Catch-22

"You're wasting your time," Doc Daneeka was forced to tell him.
"Can't you ground someone who is crazy?"
"Oh, sure, I have to. There's a rule saying I have to ground anyone who is crazy."
"Then why don't you ground me? I'm crazy. Ask Clevinger."
"Clevinger? Where is Clevenger? You find Clevinger and I'll ask him."
"Then ask any of the others. They'll tell you how crazy I am."
"They're crazy."
"Then why don't you ground them?"
"Why don't they ask me to ground them?"
"Because they're crazy, that's why."
"Of course they're crazy," Doc Daneeka replied. "I just told you they're crazy didn't I? And you can't let crazy people decide whether you are crazy or not, can you?"
Yossarian looked at him soberly and tried another approach. "Is Orr crazy?"
"He sure is?" Doc Daneeka said.
"Can you ground him?"
"I sure can. But first he has to ask me. That's part of the rule."
"Then why doesn't he ask you to?"
"Because he's crazy," Doc Daneeka said. "He has to be crazy to keep flying combat missions after all the close calls he's had. Sure, I can ground Orr. But first he has to ask me to."
"That's all he has to do to be grounded?"
"That's all. Let him ask me."
"And then you can ground him?" Yossarian asked.
"No, Then I can't ground him."
"You mean there's a catch?"
"Sure there's a catch," Doc Daneeka replied. "Catch-22. Anyone who wants to get out of combat duty isn't really crazy."

This is my favorite scene out of one of my favorite books. It demonstrates the simple absurdity of bureacratic thinking. And it's this line of thinking and reasoning that is pervasive in our government today (and yesterday apparently). It's used to twist laws and thought to fit the needs of whomever is using it. We are constantly flooded with a barrage of irrationalities that are made to appear rational and logical. And then we are told that we are racist, or sexist, or a homophobe or hateful, or greedy, ect, ect, ect, if we choose to rightly pick apart and show the errors of these fallacies. In reallity what we really want is just to expose the irrationality of thier "logic".

Initially I just intended to quote a favorite part of a book. Now I'm wondering should I specify where such devices are used. It everywhere quite frankly. Lawyers use it, judges use it, theologians use it, the news definitely uses it, tv, movies, lobbyist, ect. The list goes on and on.

We truth seekers unfortunately are in the minority. Nobody wants truth anymore. Nobody cares what really happens. They are happy to share in the fate of poor Yossarian. Trapped in an inescappable web of twists and turns which obscure and hinder truth and justice. And then are happy to blame whomever they are told is responsible for thier dillema (no real evidence needed).

I thank God for eyes which see and ears that hear. I think the internet, while used for many evil enterprises, serves as a great tool for those seeking to see beyond the veil of the popular world.

Now that my wandering mind has turned one of my favorite books into a political statement, which I'm still isn't sure makes any sense to anyone but me, I'm gonna go watch "I love Lucy" with my Lucy addicted wife.