The Older I Get, The More Skeptical I Become

    Today, (27 July, 2011) is my nineteenth birthday. Yes that's right the last birthday of my teenage years. Another thing that is significant about this birthday is that your secular and Jewish birthday are on the same day on your nineteenth birthday. However I woke up today just like every other day. I did not feel special and I was in a bad mood for most of the day.

  One thing that annoyed me was that the the nineteenth birthday is a very insignificant birthday especially since you can do everything at nineteen that you could do at eighteen such as, vote, buy a cigarette, get married etc. I hate when people get a birthday high, when in fact to everybody else your birthday is just another day. I am awaiting my twenty-first birthday, just so that I can throw a party in a bar, not because I am a social person or, because I enjoy drinking (which I occasionally do.) I will throw that party just to show that I as a person have gained another right.

  However, one thing that offends me most are the people who pretend that they actually care that it is my birthday. Most of the people who wished my happy birthday on Facebook only knew that it was my birthday because, Facebook told them so. I do not mind it as long as these are people are people whom I encounter on a regular basis and/or actually give me a birthday wish that is not as cliche as the stereotypical "Happy Birthday' wish. Those two words take less than 30 seconds to type. One person put in the effort and actually posted this amazing video where people sing For He is a Jolly Good Fellow in Klingon. I find having my BlackBerry vibrate throughout the day just so that I can see "Happy birthday", or "Happy bday" to be quite irksome.

   I like Facebook because, otherwise I would be ignorant of my surroundings and upcoming events and is a useful tool for school, but I really hate getting those insincere happy birthday wishes especially when I have not had any contact whatsoever with that individual for years or months to be very hurtful. If that makes me in South Park terms a "cynical asshole", then so be it.

My Social Life, or Lack Thereof

   I was always socially awkward, and many people took advantage of that. I normally try to cover it with sarcasm or jokes that many take offense to. The reason I do this is because I have noticed from observing people, sarcasm is highly prevalent in conversations among average people. Although I have noticed that it is more damaging than helpful.

   One such example was this week, when I bumped into two acquaintances at school. One of them asked which course I was taking. I told her that I was taking core math. She asked if I was late to class, to which I responded that I just got out. I was then informed that she was late to class. Then I said the joke that was the equivalent of strike one at a baseball game, I jokingly said that I thought that she was an "OCD freak", which was my term of endearment to describe someone who was very meticulous. I did explain that it was a joke. I then took notice of the other acquaintance's makeup. I pulled the nerve together to ask why she was wearing so much makeup. Her response was that she was not wearing a lot of makeup, but that she had tanned. With all the health problems that suntanning brings I assume that anyone can figure out what my response was. If you assumed that I jokingly asked if she wanted to age quickly and get skin cancer, then you are absolutely correct. The second acquaintance then told the first acquaintance what I said. I then said that I had to go and the first acquaintance was headed my way. I said that it was nice talking to her (even though that was the furthest from the truth that I could go) and asked her which class she was taking. Her response was that the feeling was mutual. She then gave me social advice as in not to call people OCD freaks and not to make jokes about skin cancer. I then told her that I admired how meticulous she was, which was true. What someone can say about me is that I stumble over every single sentence if I get beyond my comfort zone, which is true.

   Although what one can see from my retelling of the conversation is that I am socially awkward, yet I desire a social life, I do not think that the second part of the statement is true. I have been told by my father, and countless other people that I need to learn how to make friends. When I am told this hackneyed statement, a few responses come to mind. One of them is that my social life is none of their business. Another response is to stop trying to take a cheap shot at my self-esteem, which would be mostly for my father since we have a complicated love/hate relationship (although, I do not really believe in love, I do believe in mutually beneficial relationships). And then, to sum it all up my final argument would be that a social life is overrated,  especially if you are different and have to make new friends and you always have the feeling that you do not fit in and will eventually be used and/or dumped.

    I do not mind reading all day. When I make friends in school I tend to keep them at a distance. I do not spend time with them on weekends and I do not tell them too much about my personal life. My main purpose for these friends is to have people to ask if I ever need any help, or if I have a feeling that I could use some advice when it comes to the class. I started college in Fall of 2010, and I soon came to realize that I was the laughingstock. Most people kept clear of me, although I did find two people with whom I acquainted myself with. I did not really care about a social life then, because I decided to focus on my school work. I did eat lunch with people, but I did not establish an emotional connection with them. I simply sat with them so I could talk about my favorite show, South Park, maybe even study together for the Classical Cultures quiz, since we had the same instructor.

  The reason I find a social life to be overrated is because, unless I find the right people for my personality type it will never happen. I do have acquaintances and one friend who I keep in touch with, but I am not the type of person who likes to go shopping with friends, going to the movies, etc every single weekend with a friends, or friends. I find these things annoying, because if you do them with the wrong person  they can be annoying, especially shopping. When I was younger the only reason that I used to wish that I had an active social life, was because I was taught that it was good to have friends, my sister was also a social butterfly, and I was bored every Friday night and Saturday because I could not watch TV because of the Jewish Sabbath. Every time I thought that I had a group of friends in my neighborhood, they managed to either demean me, or use me in some way. Let's just say that these "friendships" never worked out. I also find small talk to be very boring and tedious.

   On weekdays I do not care that my social life is lacking, as long as I have some way to entertain myself. I tend to hang out in the same places a lot, which does not bother me. However, what does bother me is when I go to a place so often that when I order a drink they remember my usual order, and what name to write on the cup of my drink. I guess that I like to keep myself at a distance. I am naive, and therefore I have to keep my guard up.

  I am not  like that with everybody. I do occasionally become somewhat friendly with a person, just that I do not trust him/her right away. I will not count Facebook as a social life, so therefore I virtually have no social life, and guess what? I am perfectly fine with it.

Applying Philosophical Theory to the New Square Arson Attempt

   John Locke an Enlightenment philosopher whose philosophy influenced the American Declaration of Independence said that a person is entitled to "life liberty and property." However from reading about the New Square arson attempt, John Locke does not apply to them. Aron Rottenberg decided to pray in a synagogue outside the village along with a few friend, the Rebbe, David Twersky, the ultimate religious authority of the town in Rockland County, New York that is predominantly part of the Skver Hasidut, reacted by making a decree that nobody could pray outside his synagogue. Rottenberg was constantly harassed, his children were kicked out of school, his property was damaged, he even received threatening phone calls. Ultimately this ended when, the Rebbe's butler, Shaul Spitzer decided to take a rag doused in gasoline and attempt to burn down Rottenberg's home. Rottenberg confronted Spitzer which led to over 50% of Rottenberg's body being covered in third degree burns and Spitzer with burns on his hands and arms and is out on bail being treated for his burns at Cornell's burn unit.

  Obviously most people would say that New Square sounds like a horrible place to live and that this was a horrible occurrence, and that what Spitzer and the Rebbe did was outrageous. I would probably say that I agree with that, but let's take a more objective view at this. Rottenberg simply chose a synagogue that fit his preference which is part of personal freedom, he decided that the going to pray outside the village was better for him. The Rebbe then decided to use his power and influence as in most religious societies to make a declaration that the residents were forbidden to pray outside his synagogue, I assume to maintain the monopoly that he had over his synagogue. People who view the Rebbe as the supreme authority decided that the Rebbe's word trumped a person's basic freedom. You can see it in the video above when the  asked if he lives in America the follower of the Rebbe, the follower replies the he lives in "Jewland." 

    Rottenberg was denied the right of choosing where to pray, but that was not the only right that was denied. He clearly was denied the right to property seeing how people threw rocks at his widow and smashed the windows of his car, and ultimately the arson attempt. Also another thing that a person should know about New Square is that there is probably one school for boys and girls each and people who do not dress according to the standards of the town are shunned. Also Rottenberg's life was threatened through the phone calls and the attempted arson, thus denying him and his family the right to life.

  Many will ask why Rottenberg did not just leave if he did not like the conditions that he was living under. Well, that question can be answered by this article. This article says that Rottenberg tried to sell his house for what it was worth, $600K, but those who tried to buy it for that price were threatened, thus denying Rottenberg's personal freedom along with the perspective buyers' freedom, I mean if it is true. Those responsible for the threats said that he could sell the house for only $300K, because they did not want him to make a profit off of leaving New Square. He was denied his personal freedom in many respects.

  The burn victim hires Michael Sussman as his lawyer, who calls for federal investigation into the events surrounding Rottenberg's attack, and whether the town violated his civil liberties. This supposedly outrages the residents of the village. Since when was it outrageous to hire a lawyer and ask for a government investigation after something of this magnitude happens? I am not a proponent for big government, but I feel that the government has a right to intervene when a person's rights were violated. Well, one can look past civil rights, but this was not just about civil rights, but also violated all his natural rights. I am sure that John Locke would agree with me in this case.

When Are We Liable?

When I found out that Barnes and Noble was releasing a new NOOK I knew that that was what I wanted. For the past few occasions that warranted presents I did not know what I wanted and my birthday is coming in two months. Now I know that the new NOOK is what I want with its touch screen and EInk, I do not have the NOOK yet, however I did download the NOOK for PC app along with a few ebooks.

   I am one who is interested in Christian culture and the supernatural so I typed "The Book of Revelations" into the B&N search engine. One of the results that came up was a book by that name, but had a picture of a Jewish Star and a Swastika on the cover and it was free. I went to click on the cover to see what it was about, because I knew that this had nothing to do with the biblical book that went by the same name. I read the synopsis to see what it was about, and I found it to be interesting. 

 
  The book was about a psychiatrist,Dr. Simon Panalewicz who was sent to jail for attacking  a girl for apparently no reason. From his California jail cell the psychiatrist requests that certain clergy visit him despite the fact that he is an atheist. Among the clergy of whom he requests a visit is a prestigious rabbi  by the name of, Rabbi Max Gutterman, from New York. At first Rabbi Gutterman is not sure whether he should visit the psychiatrist. In the end the rabbi decides to do so. He enters the jail cell of the psychiatrist who then begins to ask him about whether he believes in past lives. The rabbi says that he does not believe so to which the doctor responds that there have been regressions into past livesdue to hypnosis and that he attacked the girl for who she was in a past life. The rabbi and the doctor continue to their verbal exchange that ends when the psychiatrist asks offers to tell the rabbi who he was in a past life. This offends the rabbi to the point that he storms out of the jail and says that he will not come back to visit him. The rabbi, however does come back only to hear the psychiatrist tell him that he was Adolf Hitler in a past life. You can imagine how a rabbi of any denomination would take that. Obviously, Hitler the leader of the Nazi Part and the Third Reich, and is known to be responsible for the death 6,000,000 is not someone that any Jew, let alone a rabbi would have wanted to have been in a past life.

   The rabbi finally hits the boiling point and flies back to New York. He was hoping to deal with the situation on his own. However, that is not what happens. He tells his father and friends who do not believe it. The rabbi then starts finding Swastikas on their door and a threatening letter addressed to him that says that they will kill Hitler. Rabbi Gutterman soon finds out that there are two sides vying for him, the Jurors who want him dead and the Nazis who want to bring out the Hitler in him. The Nazis want Gutterman alive despite the fact that he is a Jew and is not genetically part of "The Master Race" and they think of using him as a double agent among the Jews. The Jurors meanwhile do not go according to what their names imply, instead they kill first and ask questions later, which I find to be extremely ironic. The Jurors end up taking over everything including the government and continue killing people for who they were in past lives.

   The question I have is whether Rabbi Gutterman is responsible for the actions of his past life. Rabbi Gutterman was a kind and caring man who was open-minded and gave second chances. One would never expect that the rabbi could have been Hitler in a past life. In fact I believe this shows how a person is molded by his environment, although I do not believe that it excuses Hitler of all that he did. I also think that if the rabbi was Hitler in a past life then I admire him for how he was able to keep the bad characteristics under control and use them for good, which makes me view him as a stronger person than Hitler.

   This also brings the question of whether extra-legal activities of vigilantes should be allowed. Like the Death Note manga series, it deals with vigilantes trying to bring "justice" to the world. In Death Note there is a boy who decides to bring justice to the world and kill criminals by writing their name in a notebook which causes them to die. The boy's actions are assumed to be by a death god by the name of Kira. He soon obtains a strong support base and everyone depends on him to kill all the criminals to make the world a better place. However he ends up killing innocent people and everyone who gets in his way. He soon thinks that he is God and can do whatever he wants. The Jurors are similar in that they think that it is up to them to bring "justice" to the world in ways that are not legal and they eventually gain the support of governments to do so.

   I view a new life as an escape from a past life to prove who you can be, I mean if there are new lives. Also if there are past lives and we would be judged based on them, something tells me that half of us would be dead.

My (Attempted) Review of Cannibal!: The Musical

   Last night a friend and I got on to the subject of the South Park movie, South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut. My friend told me that I had to watch Cannibal!: The Musical. Cannibal: The Musical was made as a college class assignment by the creators of South Park, Trey Parker and Matt Stone. As my friend told me, it covers many of the themes that were later drafted into the making of South Park, which is one of my favorite shows.

   It is set in the late 1800s loosely based on the true story of Alfred Packer, who was accused of cannibalism.  The first scene of the movie is a portrayal of how the cannibalism supposedly took place.Alfred Packer (Trey Parker) the leader a group of Mormon miners from Utah, supposedly headed towards Breckenridge, Colorado to find their fortune in mining gold and, is accuse of cannibalism. Alfred Packer is portrayed to the jury as randomly ripping off body parts of the members of his crew. The goriness in this scene is not too different than the scenes that one would see in Monty Python's The Holy Grail. A female reporter from the Denver Post decides to interview him. He at first is reluctant to tell her, but after flirting with him her becomes an open book. The reporter mentions Leanne, who we find out was Packer's horse. Packer had an unnatural attachment to Leanne, almost as one would have with a longtime girl friend or a spouse. This is understandable, seeing as Leanne was named after Trey Parker's ex-girlfriend, this name is given to Cartman's mother on South Park. The verdict of the trial was that Packer was guilty and is sentenced to death. As Packer is waiting to die he tells her more.

   After the original guide of the expedition to Colorado was shot Packer reluctantly becomes the leader of the expedition where he, and the rest of the crew, including Leanne travel on foot. However, he changes his direction after his horse leaves him.for his rivals, the trappers. The cannibalism starts after one of the crew members sings about one of the crew members sings about making a snowman as everybody is freezing to death. He annoyed the crew so badly that one of the crew members shot him. As the crew was starving to death they decided to consume the flesh. Then Bell decides to kill the crew when Packer is away claiming that it was out of self defense. He was so freaked out by what Bell had done that Packer felt the urge to kill Bell.What was hilarious was how long it took to kill Bell, he had to be stabbed and shot multiple times. Ultimately Bell stops moving and is assumed dead. Packer goes to the town where the trappers are to find out that Leanne was not stolen but actually left him. What was probably a reference, to Parker's ex was when one of the Trappers said that everyone in town has ridden his horse, probably to reference that his girlfriend was a harlot, similar to how Cartman's mother, who as I said before has the same name is portrayed. Eventually the town's people find the crew members and Packer runs to Wyoming, where he is ultimately caught. Everyone is so excited on the day of his execution that they make a musical number about it. Ultimately Packer is relieved of his death sentence, thanks to the reporter, because of ex post facto law, it was before Colorado was a state and is released in 1901. He and the reporter fall in love he gets over the rejection he suffered by Leanne and all is well until Bell with an ax and gun in his head is actually alive and sneaks up on Packer and his girlfriend. This is similar to the unexpected ending of Monty Python's The Holy Grail, when the knights were arrested by the police in 20th century police cars in the medieval setting.

   The musical numbers including the "Snowman" song were hilarious, if you like satirical, immature humor, which is what I love.The music numbers were very similar to those on South Park, in that the singing is not random and unnoticed and is supposed to be a mockery of a musical. I loved the songs although I am just not one to enjoy a song that gives a detailed description of how someone dies when hung. It says in the introduction it originally came out around the same time Oklahoma came out, but it was forgotten because it was upstage by its rival. What was interesting is how many references it had to South Park, from the Monty Pythonesque gory humor, to the red Jewfro that is similar to South Park's Kyle, on Humphrey's, one of crew member's head, to the portrayal of his horse Leanne as a harlot like how Cartman's mother is portrayed. Many of these concepts are those that South Park fans will enjoy and be familiar with.

   To end this attempted review I will say I enjoyed this movie immensely and that those who like Monty Python will also. Another thing that I would like to say is that those who are queasy should not watch it seeing as it has plenty of violence and gore. However I love it and I give this two thumbs up.

Heaven, or Hell?

People from The Family Radio have been going around New York City saying that Judgement Day, as in the day that God judges whether you are worthy of being redeemed when the Messiah comes will be on May 21, 2011. Even if I actually believed that that was true I would still not repent for my sins and be subservient to Jesus. I would first like to know where they got that date from. I have  also decided to use my own logic into defining what Heaven and Hell would be like according to how it is portrayed by religion. Heaven is a place where all the people who follow God's way go. Despite the fact that many argue what the right way is to follow God there, I have come to conclusion that, if there is a God only one way that is the correct way to follow him. Heaven can be a place where only Catholics, Jews, Orthodox Christians, etc only have access to. If only one way is right then Heaven is not a diverse place and if one was to go to Heaven then they would be bored out of their minds, because it would be a place where there would be no intelligent thought, everyone would not question God's judgement and everything would be provided for them so there would be nothing for them to do. To conclude this thought, I have decided that Hell would be a place where there is diversity, intelligent thought and, hard work. From here I have decided that Heaven is actually Hell, and Hell is actually Heaven.

My View of 9/11 and Osama bin Laden's Death Through the Harry Potter Series

   I was in fourth grade when the World Trade Center on September 11th (a.k.a. 9/11) was hit by two jumbo jets. It was a normal day I got on the bus to go to school in Brooklyn from my Manhattan home. During recess I heard whispers about a bomb in the World Trade Center, but I just could not comprehend what was going on, seeing as that I was somewhat in my own world. I was then asked by a classmate whether I lived near the World Trade Center. I responded to the question by saying that it was quite a walk. After recess the Hebrew principal  called for an assembly and told us about the WTC being hit by airplanes and to say Tehilim (Psalms). I am not one to believe that Psalms actually have power, but I sometimes feel like saying them when it is a last resort. However, the tool that helped me most was the Harry Potter series, since the attacks occurred around the same time as I started reading the series.

  I was told that the city was shut down and had no idea how I would get home. I went to someone's house until my father was able to pick me up. I was somewhat scared of traveling on the trains because, I was scared that the trains might be shut down when I was still on one. I could not comprehend what was going on, despite the fact that I was told. I kept asking questions and drawing airplanes going into the Twin Towers. Soon after a video by Osama bin Laden came out saying that he only thought that the top part of the World Trade Center would be destroyed. For the next few months or possibly a year all I spoke about was Osama bin Laden. I was quite affected seeing as that I was breathing in the smoke from the collapsed buildings  for months and, that I could not see the towers when I looked where they would have normally been.

  Osama bin Laden, to me was not a real person. To me he was simply a fictional character such as Lord Voldemort was, except that to me Lord Voldemort was more tangible, because aside from trying to comprehend the recent occurrence I was also obsessed with Harry Potter. The thing that made bin Laden less tangible than Lord Voldemort was the fact that, although we did see videos of him, Harry Potter, the protagonist of the series had encounters with him that were direct encounters throughout the series. Also the first Harry Potter movie came out about two months after the attacks. I did not quite understand the implications of terrorism and the philosophy of Al Qaeda. Bin Laden the leader of Al Qaeda declared war on the Western world, also known as fatawa, so according to bin Laden, non-Muslims (infidels) and Muslims who do not do Jihad are susceptible to attack, just like those in the Harry Potter series who were Muggleborns, Muggles and those who opposed his ideology. When I heard that bin Laden was killed I was somewhat shocked. Seeing that I viewed bin Laden as Voldemort I thought that he was in a way a powerful wizard who would never be caught and was impervious to death, just as Voldemort was until his Horcruxes were destroyed in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.

 In the first book of the Harry Potter series, Harry Potter and The Philosopher's Stone, everybody everybody lost all their common sense and nearly exposed themselves to the Muggle (non-wizard) population, all because Lord Voldemort suffered defeat, after trying to kill Harry Potter as baby. They dropped every responsibility they had so they could celebrate. One wizard even said to Vernon Dursley ,Harry Potter's  Muggle uncle that even Muggles like him should be celebrating "this happy, happy day." This wizard did little to maintain his secrecy he was even donning a cloak, which is a wizard garment. I can compare the circumstances with the celebrations that happened right after the  announcement of Osama bin Laden's death. People were dancing and celebrating by Ground Zero. However like in the Harry Potter series, I believe that the enemy has not actually been eliminated, and that celebrating by screaming U.S.A. was idiotic and irrational.Voldemort had not actually been killed. At the end of the fourth Harry Potter book, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Voldemort comes back to power and has his minions, the Death Eaters kill many more people and target Harry Potter. Although I do assume that Osama bin Laden is literally dead, I do not believe that Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations have died along with him

   In the Harry Potter series the Ministry of Magic kept the population in the dark about Voldemort's second rise to power. Today President Barack Obama decided to keep a post-mortem picture of Osama bin Laden  from being seen by the masses. What we have to realize is that there is a threat of attack just from the U.S. Government for announcing that Navy SEALS shot bin Laden down. It might quell conspiracy theorists and also discourage terrorist from attacking the U.S. Cornelius Fudge decided not to make up a conspiracy theory that Harry Potter was simply fame hungry and that Dumbledore was either senile, or wanted to take his position as Minister of Magic. When the truth was revealed, Cornelius Fudge was sacked from his position. I feel that we as U.S. citizens should be told the truth and we should have access to such proof.

   Osama bin Laden and Voldemort were similar in that if they wanted the right to live then they should have respected other people's right to live, although I do not view Osama bin Laden's death as justice, I simply view it with awe in a way that I do not know exactly how to feel besides that although everyone is celebrating.  Osama bin Laden was the poster boy for Islamic terrorism, just as Voldemort is the poster boy for evil in the Harry Potter series. What I do not like about the depiction of both their deaths is that everybody whether in real life or the Harry Potter series acted as if both Islamic terrorism and Voldemort's ideology were gone with their deaths. I feel that the celebration is irrational and that bin Laden's death will not bring back the lives that he has taken. I also find that Harry Potter was a tool that was useful in analyzing my surroundings, despite the fact that it is fictitious.

The Fake Osama bin Laden Picture (My Version)

   There has been much hype over seeing pictures of Osama in Laden after the raid on his mansion. He was shot in the left eye and chest, but was supposedly recognizable. The CIA is supposedly going to eventually release a picture of him after the fateful gunshot. However there is much controversy over a release of that picture because it might be too gory for the public and, it might anger terrorist organizations. I do think that such a picture should be released, to satisfy the skeptic out there.  Meanwhile there is fake picture circulating around the Internet, it was confirmed that that picture was photo-shopped . I thought that I would make one of my own, so I decided to make one on www.morphster.com. I used the "Zombie Me" version. Realize that this is a fake and that I did this for fun.

Osama bin Laden is Dead; Now What?

   I was watching a YouTube video until my my mother came into the room and told me the news. I was ecstatic, I had to Google search it to confirm that that it was true I even turned on the the news channels to confirm that it was not a tabloid news piece, since there were previous theories that bin Laden was dead, apparently which were not true since he was just killed. Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan. Right now as I type people are out celebrating. Although this is a major breakthrough the question I have is, "Why are they celebrating, Al Qaeda still exists and if bin Laden was not killed the CIA might have been able to get information out of him that might have eradicated the threat of Al Qaeda altogether?"

    The patriotic celebrations that are occurring remind me of the vigils and the "God Bless America" paraphernalia of Post-911 New York City and the rest of the nation. Don't get me wrong, bin Laden's death is a good thing. Al Qaeda will never be as much of a threat as it used to be, but it is still a threat. The casualties in the Iraqi war were unnecessary. What makes this good news is the fact that the poster boy of terrorism is dead. We still have others to hunt down such as Anwar al-Awlaki and many others.

    What I am waiting for are the conspiracy theories that will result from his death. I already have a few ideas such as what someone told me, which is that the Pakistani Government was harboring him the whole time. The circumstances for his death were slightly suspicious. for example he was killed in the proximity of a mansion right outside of Islamabad, the Pakistani capital. What is curious about this is that one would suspect a terrorist to be hiding in a cave or a tribal area. Well I will not consider it so far fetched since the CNN anchors brought that up. I am waiting until more information is leaked. My motto is that, "only time will tell."

 What would make a really interesting conspiracy theory is, that Obama, the U.S. Army and the Pakistani government lied about bin Laden's death and, that bin Laden is still alive. The reason for that would be that President Barack Hussein Osama oops! I meant Obama is a Muslim, as many people I know would call and  I do not believe that, and joined Pakistan's alliance with the Taliban.This move was to take suspicion away from Obama and Pakistan. Also Obama decided that it would help him get reelected so it would be killing two birds with one stone. Yes I am just playing the part of a conspiracy theorist, I am not actually that idiotic.

Struggles with Writing

The Blindman's Meal, Pablo Picasso,1903
Oil on canvas

My sketch

  My art history class was given a writing assignment which involved, going to to a museum, sketching the artwork (hope you guys like my sketch I went a little crazy with the shading) that I want to write on and finding at least one scholarly source. I found "The Blindman's Meal", by Pablo Picasso to be a very striking work of art. One reason being is the coloring which is very dark on the most part with little contrast. Seeing as this is from Picasso's "Blue Period" the dominant color of the painting is obviously, blue.

Another reason that this painting grabbed my attentions is how different it was from most of the other works of art.The other painting were abstract and not realistic as this one however, this painting was dark yet, easy to.relate to. It provokes strong emotions. The question is, which emotions does it provoke? The "Blue Period was inspired by his trip through Spain and the suicide of a friend and, his journey through Spain. In my opinion it provokes the emotions of the imperfect person who struggles with daily life, which is pretty much every person on the planet. I guess that is what the "Blue Period" was about. Another thing about the "Blue Period is that Picasso focused a lot on the blind during that particular period. I guess that although most of us are not blind we in a way are blinded by our emotions.

  Now the reason why this post is called "Struggles with Writing" is because, 1-I have problem with making citations, 2-because I am having problems finding a scholarly art history source that covers this particular artwork. I have always had my share of difficulties with writing and this assignment is no different. I have always had a problem with writing down my thoughts and the fact that I am having a problem finding a single scholarly source does not help. Luckily this assignment is not due until May 4th hopefully I will have enough time after Passover and spring break, which end at the same time, to find something on this artwork before then.

Passover Cleaning

   Ah, no! That time of the year has come again and no, I am not talking about Easter. I am talking about Passover. The holiday where we Jews work like slaves to rid our houses, stores and, offices of products made from leaven grains. Passover cleaning for Orthodox Jews is not a joke in any manner. We cannot even use our ovens unless they are self cleaning, have the broil cycle turned on for over an hour, or we use a blow torch on it. We have to either blowtorch our utensils and cookware, or replace them with Passover cookware and utensils. We have to replace the dishes because they are not made of metal and cannot be koshered.We have to remove all leavened products from our house or ownership by selling them. Passover can be quite a burden without all the extra cleaning that many people incorporate into their Passover cleaning. What makes this holiday even worse is that the Passover food is twice the calories and not even as nutritious or tasty.

  What I always found ironic about Passover is that the Jewish people celebrate their exodus from Egypt yet, we work like slaves in order to celebrate Passover. The Jews were slaves in Egypt and were forced to work like slaves. That was until God sent Moses to be an intermediary between him and Pharoh. Moses with the help of God unleashed Ten Plagues on Egypt. At the seder we talk about how we were slaves and now we are free, but if you looked at what it takes for one to prepare for Passover would you say that we are free?

   The woman in the video, Rebbetzin Rivka Leah Zelwig, is a parody of how intensely one can overdo Passover cleaning. This woman dismantles her kitchen by using heavy power tools in order to make her kitchen free of leavened products. She even tells her daughter to remove the toilet. I find that funny because since when do people bring food into the bathroom? She even says to remove the sink, toilet, kitchen tiles and, every single feather from a down blanket. We even see her remove an electrical outlet from the wall and use power tools. One can make their sink kosher for Passover by pouring hot water over it so and we normally say a blessing after checking for leavened products that nullifies all the leavened products that were not found during the search, so that does not make sense. Also I found it funny when she told her daughter to remove to toilet, because we are not allowed to eat in the bathroom so why would the toilet have leavened products and, if so we could flush is or bleach, which is still over the top but not unusual to do, not remove the toilet.

Another example of how people overdo Passover cleaning is this article on Failed Messiah.This is something that many can relate to. I know someone who said that his stepmother's family was similar to the woman in the video. Instead of trying to clean every single electrical outlet we should be focusing on the basics to make this already strenuous holiday the simplest one can  possibly make it.Instead of treating it like spring cleaning we should focus on literally following the Jewish law. By simply doing that we are already doing backbreaking labor. I guess this goes to show that too many restrictions can lead to destroying children's toys, your property, your clothes, and many other things. This however does give everyone a good laugh about the lengths one goes to properly clean for Passover.

My Fake Rubashkin Purim Contest Entry

I found out on Failed Messiah that Sholom Rubashkin former CEO of Agriprocessors, a kosher slaughter house, who was found guilty of 86 counts of bank fraud and sentenced to 27 year in jail, was having a Purim essay contest for "the Yiddishe Kinderlach across the world" about what they learned from the Book of Esther. I am a bit too old to enter seeing, as I am 18 and have graduated high school.  However, I decided that I would write a satirical essay as a joke for my own amusement (and maybe even your amusement). 

Hadasah Chaya Schneebalg

     What I Learned from the Book of Esther

   I learned from the Book of Esther is that all goyim are evil. The goyim are our yetzer hara trying to turn us away from frumkeit. Haman is a symbol of what the goyim, even today, think about doing to us Yidden. 


   Mordecai HaTzadik is an example of what we should be. We should separate ourselves from goyim because the goyim are our enemies. Mordecai was the one who would not bow down to Haman, which caused the Jews to undergo the threat of extermination in the first place. Haman also is in the soul of every goy, because he is a descendent of Amalek. In order the Jews to defeat Amalek, we must steal from goyim whenever possible, claim anti-Semitism whenever possible, and disregard any goyish law whenever possible. The reason we must steal is because “Uni chashuv k’meis”, by stealing from Amalek, we are killing them thereby erasing their memory from the world, because we are making them poor. 


    Another way that we can overcome our yetzer hara, is to corrupt innocent Jewish children with the idea that boys should not work when they grow up, and spend the whole day learning, and that the girls should not go to a decent college and have many children. This social structure will lead to stealing from the goyishe government and more Jews on welfare which is an even greater mitzvah because of the kavanah to steal. From here we see that, since so many Jewish children are corrupting themselves with a college education that Chabad has not yet achieved its goal and needs to do more kiruv and spread its practices. You saved us from the triefe meat of Achasverosh.  It is Haman who went after you and we will do whatever we can to have you set free, because of this you are under threat like Mordecai HaTzadik. Another thing that I would like to add, is that you are obviously a reincarnation of Mordecai HaTzadik because, your middle name is Mordecai and, you are a tzadik  will save us from this golus. Another sign that you are here to redeem us is that, you had a multi-million dollar fraud going on and you showed no remorse, exactly how a true yid should react whenever he is caught. May Moshiach come soon and redeem you from prison since you are such a tzadik.

I Will Never Understand People

   At the beginning of this month, Rebecca Black's Friday music video (above) went viral. On the most part it received negative reviews, yet it was still popular. I see people posting this video to their Facebook profiles, yet they write how awful the song is and how it makes them want to vomit. What is ironic is that since this video, Rebecca Black has made it big. She appeared on MTV for an interview and Jay Leno. If the song is so bad,  then why give her so much publicity, or even make a parodies of her song?
                                  
                                              

   After all "imitation is the greatest form of flattery". I am saying this as a person who is addicted to spoofs and even tends memorize and sing them on a daily basis. I believe that parodies are an artistic form of pointing out different ideas and even making fun of songs. Sometimes the parodies are even better than the originals but the second video, which is the parody, is in my opinion atrocious. I found the video above on my Facebook updates one friend posted it on another mutual friend's profile. I thought that this parody was even worse than the original song. My theory on why this parody is so bad is because the original song was so horrible that is did not form the strong foundation that is needed to form a decent parody.

  Think of all the energy wasted making this parody, that energy could have been used to spoof the incompetence of the Japanese Government with the accident at Fukishima Nuclear Power Plant after the tsunami, or even Gaddafi's refusal to back down after the Libyans revolt. I think that those topics would have made excellent parodies. I could imagine a Gadaffi, ranting and raving and dodging bullets every second, as Obama and the U.N. offer him millions and billions of dollars to just back down and check himself into Bellvue for a month. He would then refuse the offer and go on a rampage, until Sarah Palin shoots him because she thought that he was a caribou. (The story would work just as well with Dick Cheney shooting him by "accident".)

  Now back to the publicity part. What I do not get about people is the fact that they focus on thing that they hate. A few examples I have are, Charlie Sheen, the Westboro Baptist Church, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, etc .Human behavior always baffles me, especially when it comes to how they react to different things. Whether it is the media or the average person I will never understand why they are interested in the Charlie Sheens and Lindsay Lohans since their behaviors in my opinion is static, failing drug tests breaking the law and acting like lunatics, how predictable. Why is the media actually interested in something that is so constant. Charlie Sheen will always be crazy, same with Lindsay Lohan and, the Westboro Baptist Church will always tell people that they are going to hell and protest funerals. We seem to dislike these things yet we give them attention. What I find really annoying is that I cannot turn on the news, or, open a newspaper without hearing something about the three things that I have mentioned before. Everybody seems sick and tired of them yet everyone seems to talk about them.

   As for the Westboro Baptist Church the only reason that I interested in it was because, as a person interest in American Government, I was curious about whether Snyder v. Phelps would get a writ of certiorari. The case did go to the U.S. Supreme court, which decided in the favor of the Phelps party, which means that they are allowed to protest at funerals. Now that we have established taht established we should simply ignore them. After all if we get angry and counter-protest, then we are playing into their game. They want attention, if we do not give them attention then things will not seem as bad as they are, and they will just blend back into nothingness. Maybe we will even realize how few people are protesting from the Westboro Baptist Church. I find it ironic that a few noise makers can incite hundreds of counter protesters.

  The Rebecca Black video was abysmal at best. However if we keep giving her attention and making parodies of her that will just increase her notoriety. She has every right to record a video, but if you think it is so bad then, do not watch the video and then share it with your friends. Attention gives positive reinforcement,  if we ignore her maybe the record companies and/Rebecca Black will get the message. After all as the saying goes "any publicity is good publicity". We are giving these celebrities and Rebecca Black exactly what they want and, we do not realize it.

PS. I am only posting this not out of my interest in Rebecca Black's video, but out of my frustration with people who keep giving misbehavior and mediocrity undeserved attention. The reason that I have mentioned the public figures like Charlie Sheen, Lindsay Lohan, Westboro Baptist Church and, Paris Hilton, is not because I care about them or even intentionally follow their lives. It is because their lives are all you hear about. We know that they will get into trouble, spew invectives and do erratic things, so why are we interested in something so predictable?

I'm Offended by This

  Today in macroeconomics class, my professor was discussing unemployment. He mentioned that discrimination increases during times of high unemployment because, many more people are applying for that job and it is easier to get away with discrimination. The example my professor used was that a man was not hired because he had green skin. He probably used this skin color because, he wanted to avoid using a real minority, so he would not offend anybody in the class by singling out a real minority. The problem is that, he offended me. As a Martian, I am offended that I was singled out like that.

  I know many people will ask why I am calling myself a Martian, the answer is because I am one. As a kid I was always different. I did not think like everyone else.  There were many reasons for including that facts that I, did not understand the social rules, always got into trouble, was in my own world, was hyperactive, was defiant, and, could not understand why thing were the way they were. I did not understand why I was so different. In seventh grade I finally learned what made me so different. My teacher was "kind" enough to point it out to me, by calling me a Martian every day in front of the class. Growing up as a Martian (or Alien American to cover all groups of space aliens) was awkward especially, when trying to blend into an Earthling run society where there was no Alien Awareness. I was forced to hide my true "skin color", with little success.  If my professor was aware of the existence of Alien Americans, he probably would not have used a person with green skin as an example, so as not to offend me as part of a minority group.

   As a result of the offensive comments made by my professor, I am joining the NAACP. I know that most people will say that the NAACP is an organization for African Americans but, isn't green a color? If the NAACP will not let me join then, I can say that the NAACP discriminates against, Martians and other space aliens, and form my own special interest group for fellow Aliens, the Alien Awareness League (AAL). We will first fight for recognition because, most people do not know that Martians, along with other species of space aliens exist. We will then fight for civil rights and awareness, such as Alien Awareness Month. The month of awareness will be dedicated to how Martians and other Aliens were mistreated and, had to live in and fight an unjust world that was run by Earthlings, without Alien Americans having a say in it. Since I am planning to be an Alien rights leader, I plan to make July Alien Awareness Month because, I was born in July. I plan to fight for affirmative action and be a representative of the Alien American community in a way that is similar to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton for the African American community. I will even lobby on Washington for Alien rights. I will preach about every hint of racism against Alien Americans. I will use the guilt of the Earthlings to my advantage.

   I will make sure that Alien Americans as a special interest group get their slice of the pie, just as any other minority group would. After all, "All's fair and love and war". This is how Alien Americans are planning to take over the world.

PS. To all you Earthlings out there this post was just a joke to make a political point.  I seriously was different as a kid and my teacher did call me a Martian. I am not a Martian but, I am sometimes on my own planet.

Purim 2011: My First Purim Without Going to a Party of Some Sort

My Purim Costume

  I was always awkward when it came to Purim. I was never invited to a Purim party outside of school. This year I was invited to two Purim parties, yet I choose to be alienated. In short I skipped both parties.

   For those who do not know what Purim is, I will explain it to you. Purim is a result of how the Jews were not killed in the Persian Empire despite the fact that Haman, the king's advisor had the king sign a declaration saying that on the 13th of Adar the Jews will be killed. Queen Esther was kidnapped forcibly married to the king and revealed that she was Jewish, and that Haman wanted to kill her people. The king signed a declaration saying that the citizens of his 127 countries can try to kill the Jews, but the Jews had the right to defend themselves. Haman was hanged on the gallows that he wanted to hang his Jewish nemesis Mordechai along with his ten sons. Because of this today Jews celebrate, dress up, and drink. For those who are interested you can probably find an English translation of the Book of Esther.

  I wonder why I choose to seclude myself from everyone. I think that one reason is that, I am scared of making a fool out of myself. Another reason I think is because whenever I go to a party I tend to, pig out on the food, hang out in a more secluded part of the premises (like the back room, or if it was a party by my school my school auditorium rather than the gym where the party is going on), or as I said before make a fool out of myself in general. I thought that this year I would be more outgoing, but I was so busy with school and working on my philosophy and history papers. I know that I am the way I am, but I should stop making excuses for myself and attend more parties and events. I should open myself up to new experiences, I might even enjoy some of them. I also should be more prepared and actually buy a costume for Purim next year.

   However this year I decided to dress up as something that I have been scared of for a long time. I am dressing up as myself. This Purim I will not hide behind masks and costumes and pretend to be something I'm not, like other people. I am going to be myself and happy with that.
                                    
                                                      HAPPY PURIM!!!!!!!

How Rude!

   I have always had problems in the classroom and today was no exception. I tend to have problems with classroom etiquette, when it comes to raising your hand, the tone of voice I speak in (I tend to speak in a very loud voice), and dominating the class discussion. However, what made today different was that, instead of being told off by the professor, I was told off by a fellow student. She said that I needed to tone it down and that I was degrading the professor. However, what upset me most, was that I never even spoke to this student before, it would have been one thing if she was a friend, or even an acquaintance, but she was not. My initial thought  was that she was just plain rude.

  It all started today in art history class we were discussing Greek and Roman art. People were allowed to give input their observations on the artworks. When it came to discussing the busts of  Julius Caesar (the top picture ) and Pompey the Great (the bottom picture) which were both made made in the 1st century BCE  . Class discussion was open and I decided to voice my observations along with everybody else dd.

   While everybody else said that Pompey looked younger than Caesar, I disagreed. I noticed that Pompey had wrinkles. The only thing that made Pompey seem younger was his hair. He did not have the facial expression that one normally sees on competent leaders. He looked as if he was a lazy person who did nothing all day. The way I described it was that he was not better looking than Caesar and not idealized because, he had a big nose with worry lines, he did not seem to be relating to everyone but had a spaced-out look on his face. To me Caesar seemed more alert and engaged than Pompey. I guess the reason that I found Caesar to be more relatable is because I am not used relating to normal people but rather to politician-types.When I gave my input on both the statues someone did interrupt me to counteract my input on the size of Pompey's nose, which was also not perfect classroom etiquette on her part.  I might have called out a few times when it came to the statue of Augustus 14 AD which was when he died. How we supposedly knew it was after his death was because he was not wearing shoes. When a person asked if Greek had shoes (Augustus was Roman, and yes ever heard of gladiator sandals?) I said that gladiators (who were Roman) had sandals, and yes the Greeks also did and asked if the person ever heard of gladiator sandals. I was not degrading the professor but, maybe I should not have called out and let the professor respond to that one.

    I acknowledge the fact that I am not the perfect student. If I forget to raise my hand or offend the professor. I do expect the professor to give me some constructive criticism in response to my transgressions. One such example is, when last semester when my Classics professor professor was discussing the midterm I called out when he said that the lecture on The Odyssey was his favorite lecture. I called out to ask why. What I did not get was that when he said that it was his favorite lecture, he meant that a huge portion of the midterm would be on The Odyssey. The next lecture the professor called me up to discuss my calling out. Yes I was angry, however, he had every right to do so.

   I do not mean to be disrespectful, but I just do not understand what is appropriate speech. To me appropriate speech means that it lacks hate. I also tend to go too far when joking. Such and incident happened last semester when I made a stupid joke at a  fellow  Brooklyn College student. I just thought that it was a harmless joke. However, I was wrong because it turns out he told his mother. When his mother started being hostile towards me I just commented my observation that she did not seem in the mood to talk. She then said that I was not so nice to her son. Forget the fact that we are college students and he had his mother intervene, why could he not just tell me himself that he was offended by my harmless joke?

    Now back to what happened after the art history lecture. After the lecture, as I was leaving a fellow student came up to me and told me to tone it down. She also said that I was degrading the professor. My thoughts at that moment were, "that if the professor has a problem with me he can tell me himself.", that she is a fellow student and not the professor's assistant so who was she to tell me off like that?", and that I just thought that I was giving my intellectual input. I even spoke to someone I knew from elementary school about this and she agreed with me.My point is that I feel that students should not try to intervene in the student-teacher relationship the same with that parents should not intervene in peer relations.


PS. Although I thought that it was wrong for a fellow student to tell me off, I will take what she said into account. I will continue to work on my calling out and how I tend to take over a discussion (in and out of the classroom), along with my social skills.

Modesty and Orthodox Judaism

   In my previous post I discussed how modesty has taken over Orthodox Judaism. When my friend saw my post, she sent me this video. The woman in this video talks about how modesty is the most important thing. I guess that the woman in the video thinks that being modest is more important than being a decent and ethical person. She also does not seem religious, when it comes to not being materialistic and close to God. All she talks about is what she buys, eats, and drinks. I do not consider myself a spiritual person. However, she seems to be more materialistic than I am. This video makes me wonder even more whether modesty really makes a person religious.

   Although this video is fictitious and is a satire, you cannot deny that there is an element of truth to it. This video was so similar to the experiences that I have had with many people, that I could not tell that it was fake. I did not know it was fake until my sister told me it was. The reason for this mistake could be 1- I cannot tell that something is a joke unless I am told it is, or 2- as I said before this video is so realistic that I could not tell that it was a joke. You can be the judge for yourself, but personally I think that reason number two is the one that applies most.

Thoughts on the Color Red

  This week I had to encounter a dilemma that I never thought that I would have to encounter again, the question what makes a person Orthodox. From my days in yeshiva I discovered that modesty was the criteria that you were judged by. However when I asked my father he said that, one is considered Orthodox if he keeps the mitzvot as in Sabbath and kosher. However this ugly monster, has somehow found its way back into my life. It is obvious today that modesty has become the most important category for someone to be considered religious even if they do keep Sabbath, kosher and the other mitzvot.

 This story happened this week as I was sitting around in the Hillel before class. I heard a girl getting upset at a Bukharian man. The reason she got upset at this man was because he said that Orthodox Jews do not wear red, and that girl had a red coat. Being upset about this, I asked this man if he considered me religious. I was wearing my jeans, which I consider more modest for me than a skirt, because I tend to sit in an immodest fashion. He pointed out that I was wearing jeans, which is what I expected. However, I keep the Jewish holidays, Sabbath, and kosher. When I told him this he asked if I went to synagogue. I do not go to synagogue every Sabbath and Jewish holiday. The reason being is that I do not find prayer to be helpful and I feel the reason why people pray is because they were taught to, and because it is simply part of the social structure of Judaism, which I have trouble comprehending. People go to synagogue to make friends, I have not been so successful in that department. He said that I was not quite Orthodox because of that. Last time I checked, to be considered Orthodox one had to keep Sabbath and kosher, so this did not make sense to me.

   I later went to talk to the girl that the man had offended. I told her about my exchange with that man. She said that she would not take offense because he was not right in the head. She also said that the anti-red sentiment was from the time of the shtetles. That part she is mistaken about because, when I was in Balkany's school which was a Bais Yaakov, an ultra-Orthodox school the principal and teachers spoke violently against us wearing the color red. Last time I checked this was not during the time of the shtetles. The color red is banned throughout Boro Park and many other Yeshivish/Haredi neighborhoods. I seriously have issues with such dress codes. They tend to look down on those who do not follow it. The funny thing is that I have met women who I consider to be very religious but wear pants. When I stayed at one such woman's  house she  forced me to go to synagogue on Sabbath. The truth is that I like to sleep in, so waking up at 9 AM was a very big strain. The man in the story would have probably considered this family irreligious because the synagogue they went to was very Modern Orthodox.

   I somewhat envy this woman and her family because they are far away from the judgmental Jewish communities of New York. I had such an encounter when someone from my neighborhood said that her mother told her that my sister was not marrying a frum (religious) guy. Being outraged, I said that the reason that her mother said this was because she was a "narrow-headed frummie". I know that that was immature and ad hominem, but at the time it was less than two years since I graduated Balkany's school, and I was sick of people judging my religious devotion along with them judging other people's.

   These values being shoved down my throat is one of the factors that made me skeptical of the Jewish communities.I noticed that they cared more about modesty than the feelings of other people,. If I transgressed in the modesty category I got it over the head. I once faced public humiliation because I was spotted outside of school not wearing socks by a teacher. This teacher decided to announce to the whole class that she saw me dressed "immodestly". How about the saying "Love thy neighbor as if he were thyself" or "Hamalbim pinei chaveroh b'rabim ein lo chelek b'olam habah"? (The second saying means, "If you embarrass your friend in public then you lose your part in the world to come".) I guess that technically I was not a friend because I was a student, but I was taught the loose interpretation where "chaveroh" means a fellow Jew, which she obviously violated.

  I feel that many of the ultra-Orthodox people that I have met turned out to be hypocrites. Why do we judge people according to how they dress? A person can cover themselves from head to toe but still not be religious. The coat in question was a simple wool coat. I believe that this girl should have the right to wear a coat in the color of her choice without being judged.

Miss Lonelyhearts: A Tragic Life That is Very Familiar

  For English my class was assigned to read Miss Lonelyhearts by Nathanael West. This book was written in 1933. Miss Lonelyhearts is not what it sounds like. First off, Miss Lonelyhearts is not even a female. Miss Lonelyhearts is an alias that an unidentified man goes under as part of the advice column that he writes for. Miss Lonelyhearts has to deal with other people's problems on a daily basis. This impairs his ability to lead a happy life. First he flirts with his boss's wife. He then breaks up with his fiance, and then sleeps with an unhappily married woman who wrote to him. The woman he slept with is married to a cripple who she claims is not a gentleman and that she only married him because she was pregnant. He then tells her that her husband probably loves her. However, he still ends up sleeping with her. He falls ill after this incident. His fiance heard that he is sick and comes to bring him soup. She asks him for the reason why he does not just quit and go into advertising. The reason he gives her is, because even if he does quit, the letters will always haunt him.  His boss then comes and tells him to write to Christ like one of his writers would write to him. Miss Lonelyhearts is a character who expresses his religion in interesting ways. A few examples are 1- He took the ivory Christ of the crucifix and nailed it to the wall 2- He attempted to sacrifice a lamb to God. However, after trying to slaughter the lamb, the lamb escapes and he ends up having to put the lamb out of its misery, because it was cut by hitting its head on the rock. What is ironic is that his initial intention was to eat the lamb.

  Now back to the soap opera part of the story. Miss Lonelyhearts then takes sick leave and goes to a house in the country with his fiance. It is there that he is temporarily able to escape the drama for a few days.However upon returning to his natural habitat he realizes that, he was right about not being able to escape the memories of the letters that he has read. This is realization is said to have been a relief. The reason being is that he felt like that he has been living a lie throughout the duration of the escape. He soon comes face to face with the husband of the married woman that he has slept with. The crippled husband comes to deliver a letter personally to Miss Lonelyhearts. The cripple eventually invites Miss Lonelyhearts over to his house. Upon the arrival of the two men, the cripple's wife automatically begins to flirt with Miss Lonelyhearts. The wife sends her husband out to the store to buy some gin. This is the perfect opportunity for the wife to continue her advances on Miss Lonelyhearts. He continues to ignore her advances until...she tries to assault him by sticking his head between her breasts. He responds in defense by hitting her in the face. His boss then invites him to a party where everything really catches up to him. His boss shows him off as a circus act and even has him read the letter that the cripple sent to him after the incident at his house. The letter says that his wife said that he tried to rape him. His fiance was at this party and runs away and is upset. He found her and tried to obtain her forgiveness and stated that he quit the Miss Lonelyhearts job. His fiance then tell him that she is pregnant and plans to have an abortion. He then asks her to marry him and convinces her to keep the baby. He even volunteers to go into advertising like his fiance suggested earlier. Miss Lonelyhearts has repented for his sins and finally gets his happy ending, or so we think. The cripple comes to meet Miss Lonelyhearts. Miss Lonelyhearts newly reformed decides to embrace the cripple. It turns out that the cripple had a gun on him, and they both fall down a flight of stairs after the gun shot.

  I guess that everyone including me has past experiences that they cannot escape. When Miss Lonelyhearts said that he would never be able to escape the letters, I felt as if we shared the same brain. Despite the fact that many years have past since my childhood I seem to be unable to escape the traumatic experiences of my youth. I feel that this book was meant for people who are think like me. People who seem to never be able to get past the bad experiences in their lives and seem to make one mistake after another. This book is in no means a fairy tale. This book is more realistic by showing us that the past will always haunt us. Miss Lonelyhearts is not happy when he everything is good, because he feels that the happiness is artificial. This is a malady that I am faced with everyday. I am never happy, I have problems conforming to societal norms, because I feel that it is fake and feel like I am living a lie. He seems to trudge through everyday life. No amount of happiness can mask his pain. He originally wanted to write for the sport column, which he never got. He breaks up with his fiance because of his Jesus complex to save everyone after getting the Miss Lonelyhearts column. I have to deal my confusion and problems with society on a daily basis. Miss Lonelyhearts is stronger than me because if I had to deal with all these problems I would have broken down long before Miss Lonelyhearts did. He is not like everyone else because he can no longer think about himself when  he is faced with everyone's problems. He is extremely confused. I feel leading my life is difficult but imagine leading his life. I have problems that many people do not understand, yet I am amazed by the problems Miss Lonelyhearts faces on a daily basis. I sometimes wonder if I was like everyone else and lived the lie that normal people live, if I would discover true happiness. I have tried that but I have discovered that I am less happy pretending to be something I am not, especially when the past catches up to me and I end up bumping into a person that I was trying to escape. My favorite part was that it did not fit into the mainstream fairy tale category. He was not a prince charming. He is constantly tortured until the day he dies.

  This might seem like a cliche class paper, but I did genuinely relate to this book. Also this is not a class paper. I am writing about this on my blog because I truly enjoyed this book. I would not write about this unless I truly enjoyed it. Sorry if I am boring you to death. LOL.

Freedom of Speech: The Good and the Bad

  I have been interested in the case of Snyder v. Phelps for a quite a while. The case started when the Westboro Baptist Church, a very anti-gay church protested the funeral of a soldier who died in Iraq, Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder. They normally show up at, or near soldiers' funerals with signs that say hateful things like "God Hates Fags" or "Thank God for Dead Soldiers". They do this at military funerals because according to them, the reason why these soldiers died is because of America's tolerance towards gays.They even wrote a letter also blaming the fact that he was raised in "the monstrosity that is the Catholic Church" and that his father was divorced from his mother. His father, Albert Snyder was so devastated by the protest that he decided to sue them for emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and defamation. The lower courts ruled in favor of Snyder and ordered Phelps to pay millions in damages.The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Phelps and ordered Snyder to pay Phelps's legal fees. The debate was whether the right to privacy and peaceful assembly was more important than the other part of the First Amendment, Freedom of Speech. A writ of certiorari was issued by the U.S. Supreme Court in March of 2010, and the arguments were heard in October of 2010. Today the Supreme Court decided in favor of Phelps in an 8:1 decision. I feel great disgust towards the Westboro Baptist Church however I feel that people have the right to say anything as long as it will not damage anyone financially or physically, and is not threatening. For example in April of 2010 South Park writers Trey Parker and Matt Stone were threatened because of an episode of South Park that they made. This episode apparently had Mohammed in a bear suit. The person in the bear suit was later revealed to be Santa. This episode angered Yousef al-Khattab, the person who has a website called Revolution Muslim. Al-Khattab wrote on his website "warning" Parker and Stone that they should be careful because if not they will end up like murdered Dutch filmmaker, Theo van Gough. Parker and Stone had every right to make that episode because South Park is a show that satirizes all religions and Islam should not be an exception. However al-Khattab's statement should be considered a death threat and be taken seriously. The second part of the episode bleeped out Mohammed's name, blacked out Mohammed's image (which was shown in a previous episode that was taken off the South Park website after the death threat), and bleeped out a speech at the end about fear and intimidation that had nothing to do with Mohammed. The Westboro Baptist Church did nothing of the sort. Psychological harm is relative and is not physical, and does not threaten a person's life. As a Jew, I hate them because they are also virulent anti-Semites, who think that Hitler did God's work. However, I  feel that they have the right to speak their minds. I will keep this in mind when I go to a rally that supports Israel which is another controversial topic.The anti-Zionists, also have the right to voice their opinion. I appreciate this right so that I can voice my opinion, which is pro-Israel. It is not because I empathize with them but because intellectually I know that it is unfair if both sides cannot voice their opinion. After all, people tend to be overly sensitive to their beliefs and get offended easily when we say things against them. Refuting people's beliefs will then become illegal and no one in society will be able to express what they think without going to jail. For example in many European countries you get arrested for hate speech. The offenders did not hurt anybody, yet they go to jail how fair is that? Intellectually I know that if one part of non-threatening free speech is abridged, then all parts of free speech are under that same threat. It still does not stop me from being offended by sexist or anti-Semitic comments. However, I am willing to accept the fact that they have a right to make those hateful comments, in exchange for my right to speak against them and/or voice my own opinion. We should realize that the pros outweigh the cons when it comes to free speech.

How Similar is Gang Life to Army Life?

  Today in English class we were discussing two Jorge Borges's fictional works based on Herbert Asbury's book The Gangs of New York. The story that will be discussed now is "Monk Eastman: Purveyor of Iniquities".  After being sent to jail and his gang that formally consisted of 1,200 members was dissolved, Monk Eastman commits misdemeanors and is in and out of jail. Monk Eastman eventually decides to "turn over a new leaf" and join the army to fight in WWI. The question in class was whether he actually turned a new leaf. The army from my perspective is a similar structure to the life style that Monk Eastman was used to.Being in a gang involved fighting with competing gangs over boundaries,and stolen goods. Many, if not all wars were started over issues such as boundaries and natural resources, as in goods. Monk Eastman was able to satiate his thirst for blood and gore by joining the army. He was from my perspective not a changed person. He was still doing the activities that he loved, fighting the enemy. The only difference was that: 
1- Killing in combat is legal, while killings resulting from gang fights are illegal.  
2- People who kill in the army are considered heroes, while people who kill other people in gang fights are considered murderers.

   Eastman had the mentality that is consistent with being in the army, staying loyal to his side,and fighting and killing the enemy. Being in a gang also means roughing it, and facing the possibility that you might be injured or killed. Those parts of gang life are also consistent with army life.In many ways army life is very similar to gang life.  
In the end we see that Eastman had never actually reformed himself. He returned to petty crime. On his final day Eastman was shot by Jerry Bohan, a corrupt Prohibitionist  and Eastman's friend. Eastman died from that gun shot .Bohan was sent to jail for three years.The authorities also discovered upon Eastman's murder that he was bootlegging alcohol.He was buried with military honors. So I guess the cliche that, "A tiger cannot change its stripes overnight"  is true.

Is Walt Whitman's Poetry About New York Relevant to The New York of Today?

  A few weeks ago in English class my professor assigned the class to read four poems from Walt Whitman's  Leaves of Grass. I looked at this assignment with disdain because, I am not a big fan of poetry. I especially had a hard time reading Whitman's poetry because it is very idealistic and I am more realistic. Another problem that I had with Whitman's poetry is that I find it hard to decipher the meaning behind poems, and Whitman's poetry was no exception. Although I do not like poetry I and had a hard time reading the poems, I found that one of Whitman's poems did have some meaning to it. The meaning was relevant even for the New York City of today. I found "A Broadway Pageant" addressed a situation that is still relevant to New York City, diversity. Whitman mentions all the different types of immigrants coming to New York. New York City does not have one culture but many cultures. New York City is still known for its diversity today. This was obviously relevant over 100 years ago, which is when this poem was written. We see this because as Whitman says in "A Broadway Pageant":

"For not the envoys nor the tann`d Japanee from his island only,
Lithe and silent the Hindoo appears, the Asiatic continent itself
appears, the past, the dead,
The murky night-morning of wonder and fable inscrutable,
The envelop`d mysteries, the old and unknown hive-bees,
The north, the sweltering south, eastern Assyria, the Hebrews, the
ancient of ancients,
Vast desolated cities, the gliding present, all of these and more
are in the pageant-procession."

New York City is truly one of a kind. Growing up in New 

York was quite an interesting experience. I was exposed 

to a lot of different cultures. One of my babysitters was from 

Barbados and introduced me to mangoes. I grew up near 

China Town and developed appreciation towards Chinese art. 

I also have a deep appreciation for Indian food. Although my difficulty with Whitman's poetry was so great, that I wrote that "Walt Whitman can go f*ck himself" as my Facebook status. So Walt Whitman's 
poetry although difficult for me was somewhat relevant to my 
life.