Catch-22 Revisited

When I was about 14 years old, I read the book Catch-22 by Joseph Heller. I got the sense that it was a good book, and even enjoyed it a little, but I was very confused the whole time. The writing was simply over my head at the time. I resolved to reread the book later, when I might have a better chance of understanding what was going on. Since I recently had two weeks off of school, I decided to do exactly that over break.
The plot of Catch-22 is difficult to describe succinctly because there are so many tangents and subplots, but I’ll do my best. The main character is Yossarian, a very reluctant soldier in World War II. He seems to be the only one aware that there are thousands of people trying to kill him, and as a result is very paranoid. He is extremely afraid of dying, and does all he can to keep from flying missions. The missions he is avoiding are extremely dangerous, so much so that any soldier willing to fly them is declared insane and is thereby released from service. However, if a soldier ever asks to be released on these grounds, he must be sane and has to keep flying the missions. This law is known as Catch-22 (hence the title), and is one of many oxymorons and hypocrisies in the book. The book contains many wacky characters with colorful names (Major Major Major Major and Major ——— de Coverley being two examples), and reads more like a piece of satire than a war drama. The strong anti-war message of the book still resounds, and is made stronger by some of the cruel ironies in the story.
This book came out after WWII but before the Vietnam War, so it preceded the wave of cynical negativity surrounding war that swept across the US. As a result, the book was received to very mixed results, with some loving it and some hating it. Much of the controversy centered around Heller’s unconventional writing style, which is choppy and irreverent.
I loved Catch-22 the second time around. There were still parts where I was confused (there are many characters who appear with no introduction, and then are never mentioned again), but I definitely got more of the main themes and “deeper meaning” this time. Personally, I enjoy Heller’s sardonic style, and I think it’s most of the reason that this book is a classic.

An Eye on the Media: Exploring the Julian Assange Arrest

A major subject in the news recently is the WikiLeaks website, and its controversial founder Julian Assange. WikiLeaks has caused some problems for world governments by posting secret internal documents on the internet, and making secrets public that many say are detrimental to these countries. Recently Assange was arrested in conjunction with a case that seemingly has nothing at all to do with WikiLeaks; he has been charged with sexual assault and molestation. Obviously, it’s impossible for me to know if he is guilty or innocent at this point. What I do know is that there is a ton of speculation going on right now. Some say that Assange is a rapist and should go to jail, while others say that the charges are merely a smear campaign waged by “The Man” to whom Assange is trying to “stick it”. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, but I think it’s interesting how different news sources have covered this important story. I recently read two articles that came at the story from very different points of view, and I found this dichotomy interesting.

The first article was on the CNN website, in the “world” section. I assumed that this would mean that the article would have a global focus and point of view, but I quickly realized that it was written with a distinct anti-Assange slant. Many American sources (though CNN is an international news organization, it is run out of Atlanta and is, for all intents and purposes, American) have been quick to condemn WikiLeaks, while very few have succeeded in staying neutral Searching the CNN website, I found a variety of viewpoints on how horrible WikiLeaks is, but failed to find any sources to contrast these one-sided articles. I’m personally not sure how I feel about WikiLeaks. I can see the good and the bad, but I’m wary of having my views shaped, even somewhat, by a potential bias in the media. In the article about Assange’s arrest, it seems as if the writer has already decided that Assange is guilty. The article contains no opinions, but the facts are presented in such a way that the criminality of Assange is emphasized, whereas any doubt over the legitimacy of the charges (the real story here, in my opinion) is kind of swept under the rug.

I didn’t notice the bias (which I think/hope is subconscious) so much at first, but then I read an article on the Al Jazeera site that was, in my opinion, more impartial and just better-written in general. The article had more quotes from a more varied array of sources. Whereas the CNN article seemed to be holding Assange’s attempted takedown of the U.S. government against him as it wrote the article about his arrest, Al Jazeera seemed more fair. It’s not as if Al Jazeera doesn’t have a reason to hate Julian Assange (indeed, it seems everyone has a reason to hate Assange): it was accused in one of the leaks for being a pawn of, and mouthpiece for, the Qatari government. Despite being somewhat embroiled in the controversy itself, Al Jazeera did a great job of reporting it, in my opinion, and it was interesting to see how different articles could tilt indisputable facts to get a point across.

The Power of Stories

In English, we are currently reading the book Reading Lolita in Tehran by Azar Nafisi. The book chronicles Nafisi’s efforts to teach a literature class for a group of young women, an action that directly rebels against the strict Iranian government. The book is obviously specifically about Iran and its oppressive regime, but the main idea of the book can, in my opinion, be made much more universal. This fundamental idea is that stories are often the best, or at least a good, defense against tyranny.

In places where people’s lives are not what they would like them to be, stories can serve as a form of escapism. In Iran, for example, I would imagine that reading F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby would be eye-opening for Nafisi’s students (I haven’t read this far in the book yet, but I will soon find out what kind of meaning the students take away from this book). The Great Gatsby describes, in great detail, a world that Iranians, especially women, would be unfamiliar with. It’s important for an oppressed people to be exposed to a culture that is radically different than their own (in the case of The Great Gatsby, an extremely materialistic one, to the point of excess), even if that culture is only experienced through stories. If these stories are not made available, there is the possibility that the population as a whole will be brainwashed, in a way, into believing that the current societal norms and culture is the only option. This can be very dangerous, as it often perpetuates tyranny.

Interestingly, it is just as important for stories to come out of places like Iran as it is for them to go in. Only by hearing first-hand experiences of everyday people can the rest of the world begin to understand what they go through, and try to help them. Stories like Persepolis and Reading Lolita in Tehran can go a long way toward getting the rest of the world to sympathize with the oppressed, and possibly do something to help.

The Smartphone STD Test: Good or Bad?

Recently, I saw a story on my Google Reader that intrigued me, and that I think speaks to a larger narrative within our society. When I read the article, which in essence said that British researchers have developed a program that allows smartphones to analyze the user’s urine and check for STDs, I was skeptical. After reading that the user does not pee directly onto the phone, but rather onto a computer chip that is then plugged into the phone, this seemed like a slightly better idea.

Actually, it may seem silly, but this development has the potential to be a very good thing. People who are too lazy (or embarrassed) to see the doctor might be able to catch these diseases earlier than they could have without the app. That being said, this seems like one more demonstration that our society is too reliant on technology. When a phone starts to replace actual professionals with advanced medical degrees, it’s not a good sign. The phone app can’t be right 100% of the time, and sometimes a person might rely on it when it shows a negative test when there might actually be a problem. Unlike a doctor, a program on a phone can’t be held accountable when it makes a mistake.

Technology is good in most instances, but we need o have boundaries on what we expect to be done for us. In my opinion, the STD app is probably a little much. That being said, I’m interested to see how, and to what extent, it gets used in the future.

Disappointment

I know I've been writing a lot about the midterm elections lately, but as they just occurred this Tuesday I thought it would be appropriate to bring them up one last time. For the last couple weeks, it was hard to turn on the TV without seeing either a campaign ad or a pundit predicting or analyzing election results, so it's obvious that Americans have been bombarded, like it or not, with news about this major event, so I think I can be excused for adding my two cents one last time.

Obviously the elections can't be neatly summed up in a word, considering the multitudes of people that participated, all with different outlooks and opinions. That being said: disappointment. In my opinion, this word most accurately describes the climate of this election. While legions of incensed Tea Partiers got a lot of media attention, these people did not represent the majority of American voters. Aside from the far-right Obama-haters and the die-hard Obama fans, the majority of the country's voters were simply disappointed with the direction that the country is headed. To back up this theorizing with some data, the Global Language Monitor conducted a study and found that the terms "frustration" and "disappointment" were far more frequent than "anger" or "rage". Of course, whenever people are unhappy with the way Washington is working, they look to blame the party that is in power, and therefore should be in a position to do something about it. In this case that party was the Democrats.

There's nothing wrong with being disappointed and informed, as many voters were. However, acting on uninformed disappointment can be problematic. In other words, it is difficult to pick out members of our government to "blame" our current mess on. Washington is so complicated that often the"bad guys" are hard to find. The "good guys", however, are substantially easier to pick out. One apparently negative outcome from Tuesday's elections was Russ Feingold's loss in the race for the Wisconsin Senate seat. He has authored a lot of important legislation on campaign finance, a huge problem in politics today. He also has a reputation as a good compromiser, which is something that voters supposedly were interested in. Still, Feingold, who was greatly respected for voting his conscience and not strictly adhering to party lines, was ousted along with many other incumbents in favor of Ron Johnson, an adamant global warming denier.

Though I do lean left politically, I don't see anything wrong with the disappointment directed at the Democrats, though I do think both parties should shoulder some of the blame. When one party has a clear majority in Congress and has control of the executive branch, they are expected to pass major legislation that will affect Americans' lives for the better. With the possible exception of health care reform (which is largely unpopular), this hasn't happened. Therefore, it's okay for voters to be disappointed and to want to get some new faces in Washington. That being said, I think they could have been a little smarter about it, and tried to differentiate between good incumbents and entrenched career politicians. It's a fine line, but I assumed Americans were intelligent enough to tell the difference. Instead, I was a little disappointed.

The United States: Master of the House

In my English class, we have been reading the book Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingsolver. Set in the Congo in the 1960’s, the novel discusses the intense political climate in that country from an American point of view. The book covers a fairly large span of time, but a key plot point is the assassination of Patrice Lumumba. Orleanna is the character, in my opinion, that has the most interesting take on the situation, specifically the CIA’s role in the assassination plot. Obviously no one can be certain of exactly what the CIA did or did not do, but it’s fairly clear that, at the very least, they knew, and approved, of the plans to kill Lumumba. Orleanna, on page 320, says, “President Eisenhower was right then sending his orders to take over the Congo. Imagine that. His household was the world, and he’d finished making up his mind about things”.

Since the end of World War II, it seems that the United States has seen the world as its “household”. This means that we, as a nation, have a right, and a responsibility, to intervene in world affairs as we see fit. This is a very important narrative to understand, as it has shaped U.S. foreign policy for upwards of 50 years. The scenario in the Congo is a prime example of the consequences of this worldview. From America’s tacit support of the Lumumba assassination, to our varied meddling in Latin America, to the Korean War, to the Vietnam War, to the Iran-Contra scandal, to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States has a long history of interfering in foreign affairs. This track record is well documented elsewhere, so I won’t go into too much depth here. Suffice to say that most of the time the U.S. has acted to advance its own interests, with little respect or regard for other nations.

Recently, I was reading an interesting blogging debate, so to speak, regarding the legality and ethicality of CIA assassinations of suspected terrorists. Basically, we as a country claim the right to assassinate anyone, anywhere, at any time, if we have reason to believe that they are a terrorist, or are somehow helping terrorists. This is just another example of America applying the “household” principle to our foreign policy. If any other country sent predator drones or soldiers into the United States to assassinate someone it had deemed a threat to its national security, we would consider that country to be drastically overstepping its boundaries. Somehow, when it comes to the rest of the world, this situation is analogous to pursuing a rodent into your neighbor’s living room, uninvited. When America is the aggressor, however, it is all of a sudden similar to chasing the rodent from one area of your own house to another. In my opinion, Orleanna’s perspective is valuable (she is an American caught in the middle of a situation where American intervention had some tragic consequences) and the “household” narrative that she points out sheds a lot of light on U.S. foreign policy both then and now.

Rambling Musings on the Midterm Elections

Recently, in my English class, a key subject of discussion has been the role that narratives and/or myths play in our lives, and how these stories affect the world around us. I’ll be slightly tweaking the subject of my blog to address this subject a little more in the future, starting with this post. From now on, this blog will primarily address narratives that shape noteworthy events in the news. It’s only a slight change, but hopefully it will improve the overall quality of my blog. If not, I sincerely apologize to you, my legions of followers.

Anyway, this week I would like to talk about politics, specifically the midterm Congressional elections. An emerging narrative is largely shaping these elections, and it is one characterized by a mistrust and dislike of candidates who embody the “political establishment”. It’s not difficult to see where all this anger comes from; the economy is in bad shape, the U.S. is mired in two seemingly unwinnable wars, Obama’s healthcare plan has not been well-received, and many other problems abound. This frustration has, in many cases, been channeled through the Tea Party, and its upstart candidates. There have been many examples of this narrative playing out during these elections, and no example has been in the news more than Delaware candidate Christine O’Donnell.

O’Donnell was a complete unknown before the primaries for the open Senate seat in Delaware, having run for office twice before in relative anonymity. She played off voter frustration to defeat career politician Mike Castle, formerly the governor of Delaware and a member of the House of Representatives, in the Republican primaries. As she now steps into the spotlight preceding the general election, a lot of her views have become increasingly known around the country. I won’t waste time going through her position on each issue, but suffice to say that many of her beliefs could be described as “ill-informed”, like her refusal to acknowledge evolution and climate change, and her statement that being gay is an “identity disorder”. Most importantly, though, O’Donnell seems blatantly unqualified to serve in Congress, having never been in an important decision-making position before.

This last aspect of her candidacy addresses the root of the problem with the narrative. Somehow, paradoxically, lack of experience is now a positive thing in many voters’ eyes. O’Donnell’s latest campaign ad has been widely lampooned for its opening line, addressing a clip of her admitting that she “dabbled in witchcraft” as a teenager. To me, this is a non-issue (but funny nonetheless). What is much scarier is what she says seconds later: “I’m you”. That’s terrific, but the problem is that I’m woefully unqualified to be a member of the Senate. I have no expertise in important matters like the economy and military strategy. There’s no way that I would vote for myself in a Senate election. Nor would I vote for the vast majority of Americans, who simply are not knowledgeable or experienced enough to effectively run the country. I don’t want our elected officials to be me; I want them to be better than me. Increasingly, though, it seems as if I am in the minority on this issue. Many Americans vote for candidates like O’Donnell precisely because of their ignorance and inexperience, and spurn relatively moderate, reasonable candidates like Castle. Suddenly, being an “outsider” is more important in American politics, particularly the Tea Party movement, than being intelligent, qualified, or honest. Fortunately, it appears as if Christine O’Donnell will lose her Senate race. Even if she won, one person probably wouldn’t be able to single-handedly impact policy. However, it isn’t her that makes me apprehensive. Rather it is the narrative of mistrust and fear that has enabled her, and other similar candidates, to even come close to being elected. This is a narrative that is affecting our world in a very negative way, in my opinion, and it is one that needs to change sometime soon.