Practice Makes Perfect

Although I had been somewhat apprehensive about the volume and frequency of writing required for this course, I am glad to have enrolled in it. I suppose I had become complacent about writing in general. Rather than viewing it as a skill to be honed and mastered, I saw it as a necessary evil – even a chore when it had been for work related reports or briefings. And then comes English 103 with Professor Gross.

The blogging exercises have been the most rewarding and perhaps the most beneficial. I’ve learned to write with much greater efficiency and accuracy as a result of assignments requiring retrospective, introspective and even circumspective contemplation about the world around me. It’s been a lot of fun because I rarely get to reflect on life's many events in my normal “9 to 5” routine. It would seem that regularly exercising the mind and the pen can do just as much good for the body as 10 laps around the block.

The other important area of development for me has been analytical writing via the essay assignments. I have been particularly pleased with my recent efforts at writing a formal synthesis essay. Interestingly, the entire experience had been reminiscent of my research paper writing days were the goal was to synthesize a vast body of knowledge with newly found observations in the lab. Only through careful analysis and synthesis of data and facts could the real power of science shine. I never expected to could apply to everyday writing, as well.

And then there are those group assignments. To be honest, I have never been a big fan of group activities in school. More often then not one or two members of the group get left holding the bag for the entire assignment. But surprisingly, the groups I have had the privilege to participate in have been very cooperative and enjoyable. Did my writing skills improve as a result? Probably not, but I do believe my team building skills may have benefited from the experience. Coupled with the fact that some groups could achieve a virtual collective consciousness in an entirely virtual classroom, it has been memorable.

As the old proverbial saying goes, if you don’t use it you will surely lose it. Personally, I am thankful to have taken the opportunity to enroll in this class when I needed a creative jolt the most.

So You Think That Was Funny?

I enjoy political cartoons very much. Whether I catch one in the Wall Street Journal or the local newspaper, political cartoon have a way of stimulating a smirk – and stirring up conversation with my peers. However, I believe certain political cartoonists have stepped over the line one too many times with personal, insulting satire of former President Bush. Don’t get me wrong, I am not and have not been a big supporter of “W”. In my opinion, his policies were often questionable and demanded more public debate than it generally received. And yes, I frequently chuckled at his endless public gaffs or misspoken phrases. But he was the President of the United States and represented the attitudes of a democratic and free nation. Good or bad, he was a man trying to do his best in an incredibly difficult job.

Where I believe the proverbial line was crossed occurred with publications of personally insulting cartoons depicting his family or his “stupidity” in a way that was not political commentary or even humorous. It was just plain nasty and overtly hateful. If one doesn’t agree with another person, should one openly exhibit pure, unfiltered hatred for that person as a sign of disagreement? I don’t think most of us would do that to another person we have strong disagreement with – would we? I certainly would not. And I would expect a certain civility among fellow Americans when it comes to respecting our leaders. Please note that I didn’t say “agreeing” or “praising” or “blindly following” our leaders, but “respecting” them for what the their position represents to the world.

Let me draw a parallel with current President Obama. I voted for him knowing fully that he has extremely liberal ideals. I wanted a “change” more than the status quo with McCain. However, I am finding myself frequently at odds with many of Obama’s "new deal" style agenda over the last 15 months of his tenure. I would openly debate any of his policies. I might even chuckle at a carton depicting him with egg on his face after the initial healthcare plan fiasco last fall. However, I would never tolerate a personally attacking cartoon of him that mocked his ethnicity or his family. Those things are not intended for humor, I believe, but insult. I honestly don’t see how newspaper publishers can allow such personal attacks to see the light of day – even in the form of a political cartoon.

Let Him Speak

I am a firm believer that universities and colleges should encourage and promote free speech. That includes speech that may offend some. Now imagine for a moment that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran was invited to speak at campuses across California. How would that make you feel? Knowing what we do about the fanatical religious beliefs of Ahmadinejad and Iran’s ruling Mullahs, one can count on his speech to foster very little real dialogue with anyone. And if you are like most Americans who have watched this man spew out one hate-mongering speech after another at the United Nations and other venues, perhaps you might not be so willing to let him parade his hateful beliefs to a college near you at all.

Ironically, I have mixed feelings about such a scenario. On a visceral level, I cannot stand the man or anything he represents. Despite the promises of the Iranian revolution, Iran has remained an oppressive, religiously controlled society. Human rights and basic freedoms are irrelevant in such a society. And yet, I cannot help but be intrigued by what he might say to California’s student bodies. What is his intention? Of course, there would be no better place to “persuade” the next generation of Americans than at the college level as many of Ahmadinejad’s wild antics may be seen more as “cool” than verbal vessels of hate and fear. But on an intellectual level, I would be inclined to grant President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the right to speak on California’s campuses. Although he is not necessarily entitled to protection under the Constitution as an American citizen, I do believe he has the right to speak his mind – even if much of what he says dwells on inflammatory, racist language. After all, how can Americans scorn his country for not allowing freedom or speech while we simultaneously censor him from speaking in public venues here?

At the end of the day, I do believe that most Americans, even young college students, can separate right from wrong when it comes to hateful language and inflammatory speech. For me it’s not what he says that would be the issue, but that we would not allow him to say it. I believe that if he were allowed to speak on campus, a significant portion of the audience will aggressively challenge him in open debate. It is at that moment that everyone in the crowd will see President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for what he truly is. Like most hate-mongers and rabble-rousers, Ahmadinejad will likely cower away from an open, intelligent debate when put to the test. It is for that reason that I believe we MUST allow people like that to speak in public. Our freedom of speech, it would seem, can do more to expose the truth than one might think. I say, let the man talk. And then let him put is big foot in proverbial mouth in the process.

Between Iraq and a Hard Place: On “Reading Lolita in Tehran”

It’s not easy to escape the harsh reality of a modern world where fanatical religious beliefs can get one killed by suicide bombing. The nation of Iran still seems unable to breakaway from the international limelight, remaining there for all the wrong reasons. While most Americans are more preoccupied with how to survive the madness without giving up yet another portable luxury from our carry-on at airport security screenings, one can only imagine what the people of Iran must have been enduring since the early 1980’s. Professor Azar Nafisi’s remarkable book Reading Lolita in Tehran offers a glimpse into the lives of a handful of Iranian souls in a way that is both inspiring and disturbing.

As the title of this article alludes to in a tongue-in-cheek manner, the people of Iran have struggled between a murderous war with their Iraqi neighbors and a pervasive religious oppression from within their own government. Faced with a choice between two unsatisfactory options for existence and no means of affecting either, it’s no surprise that any opportunity for even the smallest “escape” takes on significant meaning. In Nafisi’s book, the only “escape” possible for her and her female students was to meet privately to discuss the parallels between the world of characters from literature, and the young Iranian women seeking intellectual refuge from a male-dominated Islamic state.

To be honest, I was skeptical about the book at first even though I have had some knowledge of the plight of women in under strict Sharia Islamic Law. For women, it spells certain doom to individualism and creative expression. Basic freedoms go out the window. I simply could not imagine how such a premise for a book, especially one based on the memoirs of an Iranian scholar, could be fulfilling to a Westerner who’s life might be turned upside-down by the actions of a state-sponsored terrorist from Iran. At best I expected a self-pitying and depressing read about the brutal oppressiveness of Sharia Law from a women’s perspective. What I got was an entertaining and eye-opening discovery that we are more alike than different.

The book’s narrative is not always an easy or likeable read given it episodic structure. It tends to be non-linear, and I prefer a more linear narrative. But it doesn’t take long to become immersed in Nafisi’s world as she paints such a vivid picture of her transformed post-revolutionary home. As one reads on, one discovers a very personal evocation of a woman's complex, terrifying, and often contradicting experience during a very challenging time in Iranian history. It’s fascinating to witness how Nafisi is only able to survive the intellectually stifling rituals of her society through private studies of banned literally classics with other women. Interestingly, one doesn’t feel as though one has just read a book about Iran, but has actually “met” a very unique and surprisingly Westernized Iranian woman.

Nafisi's book paints a dark but compelling portrait of the most turbulent period for Iran's history by a person from a privileged position. She cleverly reflects on her private lessons to groups of young women about literary classic such as The Great Gatsby and Lolita while sipping cups of tea as though chatting in a New York literature club. Meanwhile, the professor’s lessons also reflect on life in Teheran following Khomeini's religious revolution where a woman must hide her bodies from head to toe - or face severe punishment. She also interjects many key moments in recent Iranian history such as the troubles at Tehran University, the destruction of "dangerous" books, and even the mass funeral of the late Ayatollah Khomeini that Nafisi describes with documentary-like clarity.

Although Reading Lolita in Tehran isn’t quite a masterpiece, in my opinion, it has been one of the most inspiring and heartfelt books I have had the pleasure of reading in a long while. I would highly recommend it to anyone with an open-mind.

JM