?

I hope not. If no one has perceived by now how inferior my page is in the blogosphere (which may not be a "sphere" at all), then at least there is the realization that I do not update anymore: a cause to abandon reading this page altogether. I post anyway: to waste time, to avoid responsibilities.

Today, as most of us know, was election day. Who are what we were voting for, I have not a clue, probably like most Americans. I have a vague idea of what the elections are for: the House and the Senate and various other positions, but I do not know who was running, or what the candidates' political agendas were. I did not even read the news on who won. Ignorance is bliss, they say.

I usually feel guilty on election day for not voting. I do not vote for a multitude of reasons, ignorance being the primary one. If I am not at least aware of what the issues are, who is running, his or her stance, or even what the House and Senate really do (I have forgotten a lot of what I learned in AP Government), what gives me the right to put my opinion on a ballot and attempt to say who is supposed to run our country? An uninformed voter is dangerous. But the effort of keeping up with politics is taxing, especially when one could not care less what Kerry said about the soldiers in Iraq (or the Republican-run government), or could not care less about any other mudslinging that usually occurs--not only during elections, but throughout the year(s).

Everyone, however, is political to some degree, as Orwell points out (quite rightly). Even the statement: "I am not political," has political connotations: not being a member of a party or involving oneself in politics makes a statement about the party system and politics itself. So I confess that I, if reduced to confining myself to a party, lean heavily toward libertarianism (if the link to Lew Rockwell's website did not give you [O reader, should you exist] that indication). Naturally, the guilt that I felt today for not voting led me to see what on Lew Rockwell's website could justify my own ignorance, laziness, et cetera. I found Jeff Snyder's article, which, if you have the time, is good to read.

Snyder brings up an interesting--and valid--point: voting does not change things. We have all been taught that it does; that our opinion matters. But does it? Snyder clearly thinks it does not:

"If the Republicans retain control of the Congress after the history of the last six years, they will conclude, rightly, that they can essentially get away with anything, confident that their base will never abandon them as long as the party leadership and its associated spokesmen in talk radio, newspapers and evangelical Christians can continue to successfully portray the Democrats as closer to Pure Evil in the lesser of two evils sweepstakes known as elections. If the Democrats gain control of Congress, or at least the House, there seems precious little cause for celebration. This is the party that, given a President who lied us into an unjust and illegal war, who admits violating statutes and the Constitution and arrogates to himself the right to exempt himself from laws, cannot even bring itself to promise that, if it obtains majority control, it will end the war as expeditiously as possible, repeal the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act, defund the President’s illegal activities or commence impeachment proceedings."

We, as a nation, are stuck in the mess we are in, with little (if any) hope of change despite the election today. This is some sort of game, Snyder posits, that we believe we can win. But even if the parties do change on election day, "it is a delusion to believe there are two parties which stand for different principles, when one party never repeals or revokes the acts made while the other party was in control, but leaves them standing while pursuing its own, new agenda." This statement rings true: I cannot remember a time when a change in the Executive, Legislative, or Judicial branches of government really changed anything for me. I hear things: once we had a surplus, now we are in (huge) debt; the economy was doing well, now it's doing poorly, et cetera, but daily life goes on. I went to work, or school, I did my daily activities, and though prices went up (like for gas) they never did go back down, making it hard to distinguish the cause between inflation, greedy business owners, or those running the country. Whether a Democrat or Republican is in office, the status quo appears to be in tact. Change really comes through action and not an affirmation of your opinion, as Snyder tells us. I agree with him.

Snyder does not want to dissuade anyone from voting, as he states in his second paragraph. If you (O reader, if you are still with me) did, all the more power to you. I remind you that I looked up the article to avoid feeling guilty, and found the argument interesting. You should really read the article, as Jeff Snyder is far more eloquent and brings up more points. I think I have spent enough time already.

It's Just Language...

I have neglected this for too long now, and even though I have a ton of stuff to do, and a ton of stuff to say about New Jersey, I will postpone those musings for now. In its stead, I will use the cheap bloggers link device in order to not neglect this thing, but not spend time posting something original. Cheesy, huh? At least I didn't misspell "bank" in Cyrillic.

The American Drive

Utah















Iowa





Illinois

Where I've Been, Where I'm Going

Ferry-Land









Monumental





I've Got An Ape Drape


The George Washington Bridge


Majestic


The Best Ad In NYC


It's Always Time for Hofstra


Benjamin Franklin


Thomas Jefferson


This Is Not a Building


That's nice...


But the Sculpture Sucks


Socrates or Bust





Celestial


Harold and Omer

Why Does Britney Shpears...?

I have pictures from the East Coast that I will post, an E. Coli scare that I possibly could mention, and probably fifteen points I could make on the state of the Middle East, but instead I will post this: Oops! She's done it again!

Enjoy!

Eddie Munster Eating Oatmeal And Drinking The Unrest Cure During The Third Reich, When Property Is Not Theft, Nor Man's Invention.

"The rise of the Quakers, with their studied rejection of secular authority and distinctions of social rank, was particularly ominous, and the Baptists, though in fact comparatively innocuous, were always associated with the excesses of the notorious Anabaptists of Munster a century before, while the Fifth Monarchists' belief in the imminent return of Christ to reign on earth for a thousand years with his saints had obvious and profoundly disturbing political implications. Economic depression and continued unemployment enhanced the general working-class unrest, and it was no coincidence that in April 1649, with food prices still rising, Gerrard Winstanley and his Diggers made their famous occupation of common land on St George's Hill, Surrey, denouncing property as 'a Norman invention'."

Stuart England, J.P. Kenyon, p. 180.

"You're Not Fun, You're Fat."

And this may be why.

Eroticaphile.

Because I usually forget the answers I provide in useless surveys that I take to make myself feel witty (I am by no means accusing you of such a thing!), here's the question and your answer that I am responding to:

"4. Believe in love:
Do people not believe in love? I wasnt aware of this lack of belief. That takes cynicism to a new depth. How does one argue against the belief in love? I want to know. Please send me a message if you know."

(Please note that I assumed you were not being sarcastic when you asked for someone to send you a message if they know, so I am not being weird.)

First of all, I had a big problem with "love" from my senior year of high school (it goes way back) until my sophomore year of college. The problem that I had with love lay in its definition. Most people, normal people, people that do not really think about defining words, would give me ostensive definitions, pointing to some action and saying, “That is love.” It was clear to me (being ever cynical) that those examples could be instances of spuriousness. Someone could be pretending that he or she was in love for some ulterior, selfish motive (free dinner?). While I admit that it is highly unlikely for all of those instances to be selfish, logically however, finding one selfish person acting as if he or she is in love is enough to discount the ostensive definition. Simply performing the actions that a person points to as love does not necessarily make one love.

Those with whom I spoke who thought about it more would give me definitions of “sincere and ultimate devotion,” “thinking of another person or persons more than you think about yourself,” etc. These may be better definitions, but my cynical mind thought of instances of torture in which, as in Orwell’s 1984, someone puts himself before the person he or she supposedly loves. Can someone truly tell me that Winston did not love Julia simply because he caved in to his fear of rats? Even in not so extreme situations, is it possible to put oneself before the beloved? People can be fickle beings, and what they say they love at one point of time can change later on or under different circumstances.

What is more, “love” itself can refer to various kinds of relationships. There is the love between family members, between friends, between lovers, between people and objects, between people and animals, etc. The intensity of the emotion varies so much so that it is hard to see if the same term truly encompasses all of those relationships. The Greeks divided love into “philos” and “eros.” Philos was used to refer to the more amicable type of love, whereas eros referred to the intense—often physical—kind. This distinction does not exist in English as far as I know, and that makes love twice as confusing. For instance, when a girl tells me she loves me, she usually means it in the philetic (I know, I made up a word) sense, even though sometimes I ardently wish (and in some cases believe) she means it in the erotic sense. This gets even more confusing out of context, or in a context that can make the statement seem equivocal (as in an ending to a drunken phone call). People say all the time that they love others, and I believe many hardly know what they mean when they say it.

Given this problem of definition, it was much easier to avoid the whole question of love. And if one does not know what love is, then how can one believe in it?

I admit that the argument proffered is a weak one for many reasons, and that is part of the reason why I believe in love now. But, as one who did not believe in love for a time, that was the basis for my lack of belief.

Let Freedom Burn

For now, we can still burn flags. In a way, Rothbard lives.

Courtly Behavior

After two years of working for a lawyer, I finally went to court (Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of San Diego, North County Division) yesterday. I had to drop off a file to be picked up by an attorney who would continue (postpone) an afternoon hearing as a favor for our office. The judge had insisted that we appear to continue the hearing, and since my boss's associate went on vacation as of Friday, we needed to get another attorney to appear for us to continue that hearing.

After leaving the file with the bailiff, I decided to stick around for a few minutes and watch the proceeding. The Respondent was representing himself, and the Petitioner had an attorney representing her (apparently working for free, as he indicated to Judge Isackson). The issues before the court were property issues (the Petitioner's 401K, the community residence, attorney's fees paid from community funds, etc.), but the Respondent kept bringing up child custody issues. He kept telling the court that he had tapes (which were of course not submitted as evidence) wherein the Petitioner had indicated that she did not even want to have the children. That was the whole thrust of the Respondent's argument; he barely said anything in response to the issues before the court (the Respondent did show a lack of understanding of community property when he could not understand how paying attorney's fees from money earned during the marriage constituted community funds).

Some advice to those who choose to appear before the court in propria persona: please at least read the local rules for the particular county in which you will appear. If poring over a voluminous tome discussing the rules of court does not appeal to you, then get an attorney. While attorneys tend to be expensive (though the attorney for Petitioner was working "gratis," as he told the judge), it will save you the embarrassment of being off topic in the courtroom, and you will have a better chance of getting what you want.

The court took a fifteen minute recess to give the court reporter a break. The judge said she would give her rulings after the recess. I left then, partly because I had to get back to work, and partly because I did not really care whom would receive which property. It seemed really trivial. Plus, I now had a better idea of what my boss does in court. I, however, do not want to follow in my boss's footsteps.

Gradually Graduating in Gradations

(Note: All of these pictures were taken in Los Angeles, California. Weird, huh?)

Mine, Not Mine, All in Vain.

"The period between Passover and the festival of Shavuot is known as the period of the Omer. There are many customs and traditions attached to this period. There are many activities for this, such as 'Bringing the Omer,' 'Counting of the Omer,' and No weddings."

I guess that's enough.

Admit To Fraudulence.

Compare:

"He was invading my personal space, as I had learned in Psych. class, and I instinctively sunk back into the seat. That just made him move in closer. I was practically one with the leather at this point, and unless I hopped into the back seat, there was nowhere else for me to go" (McCafferty 213).

and

"He was definitely invading my personal space, as I had learned in Human Evolution class last summer, and I instinctively backed up till my legs hit the chair I had been sitting in. That just made him move in closer, until the grommets in the leather embossed the backs of my knees, and he finally tilted the book toward me" (Viswanathan 175).

Apparently Kaavya Viswanathan, one of the youngest published authors (she's 19) and a Harvard student, wrote a book (How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life [a miserable title, no?]) that bears certain similarities to Megan McCafferty's Sloppy Firsts (another miserable title, yes), published in 2001. It is currently under investigation according to the San Diego Union Tribune. (By the way, I got all this information from an article in the San Diego Union Tribune in the April 25, 2006 edition entitled "Similarities found between 2001 novel, 19-year-old's hit book" by Andrew Ryan of the Associated Press. I do not want to be another Indian accused of plagiarism.) Based on the passage, it seems too similar to be merely coincedence. Maybe it's just me and my jealousy.

Because I Have Nothing To Say:

Pong.


Dementia


Bare Knuckle!


Rockin' Out


Feel Like Getting Shammed?


India, Undefined.


India, Redefined.

Vendetta! Vendetta! Vendetta!

I finally saw V for Vendetta on April 1, 2006 (a fool I was for waiting so long to see it). Of course, I liked it. The movie was loaded with many a good quote (often Shakespeare, from plays I have not read, sadly), and brought up many artistic, philosophical, and political issues. An in depth review of it would be extremely long, and I neither have the capacity nor the patience to bring up all the things I would like, especially considering how out of practice I am in writing critiques.

The one thing that I would like to bring up is the line that Evey (Natalie Portman) said about half-way through the film, "artists tell lies to expose the truth, while politicians tell them to cover it up." (That is how I remember the line, it may or may not be totally accurate.) This quote is exemplified in the use of masks throughout the film. Both V (Hugo Weaving) and the (fictional) British government make use of masks in the film: V of course has his Guy Fawkes mask, which, unlike Spiderman or Batman, he never removes; and the government has those "black bag" masks which they put on people they want to "erase." Naturally, both masks are meant to hide the faces of the respective people behind them. V wants to cover the horrible disfigurement he underwent at Lark Hill, in effect lying to others about his true appearance (there is one scene when a police officer tries to punch V in the face, but the officer hurts his hand on the metal mask), but at the same time the Guy Fawkes mask is meant to expose the horrible truth (ironically, the same truth he conceals) behind the St. Mary’s and Three Waters epidemics. The black bags, however, are meant to cover up, in that they are put on anyone who dissents from the government in any form. So as far as the masks are concerned, this would make the government a composition of politicians, but would that also make V an artist?

It is clear from the movie that V loves art. In his "cave," he is surrounded by books, sculpture, music, and paintings (mostly pilfered from the government censor trucks). He plays Tchaikovsky as he blows up buildings, quotes literature as he kills government officials, and even has Evey act the part of a call girl before murdering a Bishop. And given that, by his lie, he exposes the horrible truth to the investigating officer (Mr. Finch, played by Stephen Rea) and to Evey, it seems that V could very well be an artist. However, his vendetta is personal, and, on a larger scale, political. The methods V sometimes uses are also similar to the chancellor’s strategies at keeping the "peace" (I do not want to give away too much of the movie by explaining how), and V is clearly starting a political revolution.

Maybe Evey’s quote is simply a wink by the Wachowski brothers (possibly David Lloyd?) to the audience about the movie itself, for I do not believe that V can be considered an artist, just a different kind of politician (maybe the right kind).

I Have Not Seen It Yet...

But I think maybe I should.

Oh Queso...

I should have posted this sooner, but, for some reason, I did not. I guess it was apathy and lethargy on my part. I got into Rutgers University (the campus in Newark, New Jersey). I was really excited when I got the e-mail, but that excitement has gone down considerably since I found out (it has been about a week)--not that anything happened...it is just...my routine has obliterated much of the excitement. I am, however, now anxious to hear back from the other schools to which I applied, namely, San Diego State University and the University of Chicago. I'm on the waiting list at the University of Chicago, and, when I called there earlier today, I found out that I will not hear from them until June. I cannot make hide nor hair of San Diego State's Web Portal (to check the status of my application), so I wonder if they will take me or not. Oh, and on top of that I still need to get the official packet in the mail from admissions from Rutgers as well. It is all a matter of waiting, really.

In light of all this, I have come to a realization: now that I actually have gotten into a school, I need to start practicing academic writing again. My reading has been going slow (as always), but it is extremely difficult to focus on a book when you are brain-dead from an entire day of performing either mindless tasks or wracking your brain trying to figure out how to get something done. Also, as this blog has evinced, I have not written anything academic in a very long time. All I have basically done was copy and paste other people's work without any in depth discussion. I have also failed in producing anything artistic in a while (a failed attempt at a story, a horrible poem that I would never post on here), and these next few months might be the last time I will have "free time" to produce something, anything.

Okay so--without promising anything--my fans (ha!) should expect to see a more serious, insightful, and enlightened Omer (ha!). Posts might be few and far between (as usual), but, hopefully, they will be somewhat academic, structured, clear, and succinct. I will try to avoid my rambling. I will try to write better. I will try.