Iran: Rejections of Liberalism

Bibliography

CIA- the World Factbook. CIA, 14 Feb. 2011. Web. 1 Mar. 2011. <https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html>.

Egypt, the most populous country in the Arab world, erupted in mass protests in January 2011, as the revolution in Tunisia seemed to inflame decades worth of smoldering grievances against the heavy-handed rule of President Hosni Mubarak. After 18 days of angry protests, Mr. Mubarak resigned and turned over all power to the military on Feb. 11, 2011, ending his 30 years of autocratic rule and bowing to a historic popular uprising that has transformed politics in Egypt and around the Arab world. The announcement, delivered during evening prayers in Cairo, set off a frenzy of celebration, with protesters shouting “Egypt is free!” The popular protest, peaceful and resilient despite numerous effort by Mr. Mubarak’s legendary security apparatus to suppress it, ultimately deposed an ally of the United States who has been instrumental in implementing American policy in the region for decades.

This article (found at The New York Times) provides a brief summary that helped make things a little bit clearer for me. The website also had further in depth information for each day that was available if more detail was required. After reading several different articles, blogs, video clips, and much more about the current situation occuring in not only Egypt but the Middle East and North Africa I thought that this one was able to simply state what has been happening in Egypt which is very simmilar to what is effecting and happening in many other places around Egypt.

The TRUE Reason for My Delay

                Many people have debated what the cause of my delay in taking revenge for my father’s death was. I, Hamlet, am here to set the record straight. I will credit the ideas which are plausible but I promise you that by the time you finish reading what I have to say you will have the true reason for why it took so long for me to take revenge on my father’s murderer (brother). Just in case you’re worried, I will have you know that I will be to the point and precise, much unlike Polonius.

                First off I would like to get one theory out of the way right of the bat because it is so ridiculous. The theory that I wasn’t strong enough and lacked the nerve that hero’s are made of makes me laugh. I was more than strong enough. I was prepared to do it when I saw Claudius on his knees praying. The only problem with that was that I wasn’t going to get revenge that way. Killing him after he had asked forgiveness for his sins when he taken my father when my father had not the time to repent for his sins was not revenge. I knew that “...this is hire and salary, not revenge.” (III, iii, 80) and waited for a better opportunity to present itself. I needed true revenge, and I was strong enough and had the nerve to know that, so I waited until the proper moment arose; you may ask if dying was the proper moment for my revenge but I will explain that in a little bit. I feel much better with that one out of the way; it definitely won’t be on my list of hardest arguments to win.

                Now I will explain to you my true reason for the delay. A large part of my personality is that I think about things a lot, some people may say in excess, before I take action. That is because I like to think of myself as an amateur philosopher. It is true that “... the native hue of resolution is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought” (III, i, 85-86) and part of me was glad that the proper moment never arose until I was dying, for who can be mad at a dead man, and even if they are, what do I care? After my father’s death and talking to his spirit, I found it difficult to meet real world situations in some cases, and occasionally I was out of touch with the practical world. Although I was physically capable of accomplishing these things, since I am a thinker instead of a doer I found that it wasn’t uncommon for me to over think situations that I was in, which for common folks could be seen as being out of touch with the real world. I spent the entirety of my life from the time I saw my father’s ghost until I was dying and finally took revenge on Claudius thinking about what should, and what had to be done. By doing this I prevented myself from making a mistake and either killing the wrong man or killing him at the wrong moment. I was able to devise a plan to reveal the truth, because I am such a great philosopher. By putting on a play that showed a man killing his brother, the King, for the crown and all the other benefits that accompanied it I was able to discover that the true killer was indeed Claudius and it was not the ghost who was lying to me. I could see that Claudius was guilty because to us who “...have free souls, it touches us not: let the galled jade wince, our withers are unwrung.” (III, ii, 237-239) and Claudius not only winced but ordered the play to stop and left. I also was able to think of the wonderful plan to act crazy. I was able to trust Horatio and Marcellus to “Never make known what you have seen tonight” (I, v, 145) that cold night when the ghost first talked to me. Since I was able to trust those two men to keep my secret I was able to act crazy and convince everyone around me that I was crazy. While I had everyone believing that I was crazy I could think things through, I was able to be certain that my final choice was the best possible one that could be made. Claudius was too busy worrying about making sure that “Madness in great ones must not unwatch’d go” (III, i, 190) while what he had to be worrying about was what I was planning behind my curtain of madness. The facade of my craziness also misdirected other people, such as Polonius who then informed Claudius. Polonius believed “The origin and commencement of [my] grief sprung from neglected love” (III, i, 179-180) which further caused Claudius to stray farther from the truth of my plan. Now back to why dying was the right time for my revenge. First of all, if I had waited until after I had passed on I couldn’t have really carried out my revenge, so it had to be either at that point or before my final dual. However, the correct moment had not presented itself before my death arrived, and trust me, I wouldn’t have let it pass had it come. I had thought many hours about what the proper moment would be; for as a hobby I am a philosopher, remember? But like I had said, the moment hadn’t arrived before my death so it had to be as I was dying. 

                Similar to this theory is the one that I couldn’t persuade myself that murdering Claudius was the right thing to do. I can understand why some may come to this conclusion. I was conflicted with a decision, however it was not whether or not it was right to kill the king or not. The decision that I was faced with was when the proper moment to kill Claudius was. I knew that I must avenge my father’s death and to do this his murderer must die. I knew that by my morals it was okay to kill a man for revenge, for why should a murderer live while my father was taken from this earth too soon. “Hyperion to a satyr...” (I, ii, 140) was my father to his brother, his murderer, my uncle, my ‘father’, should I continue? I don’t believe that there are many people that wouldn’t agree with me that it was morally acceptable to remove from this earth a beast such as Claudius since he had taken the sun god from us. I wish not to continue on this subject so I will proceed to the next theory.

                I will accept the fact that the situation that I was faced with was far from normal and seeing the ghost of my dead father unnerved me. I am also aware that had I been faced with normal situations my revenge would surely have come sooner. The play that I planned for the king was indeed so that I could be certain that it wasn’t “a damned ghost that we have seen” (III, ii, 81) for should Claudius’ “occulted guilt do not itself unkennel in one speech” (III, ii, 79-80) we could be certain that the revenge was unjust, therefore I must not kill my new father. Had I not created this plan and not been certain that the man I was to take revenge on was undeniably the man that committed the murder, I would not have been able to carry out my revenge. These were far from normal circumstances and undoubtedly had my father’s ghost not appeared I would have not needed to devise such a plan, because when “my father’s spirit in arms [appears] all is not well” (I, ii, 153) and things must be thought out twice as carefully as under normal circumstances. The only problem with this theory is to believe that I was too damaged to act and eventually take revenge. Had I been that damaged I would not have been able to take my revenge even as I was dying, I would have simply waited to die as everyone else fell like flies around me.

                Finally I will explain why this last theory isn’t the real reason for why my revenge was so delayed. It is completely true that I waited until I could prove that Claudius was the true murderer and this was one of the major factors that slowed me in my quest for revenge. It was also tricky to make sure that my mother was kept out of this foul situation. Although not impossible, considering I accomplished it, this detail of my obligations did set my execution of the revenge back a fare bit. The part of this theory that I must straighten out with you uneducated people is that, alas I was still the King’s son, meaning that it was not hard for me to meet with him. The Swiss guards were far from an obstacle that I was faced with during my search for revenge. To add to that, it wasn’t like I was going to poison him in the cowardly manner that he did kill my true father. It was normal to have a knife in my position and once in a room alone with Claudius it was mine own choosing to whether I would kill him or not. Besides it would not have been hard to convince that thing that I had had a change of heart and wanted to get to know him better, have some father-son bonding time alone, and if I had decided that I was going to take my revenge I could have, easily. Just to restate, the guards were not an obstacle.

                Now that you have finished reading what I have to say I hope that you know now the true reason for why my revenge was so delayed. The fact that I am a philosopher and need to think things through multiple times slowed the process of revenge considerably. When courage is cast over with thought the outcome will most often be the best one possible, however it will take much longer for it to occur. My story is a prime example of how thought slows reactions, for my revenge was delayed a great deal (perhaps for too long). Facing real world situations and staying in touch with the practical world was also a flaw that set my revenge further back. I have enjoyed correcting all of you who were wrong about why I delayed and I suppose I should congratulate those who were correct, even though it should have been obvious. I look forward to the next time you need to be corrected.

Principles of Liberalism that remain the same

Critical Response

            Throughout the book, The Grapes of Wrath, John Steinbeck demonstrates the many different forms of self preservation and how it affects how the individual responds to competing demands. Steinbeck used the main characters to show the audience these aspects of an individual’s drive to pursue personal well being by having them develop throughout the story. He also introduced other, minor characters throughout the book in intercalary chapters that are used to contrast the main characters that represent the ideal response to competing demands.
            Tom Joad is a major character in the book. The plot follows him very closely along with his family. Steinbeck has clearly done this because Tom is a prime example of what Steinbeck believes should happen in society. When the book, The Grapes of Wrath began, after the chapter on dust, Tom was trying to get home after being in jail for four years; he had only two things on his mind at that time, his family and himself. Steinbeck showed us this beginning stage of Tom so that he could develop this character. Tom spent a large portion of the book thinking about his family and himself, about things like keeping the vehicles from breaking down, where they were going to sleep and how they were going to get enough money to survive. The plot required Tom to have this set of thought, for the country was going through very difficult times, however Steinbeck tried to show us that because everyone had that set of mind the country and somewhat more importantly the lower class of society remained in that state of depression and need. Steinbeck used Jim Casy to make Tom Joad develop. When Tom found Casy on strike and watched him die, he developed a new way of thinking. He realized that Casy was right and that change had to happen. Casy spent most of the book thinking. Steinbeck created Casy as a Christ figure, and when he died for his cause he finally got a true disciple to carry on his ideas. Although there were also men on the strike with Casy they were not as committed as Tom was after Casy died. Tom showed that he truly understood and was willing to take action when he said “Wherever they’s a fight so hungry people can eat, I’ll be there. Wherever they’s a cop beatin’ up a guy, I’ll be there.” (pg. 572). Tom changed and finally realized that he could help his family the most by helping the revolt that was brewing. He realized that he couldn’t keep on thinking about the individual, and proved this when he said “Throw out the cops that ain’t out people. All work together for our own thing – all farm our own lan’.” (pg. 571), but had to instead start working for the good of the collective. This was the major concept that John Steinbeck tried to make his audience understand. He wanted his society to understand that the individual couldn’t just worry about their selves but instead work for the collective group. He believed that this was the only way to bring success and prosperity to the majority, instead of letting a few become wealthy while the majority faces extreme poverty and hunger. Steinbeck also developed Rose of Sharon’s character in such a way as to prove his beliefs were the best. She was like many of those who were in the same difficult situation. She thought about herself and her unborn child, growing inside her. When she gave birth to a still born child it changed her ways though. Not only had she lost the father of her child earlier in the book but she also lost her child before she ever really had it. This is what made her change and realise that she had to start not being so selfish, and think about others. She made it clear that she understood this and was willing to change at the end of the book when she fed the starving man in the barn.
            Steinbeck also created characters that were never or never developed into examples of Steinbeck’s ideal citizen to be part of an ideal society. One main character that Steinbeck included was Noah. Noah had more than his fair share of difficulties and hardship not only while trying to get to California but also just in life. Since Noah was challenged mentally he felt that he never really belonged in the family. As the family began travelling and Noah was forced to be a bigger part of the family, Noah realized how much he did not belong. He finally gave up when he refused to continue travelling with the family and stay at the river. When Noah said, “I’m sad, but I can’t he’p it. I got to go.” (pg. 284) he showed that he was only concerned about himself and not the collective and was never going to change. Steinbeck included Noah to show us what happens if the individual only thinks about their self instead of thinking and working for the collective. Since Noah just thought about himself he likely died on the edge of the river and he was never able to not only be part of the collective but more importantly to Steinbeck he was never able to help the collective group. Connie was another character that Steinbeck used to show us what the problems are with the individual only concerned about the individual. He was a character that had many challenges and finally they became too great so he just left so that he did not have to face these challenges. Connie did not want to have to face the hardships of being a father and caring for a family. He also realized how hopeless the situation was and saw no relief in the future so instead of working for the good of the collective as Steinbeck wants society to do, Connie left so that he did not have to deal with that pressure resting on his shoulders. He finally understood that his and Rose of Sharon’s plan to study nights, get a good job, and live in town, where they could go watch movies and have a doctor for their baby’s birth was just a dream that would never come true. This finally became apparent to Connie and he could not face Rose of Sharon with this truth. Connie was never able to understand that he should be working for the good of the collective instead of only worrying about the individual. By including these characters as a main part of the book Steinbeck showed us what happens if we do not understand that we have to work for the good of the collective. Steinbeck showed us that if we only concern ourselves with the individual no one can succeed.
            In the book Steinbeck wrote intercalary chapters and introduced new characters to contrast his idea. At the beginning of the book Steinbeck wrote about a tractor driver who was just like all the other people who were being pushed off of their land, but was still working for the government, who were pushing those people off their land. The tractor driver was getting three dollars a day to drive the tractor while it was pushing hundreds of people of their little source of income; this was Steinbeck’s example of what happens when the individual puts more importance on the individual instead of the collective group. Steinbeck showed us the tractor driver’s beliefs when he said “Times are changed, don’t you know? Thinking about stuff like that don’t feed the kids. Get your three dollars a day, feed your kids. You got no call to worry about anybody’s kids but your own.” (pg. 51) which clearly goes against everything Steinbeck was trying to get across to people by writing this book. Eventually the farm will die and the soil will have no nutrients left in it to grow a new crop, when this happens the tractor driver will be out of a job and his three dollars a day just like everyone else. Steinbeck tries to make us understand that if he had worked for the collective group and not taken the job then the people would not have been pushed off their land and forced to starve to death in an unfamiliar place. The tractor driver was included to contrast the ideal way people should think and act for society to run ideally. Steinbeck wrote “The decay spreads over the State... Men who can graft the trees and make the seed fertile and big can find no way to let the hungry people eat their produce. ...cannot create a system whereby their fruits may be eaten” (pg. 476) so that we could understand how scientists who were creating beautiful food and produce were only concerned about their selves. If they were not only concerned about their selves and their income they would not be letting the food that they create rot while fellow human beings starved to death. Steinbeck shows us that if everyone were to just work for the benefit of the collective group then thousands would not have starved, especially when there was so much food left to rot instead of being fed to the poor and hungry people. Also as a kind of summary, Steinbeck wrote about the brief history of how the hungry, angry Americans were able to take the land from the wealthy, comfortable Mexicans. Steinbeck used this to show us that not only was a violent revolution used, but also is necessary for society to understand that everyone is equal and a classless society must be created for change to happen.

            Steinbeck made it very clear throughout the book that an individual must work for the good of the collective instead of the individual. By doing this the group will strive instead of suffering like Steinbeck demonstrated in The Grapes of Wrath. Steinbeck used the development of characters like Tom Joad, Rose of Sharon, and Jim Casy to show the audience that you have to stop thinking about yourself and start thinking about the group before the majority will strive. He also included characters like the tractor driver, Noah, and Connie that demonstrated that if you only act in the good of the individual the majority of the collective will never be able to strive. Steinbeck showed us how many can suffer because they are only concerned about the individual therefore the collective suffers and will continue to suffer until they unite and work for the good of the collective.

Personal Response

Throughout life everyone faces difficult situations. These situations may be extremely different to each person not only because everyone’s life is different, therefore the situations that they face will be different, but their personalities will dictate which situations are difficult for the individual to face. Many people will have to face these situations by their selves while others may be lucky enough to have someone to help them through their hardships. However, whatever the situation is, whoever is there to help you through it, or why the situation presented its self in the first place, everyone will make it through the problem whether they make the decision that they are proud of or not.

For many getting their divers licence means getting their freedom. This was no difference for me. When you get your licence you no longer need someone else to take you to where you want to go like have needed for the last 16 years or so. This, however, is much like the picture of Pinocchio and the puppet master. When I got my licence and felt this new freedom it was actually an illusion. Although there is freedom in that you can now go somewhere without someone having to drive you, there are now more rules that you have to follow. This is why it is a false sense of freedom / free will. Like the puppet master, the government wants the public to feel like they have freedom however the government has laws that dictate what you are allowed to do on the roads. While the government allows you to drive on the roads there are things you are prohibited from doing; things like speeding, not stopping at either a red light or stop sign, or passing in a prohibited area.

I have also begun racing in shootouts and autocrosses. This takes driving to the next level. Many may think that this gives us even more freedom. You don’t have to follow a speed limit for that is the goal of it, to go the fastest. In an autocross you are driving in a way that would not only be dangerous on the road but also illegal, however it isn’t illegal in the right place. There are still rules that must be followed however. In a shootout you can’t stay on the gas longer than the designated length of the race. While in the autocross you can’t go so hard that you are sure to loop out every time you try to make a turn. These rules like the rules on the road are meant to keep you and the public safe even though they reduce the freedom that you have while on the road or racetrack.

The individual has many factors that they have to consider when pursuing personal well-being, and having to respond to conflict only makes this task even more difficult. The Pinocchio and puppet master picture shows us that the individual can’t do this without the help of a puppet master or the government. I have experienced restrictions since I have began driving which is what the puppet master and Pinocchio picture is trying to explain to us; that the individual can’t pursue personal well-being while responding to conflict.