US Role in Middle East Democracy

US Role in Middle East Democracy Democracy is described as a system of government whereby the power is vested in the people by electing representatives who rule them. It is also described as a government of the people by the people. Democracy was started in the ancient Greece and in England after the Magna Carta treaty of 1215. Greece citizens were allowed to speak and vote in the assembly. The Magna Carta treaty, on the hand, delegated some of the king’s powers to the people. The American Revolution is also credited with making a landmark in democracy by the creation of the Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson in 1776. Democratic principles require the equal treatment of all people and running an institution in a manner that is deemed impartial and fair. Other principles of democracy include respect to the rule of law and protection of the rights of the minorities (Diamond, Plattner, Brumberg). Democracies have been for and granted as a result of wars, revolutions, and economic circumstances. Tod ay the Middle East and in the greater Arab states’ democracy has been plagued by conflicts and authoritarian regimes exercising total control over the people. In the early 1990’s the United States began emphasizing on the development of civil societies in the Middle East through democratic aid pacts. By the 2009 fiscal year, the US annual assistance in the region surpassed the total amount of democratic aid pacts spent between 1991 and 2001. Though the pacts were categorized as democratic aids, it was not necessarily meant to promote the Middle East democracy rather than stability. Most of the Ngo’s who received US assistance avoided doing any act that could be construed as supporting a regime change (Diamond, Plattner, Brumberg). The US is more concerned about maintaining stability rather than the tenets of democracy. Democracy entails the alternation of power from the state to the people. America’s diplomacy in the Middle East is based on maintaining t he status quo and endorsing sheer stability, rather than upholding the ideals and principles of democracy. Tamara Wittes on Americas role in building Arab democracy In the recent years, the promotion of democracy has been a pillar of the US foreign policy not only in the Middle East, but across the globe. However, the true tenets and principles of democracy have always been evaded and questionable in the US foreign policy in the US. The US has supported authoritarian regimes and dictators to ensure stability and US interest and in return turned a blind eye to regime’s usurping of democracy. The US supported Saddam Hussein in Iran-Iraq war but later turned against him when he was perceived as weak after invading Kuwait, a longtime US ally in the Middle East. The Middle East is known to harbor over 60 percent of the world’s global oil reserves, and thus the US is more inclined to maintain stability in the region by overlooking implementation of democracy by the ruling regimes (Wittes,2008). Democracy is an evolutionary aspect rather than revolutionary. After the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, the country held its first general election in 2005 to mark a transition from an authoritarian regime to democracy. However, to date, America still maintains a military presence in Iraq not to further the course of democracy but to maintain stability and security crucial to US foreign policy interests. Schools of thought in the US foreign policy international relations in the Middle East believe the country pursues stability at the expense of democracy in the region. When the Bush administration failed to prove Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction after 9/11, the administration used the notion of democracy to invade Iraq to stamp out Al-Qaeda. The use of democracy as an affront to war was based on the notion that, the overthrow of Saddam’s rule would bring a democratic domino effect across the entire Middle East region. The invasion of Iraq was not entirely based on ensuring democracy, but a US policy of maintaining security and stability in the region. The then, US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice on her nomination hearing before the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee in January 2005, announced that one of the administration’s diplomacy priorities is to strengthen the community democracies to fight and alleviate common security threats and ensure stability (Wittes,2008). The US ‘soft democracy promotion’ in the Middle East can be explained in two ways. The US fears it may bring about unfavorable results that may not be in tandem with Washington’s interests. This can be attributed to the election of Islamic factions in Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq who oppose America’s liberal democracy in the region. In Palestinian, the US pushed for elections in return for a guaranteed US support for a future Palestinian state. The elections culminated in the election of Hamas, an Islamic group classified as a terrorist organization by the US and EU. Hamas refused to recognize Israel’s right to exist, and it later led to the refusal of the UN, EU, US and Russia to recognize Hamas as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. (Wittes,2008). Witte also articulates that, the US fears a conflict of interest situation with its allies which may hinder co-operation on strategic issues in the region. For example, to openly deman d for the promotion of democracy in Saudi Arabia may constrain its relationship with the US and push towards China or Russia or run the risk of Islamic radicals taking over the country. Principal determinants of the US Policy in the Middle East Since the Second World War, the Middle East has been of essential interest to the United States. Today, the Middle East has evolved to become a permanent US geopolitical interest. The US policy in the region has long been based on economic factors and regional stability. These determinants have been essential to US that they have overridden democracy and the principles of democracy in the region (Dodge, 2008). Middle East’s presence of oil reserves is a key determinant of the US policy and elations in the Middle East. A 1945 US State Department memorandum described Saudi Arabia’s oil reserves as a stupendous source of strategic and one of the world’s greatest material prizes in history. In 2006, 27 percent of the world’s oil came from the Middle East with the US buying over half of it. President G. W. Bush acknowledged this by stating that, ‘America is addicted to oil’ (Dodge, 2008). US’s dependence on the Middle East oil illustrates that the US will always be cautious about taking any aggressive stance that might be upset or strain its Middle East allies. Nonetheless, as the world’s most powerful nation and the biggest economy, the US has a responsibility to protect this vital interest. In return, the US gets favorable oil prices and strategic partners in the region. The vital oil interest in the Middle East makes the US overlook the exercise of democracy in the region, keep supporting the ruling regimes to ensure there is stability in the region. Today, in Saudi Arabia women are not allowed to vote or lead certain key institutions and the US is its biggest oil importer (Dodge, 2008). The US turns a blind eye on this key violation of democracy for fear that democracy may lead to instability in the region. The US instead keeps a diplomatic policy that maintains the status quo in the region to maintain stability and protect this key economic interest . US democracy effects of in respective Middle East states The US and Israel-and the Palestinians The Jewish state is a key US ally in the Middle East since the recognition of the state by President Harry Truman in 1948. Since then Israel has continued to enjoy US support over time. Israel’s support has remained to be a pillar of US foreign policy in the Middle East as the one of the few democratic states in the region. The US policy of the state is based on several factors in that, to ensure stability in the region and a stable ally. However, Israel’s unwavering US support however, pitted it against its neighbour states who viewed it as a threat to Palestine (Dodge, 2008). Israel has over time been accused of violating known international human rights, and the tenets of democracy but the US has however supported the state for the maintenance of stability in the region. The US backed Israel in its military strikes against the Palestinian authority and militants in the Gaza strip and the occupied territories of the west bank during the rule of Ariel Sharon. Subsequently, the US push for democracy in the Palestinian territories led to the election of a religious extremist group with terrorist affiliations. The US preconditioned the Palestinian territories to allow room for democracy and in return the US would support the formation of a future Palestinian state (Dodge, 2008). The elections culminated in the election of Hamas, an Islamic group classified as a terrorist organization by the US and EU. Hamas refused to recognize Israel’s right to exist, and it later led to the refusal of the UN, EU, US and Russia to recognize Hamas as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. The preset preconditions were that the Palestine territories would accept Israel’s right to existence, abandon violence and acknowledge previous Palestine-Israel agreements. In 2007, following a forcible capture of Gaza by Hamas the US responded by imposing economic sanctions on the Palestinian enclave. The US at the same time rapidly increased funding of the West-Bank under the control of Fatah. Fatah was headed by Mahmoud Abbas had received US support in his candidacy for prime minister and president in 2003 and 2005 respectively. The US’s intention of the increased Fatah’s funding was to undermine the Hamas movement and strengthen the Fatah party. This scenario indicates that the US promoted Fatah because there was a viable condition for having a democracy and ensuring in the region (Dodge, 2008). Bahrain In the Middle East Bahrain is an key US ally primarily due to the location of US Navy Fifth Fleet command headquarters situated in the country’s capital and due to Bahrain’s importance to Saudi Arabia as a check to Iran. Bahrain’s ruling government is comprised of the Sunni minority whereas the Shia Muslims, who are the country’s majority are minimally represented in government. The principles of democracy articulate that, in any democratic setting the ruling government must respect and teat the minority in equal measure as the majority. However, the US tends to overlook this aspect for the maintenance of stability in the region. Military aid in the country increased in 2001 from 235,000 dollars to 90.4 million in 2004 (Carothers Ottaway,2010). This was largely attributed to the US’s policy of key Bahrain as an ally and maintaining stability in the region by allowing the continued stay of US troops in the region. Iraq The Iraq invasion of 2003 was based on based on the notion that there was a need to counter US threats and bring stability and the only way viable way to do so was by introducing democracy in Iraq. Saddam’s twenty four year rule was overthrown amid an effort to bring democracy to the country and the entire Middle East region. The introduction of democracy in Iraq was seen as the cornerstone of democracy in the entire region. US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice termed the transformation of Iraq as a key element of a very distinct Middle East (Dalacoura,2005). The fall of Saddam’s Baath party led to a collapse of public order which was highly unanticipated by the US. The collapse gave birth to the formation of Islamic insurgent groups that engaged the US in a war to push them out of Iraq. An extreme shortage in basic necessities such as food and water swept across the country. Insecurity became rampant and majority of the people were displaced, and a new conflict was fo rmed. A conflict between the US military and Iraq insurgents. The collapse of public order threatened stability in the region and led engagement of the longest US war in history. In Saddam’s twenty-four year rule, Iraq largely experienced stability and public order which was constrained by US’s introduction of democracy in the country. After the formation of an elected government, the country privatized all state -owned companies in all sectors except oil and minerals. This was viewed an economic reform of the country. New bilateral agreements were signed to ensure stability in the region (Dalacoura,2005). Jordan Due to its constitutional monarch, Jordan has for a long time been regarded as one of the most stable states in the Middle East. During the Bush administration, Jordan and the US only engage on an ‘as needed’ basis only. However, after the Iraq invasion in 2003, this need be basis changed. The US reviewed its relations with the Jordan and democratic reforms. However, the renewed interest of democracy in US was based on ensuring stability in the region and the significance of maintenance of peace with Israel. An agreement with the US was signed that allowed Jordan to consolidate its debt with the US. In return, Jordan agreed to train Iraq police on its soil to help combat the growing insurgency in Iraq. State interactions between the two countries increased (Carothers Ottaway,2010). Lebanon Renewed calls for democracy in Lebanon led to the country’s first free and fair general elections in 2005. The election resulted in the election of Hezbollah, a terrorist group in government. Election of the group to government led to widespread negative press against the US, but the US still kept maintaining diplomatic relations with the country for the sake of stability. The introduction of democracy in the country by US was perceived as a way maintaining stability by giving people a chance to elect leaders of their choice (Carothers Ottaway,2010). However, the election of Hezbollah faced the US with a dilemma of how to maintain diplomatic relations with the country with a government that representatives with known terrorist affiliations Syria Due to Syria’s classification as a state sponsor of terrorism the US only exercises minimal direct interactions with the state. Syria has been ruled by the Assad dynasty for decades. The Assads practice total authoritarian rule over their subjects. Under the Obama administration, the US threatened to invade Syria to impose democracy and rule of law in the country. The invasion was vetoed by Russia in the UN Security Council meeting. After the veto of military intervention, the US sponsored a revolution to topple that Assad government by supplying weapons to the revolutionary groups Documents on Democracy. (2014). A general election was held in 2014, and Bashar al-Assad won by a landslide victory. 88.7 percent of the electorates elected him even after been opposed by the US. Though the US did not explicitly acknowledge Assad’s election it recommended the people for participating in the election. References Carothers, T., Ottaway, M. (Eds.). (2010). Uncharted journey: promoting democracy in the Middle East. Carnegie Endowment Dalacoura, K. (2005). US democracy promotion in the Arab Middle East since 11 September 2001: a critique. International affairs, 81(5), 963-979. Dodge, T. (2008). US foreign policy in the Middle East (pp. 214-235). Oxford University Press. Documents on Democracy. (2014). Journal Of Democracy, 25(4), 180-185. doi:10.1353/jod.2014.0078 Diamond, L. J., Plattner, M. F., Brumberg, D. (Eds.). (2003). Islam and democracy in the Middle East. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press. Wittes, Tamara Cofman (2008). Freedom’s unsteady march: Americas role in building Arab democracy. The Brookings Institution

The Canadian Justice System V.s. Aboriginal People :: essays research papers

The Canadian Justice System v.s. Aboriginal People Topic: Be it resolved that the Canadian justice system be significantly changed.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The Canadian justice system has failed the Canadian people. It has failed the aboriginal people of this nation on a massive scale. The flawed justice system has been insensitive and inaccessible, and has arrested and imprisoned aboriginal people in grossly disproportionate numbers. Aboriginal people who are arrested are more likely to be denied bail, spend less time with their lawyers, and if convicted, are more likely to be incarcerated.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  It is not merely that the justice system has failed aboriginal people; justice has also been denied to them. For more than a century the rights of aboriginal people have been ignored and eroded. The result of this denial has been injustice of the most profound kind. Poverty and powerlessness have been the Canadian legacy to a people who once governed their own affairs in self- sufficiency.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  A significant part of the problem is the inherent biases of those with decision-making authority in the justice system. However one understands discrimination, it is clear that aboriginal people have been subject to it. They clearly have been victims of the openly hostile bigot and they have also been victims of discrimination that is unintended, but is rooted in police and law.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Two specific incidents in late 1987 and early 1988 clearly illustrate this unacceptable discrimination. The first of these was the November 1987 trial of two men for the 1971 murder of Helen Betty Osborne in The Pas Manitoba. While the trial established that four men were present when the young aboriginal woman was killed, only one of them was ultimately convicted of any crime. Following the trial, allegations were made that the identity of the four individuals who has been present at the killing was widely known in the local community.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  On March 9, 1988, J.J. Harper, Executive Director of the Island Lake Tribal Council, died following an encounter with a City of Winnipeg police officer. The following day the police department exonerated the officer involved. Others, particularly those in the province's aboriginal community, believed that there were many questions which had been left unanswered by the police department's internal investigation.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  These two specific incidents are seen by many as troubling examples of the manner in which the Canadian justice system is failing aboriginal people. While the aboriginal people comprise 11.8 percent of Manitoba's population, they represent 50 percent of the province's prison population.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Canada's treatment of its first citizens has been an international disgrace. Unless we take every needed step to redress this problem, this lingering injustice will continue to bring tragedy and suffering to aboriginal

On Trying To Understand The Universe and Life :: Biology Essays Research Papers

On Trying To Understand The Universe and Life I sat there in awe. I was in awe at the man's genius. I was in awe of his life. It could be described by no less than miraculous. I was especially shocked at the way the narrator of the movie, A Brief History of Time, related the discovery of his illness. He explained, "The doctors told him that he had about two and a half years to live and only his heart, his lungs, and his brain would eventually remain functional while everything else in his body would turn into a cabbage"(1) The words echoed through my mind, "Only his heart, his lungs, and his brain...". It seemed a terrifying condition to befall a youth in his early twenties. But amazingly, as the story went on, I soon found out that for him, the beginning of his illness marked a turning point from which his life truly begun. And I was at awe at God. Simply at awe. His name is Stephen Hawking. He is considered to be one of the greatest minds of Science. He was diagnosed with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, ALS, in 1962. He is still alive. He describes his philosophy in life prior to his diagnose in these terms, "My attitude was that nothing was worth an effort"(2) In the movie about his book, A Brief History of Time, it is explained how this philosophy was evident in his scholastic work where, in spite of his genius, he merely maintained an average standing as a student. Besides his diagnosed condition, the movie also points to another factor which reshaped his philosophy and outlook on life. He found love in the heart of a woman, Jane Wilde, who testified, "Without my faith in God, I wouldn't have been able to live in this situation(her husband's condition); I would not have been able to marry Stephen in the first place because I wouldn't have had the optimism to carry me through and I wouldn't have been able to carry on with it"(3) With these two events, things for stephen began to matter and he began to find meaning in putting forth the effort. His accomplishments, exemplified in a Brief History of Time, certainly testify to that. As the story unravels, he not only lived past two and a half years, he lived. He wrote, he studied, he taught, he questioned as his condition progressed; and still he lives.

De Las Casas

In Bartolome De Las Casas’s â€Å"from The Very Brief Relation of the Devastation of the Indies† a lot of descriptive verbiage is utilized to paint a distinct picture of good vs. evil in an unjust world. Referencing the Spaniards as Christians is done with a great deal of anger, and sarcasm. These Spaniards performed many acts of evil as they brutally tortured, killed, and enslaved the Native American peoples.According to De Las Casas â€Å"they attacked the towns and spared neither the children nor the aged nor pregnant women nor women in childbed, not only stabbing them and dismembering them but cutting them to pieces as dealing with sheep in a slaughter house†. (40) This was such a gruesome, cruel, and violent act of murder, without regard to even those we view as pure innocence such as that of a child.This provokes the reader to feel an intense sorrow and heartache for these innocent Native Americans. De Las Casas portrays the Native American people as innoce nt, gentle prey to the Spaniards, thus referring to them as â€Å"sheep. † They were deemed weak in their efforts to fight back, and they were unable to seek refuge in the mountains where they tried to flee. This piece incorporates multiple biblical representations throughout as well.The â€Å"sheep† biblically represent the followers of Christ, and they are submissive followers with little to no resistance like that of the Native American peoples. However, the so-called Christian Spaniards acted like ravenous, greedy animals rather than human Christ like leaders. De Las Casas, Bartolome â€Å"from The Very Brief Relation of the Devastation of the Indies. † The Norton Anthology of American Literature 8th ed. Ed Nina Baym et al. Vol. A. New York: Norton, 2012. 38-42.

How does Hamlet deal with the revengers r&amp Essay

Revenge is defined as â€Å"retaliation for an offence or injury†; Hamlet has two main reasons for needing revenge, political and moral. Politically he has to kill Claudius for the offence of denying Hamlet, the heir to the Danish kingdom, his usurped crown. He also has a moral reason, as the â€Å"son of a dear father murdered†(II. ii. 581); he has a duty to extract revenge for the injury; and filially to protect his mother by ridding her of an incestuous and immoral marriage to a murderer. He has no doubt even to himself that he does have this dutiful role to perform,† I know my course† (II. ii. 596). To seek this revenge he would have to kill Claudius and his mother, for they are both guilty of having impure souls. But one of the very first internal conflicts Hamlet has is when the Ghost tells him â€Å"nor let thy soul contrive Against thy mother aught. Leave her to heaven†¦ † (I. iv. 85). This leaves him in great turmoil, as he can justify to himself the killing of Claudius, but not letting his mother live. He is so overcome with a sense of purity and morality, especially with concern to women, it does not seem right to him that something so tainted should be allowed to carry on in the world. He wants his perfect revenge, one that would satisfy his meticulously accomplished conscience, but he can not carry it out, so instead he declines it altogether, or at least puts it off in stages, until he can prove it to himself and can put it off no longer. He is willing to taint his own soul and so go to hell and enter a damnation possibly even worse than that in which the Ghost resides, which he tells Hamlet just to know about would, â€Å"harrow up thy soul, freeze thy young blood, make thy two eyes like stars start from their spheres, thy knotted and combini d locks to part, and each particular hair to stand on end like quills upon the fretful porpentine† (I. iv. 16). Yet he is willing to suffer all this for the sake of revenge in killing Claudius, to avenge his father, so to save his mother, to â€Å"leave her to heaven† (I. v. 86), when even he is not allowed this blessing. What he is giving up to be the dutiful son and revenge his fathers murder in comparison to what Gertrude is giving up leaves his worse off than her, even though she has been an adulterous wife. Therefore her being allowed to live on in sin is as wrong not only on her part, but also on Hamlets for allowing it to be. Hamlet knows what he is sacrificing of himself, his immortal soul, if he is to take on the revengers’ ri le. It is a heavy burden to carry, and not one that he is willing to undertake lightly, so he wants to be absolutely certain of Claudius guilt before taking action. For as certain as he is of the course of action that must be taken, the truth of the Ghosts words must be ascertained, for when Hamlet converses with him he does not know for certain if it is â€Å"a spirit of health or goblin damned, bring with thee airs from heaven or blasts from hell, be thy intents wicked or charitable† (I. iv. 40). So to affirm the facts for himself, Hamlet has the players perform the play and watches for Claudius’s reaction to his own murderous and incestuous actions being acted out before him. For Hamlet this is supposed to be a resolution, a confirmation of his suspicions before he can act, a catalyst to spur him on depending on the success of his experiment. Hamlet becomes angry and disgusted with himself; he can’t understand his own lack of passion, even after proving to himself that Claudius is guilty. He is very aware of himself not crying in the rehearsal of the play, when the players are moved to tears over the story of the â€Å"rousid vengeance† (II. ii. 486) of Pyrrhus, Priam and Hecuba. As soon as he is alone, he bursts out â€Å"O, what a rogue and peasant slave am I! Is it not monstrous that this player here, But in a fiction, in a dream of passion, Could force his soul so to his own conceit That from her working all his visage waned, Tears in his eyes, distraction in his aspect†¦. And all for nothing† He feels miserable at his deficit, he is forced to compare himself and he comes of he worse. † What would he do had he the motive and the cue for passion that I have? †¦ Make mad the guilty and appal the free†. He again feels this lack of justified fervour when young Fortinbras goes to battle to fight and possibly to die for a land that is acknowledged to be not worth the sacrifice â€Å"we go to gain a little patch of ground that hath in it no profit but the name† (IV. iv. 18). This is again someone showing emotion and action when there is not as much reason to do so as there is for Hamlet. When he is alone he sees what Fortinbras has done as being honourable and a rebuke of his own inaction, whereas before when talking to Fortinbras’ captain, he had been cynical as to the actions they were carrying out. He analyses himself as â€Å"thinking too precisely on th’event – A thought which, quartered, hath but one part wisdom and ever three parts coward† (IV. iv. 41). He sees his need to think things through before acting as a deplorable weakness. Even he can see hat he is being weak minded and indecisive. But even when convinced he can’t kill his uncle deliberately, in a rage he thinks he has killed him, but it was just Polonius. Having proved Claudius’ guilt, Hamlet now has to act, and yet does not act straight away, but postpones it, indicating that there are also other deeper subconscious reasons that could affect him. The death of his father at the beginning of the play and the hasty incestuous marriage of his mother upset him greatly and have led to his obsessions with death, decay, sin the body and its parts and with women, purity and the defiling of them. We can see this from speeches such as, â€Å"O that this too too sullied flesh would melt†¦ Or that the Everlasting had not fixed His cannon ‘gainst self-slaughter. † (I. ii. 129) â€Å"Frailty, thy name is woman. † (I. ii. 146) â€Å"For if the sun breed maggots in a dead dog, being a good kissing carrion – have you a daughter? † (II. ii. 181) â€Å"Or in that sleep of death what dreams may come, When we have shuffled off this mortal coil† in which Hamlet is clearly fixed on purity, women, death and suicide. Claudius being a murder and committing incest and yet still having the crown of Denmark and outwardly appearing to be just, honourable and a good leader (quote? ) could explain why Hamlet often confuses the order of society in his speeches. This can be seen when he calls himself a â€Å"rogue and peasant slave† (II. ii.547) when he clearly isn’t, or when he calls himself â€Å"unpregnant† and likens himself to a â€Å"whore† in the same soliloquy, when he obviously is not. To Hamlet, Claudius is tainted and impure in mind and action, yet he is a good ruler of Denmark, a good king, and a good diplomat. He is efficient, confident, in control of affairs, in every way assured and poised. Hamlet identifies with Claudius in a way that restrains him from being able to kill him, hamlet has all the ability and the necessary desire, but Claudius has everything Hamlet wants, which leads to internal sub-conscious conflict on as well as his conscious conflicts. His mother’s ability to alter the direction of her affection from one person to another so suddenly hurts Hamlet, as having to share her with his own father was difficult enough, but at least was understandable. He is now jealous that someone else holds such high regard in her affections but at the same time is disgusted with her for loving someone else. But as his jealousy is repressed, as he doesn’t even admit to himself that he is jealous of his mother’s lovers, all he feels is a deep sense of disgust towards Gertrude that helps him deal with his rejection. Hamlet could be suffering from the theory that Freud developed, the Oedipus theory. This states that as children, young boys feel great bitterness and resentment towards their fathers for making them share their mothers affections and for having sexual relations with their mothers which the young boys also desire, and so they view their fathers as rivals that they would rather have out of the way. These thoughts are repressed as a form of defence for fear that their fathers will realise what they are thinking. To compensate for this they resolve the complex by over identifying with their fathers and adopting many of their fathers’ attitudes. This could be used to explain Hamlet’s impediment and self-frustration towards his revenge. He tries to carry out the task, but he is held back in some way, because he cannot kill a person who he recognises as so like himself in what he wants to be like and wishes he could do. His desires towards his mother have been so long repressed that they are now repulsive to him, but yet her remarrying brings those thoughts to his attention. He sees someone taking the place of his father in her affections, the place that he has long coveted. The nature of this usurper, a relative, makes the link between the two even more incestuous in Hamlet’s mind and even more connected towards him. This, coupled with the fact that Claudius is able to gain his mother’s affection by killing old Hamlet, ridding him, once again something that Hamlet has long wanted to do but repressed from himself, hinders Hamlet greatly from carrying out his revenge. When Hamlet discovers the identity of his father’s murderer his first instant reply is â€Å"O my prophetic soul! My uncle? † (I. v. 40). This does imply that unconsciously the idea had been in his mind and had suddenly been brought back to his awareness.

Central Nervous system &Metaphors

This essay explores the concept of an organization style metaphorically as professed by Gareth Morgan in his book Images of Organizations (1989). This essay provides examples of how the responsibilities and functionality of upper management within a corporation serve similar functions as to how the brain functions within the Central Nervous system. First, one must understand exactly what a metaphor is in order to understand how Morgan (1989) comes to his conclusion.A metaphor is defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary as a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (2009). Morgan (1989) discusses how the brain is a metaphor for a company’s organization structure and behavior. He considers the organization as the brain and draws attention to the importance of information, learning, and intelligence, and provides a framework for understanding modern organizations . This style of organization has the capacity to be flexible and inventive with a continuous improvement mindset.The brain stores and processes enormous amounts of information in its parts simultaneously thus the end result being able to speak and walk. To understand the brain like metaphor we have to understand that the brain is made of two hemispheres. It is understood that the left side of the brain is the more logical, analytical and rational side, much like the strategy and finance side of an organization whereas the right side is more creative and emotional much like the marketing and human resources departments of an organization.Like the brain, an organization has areas that concentrate on particular parts of the business; however, the organization as a whole must work together. Each department can work on its own as can be seen in artificial intelligence such as Rodney Brooks' mobot (Morgan, 1989). The functions of an organization such as Marketing, Human Resources, Finance , Operations, and Information Technology have a series of processes which results in the function of whole organization. Each of these departments in an organization can be likened to a sensory input element to the executive â€Å"brain†.Marketing, for example, can serve as the â€Å"eyes† of the organization by providing input to the brain related to the business environment, supply and demand and other market elements important to the navigation capabilities of the organization. The Finance department acts as the â€Å"skin† by providing information about the financial atmosphere and environment of the corporate body. The Finance department â€Å"skin† can tell the corporate brain whether conditions are financially cool, or hot. Also, the †skin† can indicate whether the organization is acting in a manner that produces â€Å"pain† in terms of financial difficulties.Operations acts as the ears of an organization, providing information a bout the â€Å"balance† of the entire organization and allowing the brain of the leadership to issue the appropriate instructions to the organization to keep it moving without collapse. Human Resources acts as a taste mechanism for the organizational body, giving the brain an idea of the building blocks (personnel) that are being introduced to the organizational body. The IT department can be likened to the central nervous system. It is this department that maintains the flow of information to and from the â€Å"brain† of the organization.The metaphor of the organization as a body with the corporate officers as the brain can be further understood with respect to what happens when there are breakdowns in any one of the parts composing the organizational body. Failure of the Human Resource department, for example, can lead to the ingestion of organizational poison: workers who are not qualified for the jobs they are assigned. If the â€Å"skin† of finance fails, t he infection of debt may set in, causing necrosis to various parts of the organizational body.It is possible that such a result could result in a systemic infection that could kill the entire organization. The Operations department should malfunction; the entire organization could lose its balance and fall, destroying the organizational â€Å"brain†. Perhaps most significantly, the failure of IT to properly move information between the â€Å"brain† and the other appendages of the organization, the result is paralysis, as the messages the executive send get lost or misinterpreted. The organization-as-brain-and-body metaphor goes a long way toward explaining the interconnectivity of various aspects of organizations.All the component parts contribute information to the executive â€Å"brain† which can react quickly and guide the organization toward action that will make the most effective use of the information. The failure of any one of the component parts of the organizational body represents a hazard that threatens the organization as a whole, and the brain in particular. â€Å"Metaphor. † Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009. Merriam-Webster Online. 17 April 2009

Finding Forrester

Finding Forrester The film, â€Å"finding Forrester†, was a good quality film, with a great theme and moral lesson. The film has two main characters, Jamal Wallace and William Forrester. Jamal Wallace is a talented 16-years old African American basketball player in Bronx, New York, whose secret passion is writing and reading. William Forrester is a reclusive Pulitzer Prize winning novelist who never gave the world a second novel. He suffers from agoraphobia which prevents him from dealing with life. After an accidental meeting, Forrester becomes Jamal's teacher and helps him to improve his writing skill. Jamal's passion of reading and writing, and Forrester's desire to be a part of the world again builds a friendship that changes both of their life. In his old public school, Jamal Wallace just another teenage boy who resembled all of his friends, except for his secret love to read and write. Once he attends the new private school, he is given a complete different experience. Jamal's passion for writing is kept secret; he hides in his room reading and writing. During the class, the English teacher asks Jamal about thee significance of â€Å"the raven†, he responds that he had never read this prom before. He was afraid to be different and though his friends would leave him if he told them about his writing. That’? s also the reason that he didn’? t tell his friends about his high test scores. Instead, he showed off his genius in basketball, since it made him fit in school. However, the school discovered Jamal's test scores, and thinks public school might not be the right place for him. The Easton's best private school offers Jamal a scholarship. As his friend, William, encourages him to find an answer, which Jamal believes will be found at the private school. When Jamal attends the new school, his experience was changed. He works hard to fit in his new school because the majority of people are white and more educated. Jamal had a big conflict with Mr. Crawford–his new English teacher. There were lots of problems that Mr. Crawford had against Jamal, most of which were based on as well as Jamal's race and as well as his writing talent. Even though Jamal's life changes dramatically after he transfers to a new school, he never gives up when he is treated unfairly. William Forrester is the other main character in the film, who is a famous Pulitzer Prize winning author. However, after the death of his brother, he develops agoraphobia and becomes reclusive, isolating himself from the outside world. A series of event and the development of a friendship with Jamal Wallace changes William. In the film, Jamal teaches William the values of life that he is missing; he shows his integrity to Forrester by not telling anyone about his life of solitude. The friendship with Jamal helps William to overcome his agoraphobia. William realizes he could trust Jamal because Jamal deeply cares about him. He takes Forrester to the Yankee Stadium, where he listens to his life story. This makes William realize the importance of friendship, seeing life in a new perspective. Before watching this film, I had no idea what to write about it, but now I have discovered and learned a lot from those characters. Jamal helps William to overcome his agoraphobia and go outside again to be a part of the world. In exchange, Forrester helps Jamal with his passion and goal of uniting. The friendship between Jamal and Forrester turns into a whirlwind that sweeps both characters up and changes their lives forever. This film tells me the virtues of life. Finding Forrester The movie Finding Forrester is based in the Bronx. Jamal Wallace meets William Forrester and at first is unaware that he is a famous author. William helps Jamal with his passion for writing which he covers up with basketball to get accepted. He gets the opportunity to go to a different school for basketball until he figures out that he would rather be there for academics. William and Jamal have an agreement that William will help with writing and Jamal will keep him a secret.Jamal turns in a paper that William wanted to remain in the apartment, and Jamal gets punished for it when he finds out the first part of his paper that William started for him had published in the New Yorker. Jamal rather take the blame for plagiarism instead of telling them that he knew Forrester. He still covers up with basketball, yet purposely misses his two free throws at the championship game, so the school would want him for his academics and not his athletics.In the end Forrester comes to the school to r ead for the class and the professor is shocked that he is there, and loves the work that Forrester reads until he says that it is not by him it is by Jamal Wallace. Then the professor knows that they are friends and Jamal never plagiarized from Forrester. William Forrester dies at the end form cancer that he never told anyone about. The end result is that he left his apartment to Jamal and he also gave him a break in his writing. William left Jamal an unfinished book with papers giving him permission to finish and publish it as his book.This is a huge break for him, people never took him seriously he was just a kid from the Bronx and that’s all he would have been if Forrester never helped him. My reaction to this film is that no matter where you’re from you can make it big. Also a friendship can start from any type of situation. I think you can see how they each helped each other through the film. Forrester helped Jamal with his writing and got him a better future then he was headed for. Jamal helped Forrester live his life not cooped up in an apartment. You can see how hard it is to be accepted when you’re young.Jamal had to hide his academics like his teacher said â€Å"being smart doesn’t get you accepted. † Basketball is what got Jamal accepted. Even basketball didn’t do it for everyone. In a different school it can take more. When Jamal was trying to teach Clair how to play basketball you could see in her father’s face that he was unsure about Jamal. Overall I really liked the movie, it doesn’t seem like something I would pick up off a shelve at the video store and watch. I am happy I got the chance to watch it; there are many lessons to be learned in the movie Finding Forrester. Finding Forrester Brenda Maravilla Professor Steele English 1001-006 March 11, 2013 Finding Forrester Reaction Paper When a two people meet for the first time in their lives they do not know what the road lies ahead for them. This is the case with Jamal Wallace and William Forrester; they came together as complete strangers and ended with a friendship that would last a lifetime. Jamal helped Forrester to live life again, to come out of his comfort zone and explore the world. Forrester inspired Jamal to write his â€Å"first draft with his heart† and too learned to never let life pass by, because they could potentially miss out on something worthwhile.Forrester, one of the greatest writers in the twentieth century in the movie Finding Forrester, lived his life in loneliness and comfort, but one unexpected day Jamal Wallace came into his life and changed it all. Their friendship began to help Forrester leave his comfort zone, he allowed Jamal to enter his world and share his work with him. Throug hout the movie Jamal learns he may only ask soup questions, a question that helps to obtain information that matters only to us, but as their friendship unfolds the more Jamal learns about Forrester.He learns how Forrester lost his brother, his mother, father and why he has never written his second book. Jamal becomes his family; he becomes the inspiration to live again, the inspiration to write again. One of the key moments in the movie begins with Forrester making Jamal promise to tell no one about them which becomes difficult when Jamal turns in one of his works that was published in the New York Times. In desperation Forrester tells him to write the letter of apology and to keep him out it. Jamal looks at Forrester hurt more than ever, yells and walks away.He needed his friend, but Forrester is too afraid. The lesson William learns is to live and he does when he gets out of his apartment to save Jamal from being on probation. He has learned to come out of his comfort zone and le aves to see Scotland. Jamal saw the world in black and white. He only knew of his friends and basketball, but his secret was he loved to read and write. But once he met William Forrester his world changed, he no longer had to hide his passion. With the help of William Forrester, Jamal further develop his writing skills and accepts his guidance to better his life.He is offered a full scholarship to a private school, which he accepts; he leaves his world of comfort and walks into a world of challenges. Although his writing is impeccable, one of the lessons he learns from Forrester is to â€Å"write his first draft with his heart and rewrite with his head. † This is a challenge for him in the beginning; he cannot press the keys because he wants to think instead of writing what he feels. As his writing grows and allows himself to write what he feels Jamal’s work begins to change that even his professor recognizes him for it.In the end Forrester leaves to see the world, Jam al continues to write, play basketball and go to school. He receives letters from Forrester, checking up on him and the colleges recruiting him. If it were not for the one-day he was dared to go into the home of what his friends made him believe was a killer Jamal would have never met Forrester and would have missed out on something worthwhile. Moments before the movie ends Jamal finds out Forrester has passed away of cancer, and in that moment he truly realizes why he never went out.He was afraid to live his life because he would not know when it would just end. Forrester leaves him with a letter, keys to his home and a box. In the letter Forrester mentions â€Å"Seasons change young man, and while I may have waited until the winter of my life, to see the things I've seen this past year, there is no doubt I would have waited too long, had it not been for you. † Forrester would have lived a life that was broken and would have never moved past his mistakes were it not for Jama l.In the box Forrester left him was the friendship that will never die, in that box was his second book. And Jamal was to write the Foreword and no one else. There is more to life than making mistakes, it is about molding them into a positive and living to the fullest. Forrester learned to move on from his mistake just like Jamal did. He learned to live life because in a short moment life could be taken away, without Jamal he would have never learned to leave his home and experience the world, as it is not how he remembered it with the bad memories.Jamal learned to see the world on color and took advantage to develop his writing skills with one of the world’s greatest writers. He continued to do what he loved, playing basketball, reading and writing, but also learned a great deal about life from Forrester. Life is like the seasons changing, we all have spring, the time in which we blossom. Summer, the time in which we develop and find who we think we are. Autumn where we may lose ourselves, but find out way and winter when in the last moment we try to live before death catches us.