Antiheroism Has Always Been An Interesting Aspect Of A Character That

Antiheroism has always been an interesting aspect of a character that authors have chosen to illustrate. In literature, there has been countless antiheroic characters, from Randle McMurphy in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and Allie Fox in The Mosquito Coast, to others as famous as Robin Hood and ... By literary definition, an antihero is the "hero" of the play or novel, but has negative attributes which separate him or her from the classic hero such as Superman. Such negative aspects may include a violent nature, use of coarse language, or self serving interests which may inadvertently depict the protagonist as a hero since the result of serving those interests may be the betterment of society or an environment. In William Shakespeare's Hamlet, the protagonist, Hamlet, is depicted as an antihero. One main factor which gives Hamlet such a label is that he draws sympathy, as well as admiration, from the reader since Hamlet feels the pain of losing his father along with the burden and obstacles in avenging his murder. Act four places a special emphasis on Hamlet's intelligence. In scene two, Hamlet is very insolent and rude towards Rosencrantz and Guildenstern with such phrases as, That I can keep your counsel and not, mine own. Beside, to be demanded of a sponge, what replication should be made by the son of a king? (IV, ii, 12-14) The reference to the sponge reflects the fact that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are easily ordered by the king and do not have minds of their own. Hamlet does not like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern since they are servants of the Claudius, Hamlet's mortal enemy. The reader does not like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern either which causes the reader to side with Hamlet. Another incident of Hamlet's high intelligence is shown when he Hamlet tells Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, I am glad of it: a knavish sleeps in a foolish ear. (IV, ii, 24-25) This statement leaves Rosencrantz and Guildenstern more or less confused. Hamlet is clearly more clever than the two of them combined and is able to toy with them.Hamlet has an excellent command of the language and because of it, can use words to the point that those around him will not understand and may label him as crazy. Hamlet shows another example of his cleverness, this time towards Claudius, when he says, I see a cherub that sees them. But, come; for England! Farewell, dear mother. (IV, iii, 49-50) The cherub, or the angel, gives Hamlet a sense of superiority over Claudius. Having an angel at one's side would be a definite sign of power, which is exactly what Hamlet tries to maintain over Claudius in their constant power struggle. Just when Claudius thinks he controls Hamlet, it is really Hamlet who has the upper hand over Claudius. There are very strong philosophical references made by Hamlet in this act regarding life and death. Hamlet tells Claudius, Your worm is your only emperor for diet: we fat all creatures else to fat us, and we fat ourselves for maggots: your fat king and your lean beggar is but variable service, two dishes, but to one table: that's the end. (IV, iii, 21-26) This statement id a reference to the food chain, and in turn, a reflection on the meaning of life. It illustrates the equality of men in that whether one is born to be a king or a beggar, when one dies, we are all equal. Worms and maggots do not treat anybody differently once one is dead and buried. The final scene draws the greatest sympathy towards Hamlet even though he is not even in the scene. The forces of Claudius and Laertes have combined against Hamlet. Claudius states, To an exploit now ripe in my device, Under the which he shall not choose but fall, And for his death no wind of blame shall breathe; But even his mother shall unchange the practice, And call it accident. (IV, vii, 65-69) Claudius is willing to undertake any measures necessary to eliminate Hamlet, to the point that it does not matter whether or not it hurts Gertrude in any way. This scene depicts Hamlet as the victim, much like two bullies picking on a

Banking Essays - Systemic Risk, Bank Regulation In The United States

Banking Essays - Systemic Risk, Bank Regulation In The United States Banking Banking So Much for That Plan More than 70% of commercial bank assets are held by organizations that are supervised by at least two federal agencies; almost half attract the attention of three or four. Banks devote on average about 14% of their non-interest expense to complying with rules (Anonymous 88). A fool can see that government waste has struck again. This tangled mess of regulation, among other things, increases costs and diffuses accountability for policy actions gone awry. The most effective remedy to correct this problem would be to consolidate most of the supervisory responsibilities of the regulatory agencies into one agency. This would reduce costs to both the government and the banks, and would allow the parts of the agencies not consolidated to concentrate on their primary tasks. One such plan was introduced by Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen in March of 1994. The plan called for folding, into a new independent federal agency (called the Banking Commission), the regulatory portions of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS). This plan would save the government $150 to $200 million a year. This would also allow the FDIC to concentrate on deposit insurance and the Fed to concentrate on monetary policy (Anonymous 88). Of course this is Washington, not The Land of Oz, so everyone can't be satisfied with this plan. Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and FDIC Chairman Ricki R. Tigert have been vocal opponents of the plan. Greenspan has four major complaints about the plan. First, divorced from the banks, the Fed would find it harder to forestall and deal with financial crises. Second, monetary policy would suffer because the Fed would have less access to review the banks. Thirdly, a supervisor with no macroeconomic concerns might be too inclined to discourage banks from taking risks, slowing the economy down. Lastly, creating a single regulator would do away with important checks and balances, in the process damaging state bank regulation (Anonymous 88). To answer these criticisms it is necessary to make clear what the Fed's job is. The Fed has three main responsibilities: to ensure financial stability, to implement monetary policy, and to oversee a smoothly functioning payments system (delivering checks and transferring funds) (Syron 3). The responsibilities of the Fed are linked to the banking system. For the Fed to carry out its job it must have detailed knowledge of the working of banks and financial markets. Central banks know from the experience of financial crises that regulatory and monetary policy directly influence each other. For example, a banking crises can disturb monetary policy, discouraging lending and destroying consumer confidence, they can also disrupt the ability to make or receive payments by check or to transfer funds. It is for these reasons that it is argued that the Fed must maintain a regulatory role with banks. The Treasury plan would leave the Fed some access to the review of banks. The Fed, which lends through its discount window and operates an interbank money transfer system, would have full access to bank examination data. Because regulatory policy affects monetary policy and systemic risk, it is necessary that the Fed have at least some jurisdiction. The Fed must be able to effectively deal with current policy concerns. The Banking Commission would be mainly concerned with the safety and stability of the banks. This would encourage conservative regulations, and could inhibit economic growth. The Fed clearly has a hands on knowledge of the banking system. The common indicators of monetary policy - the monetary aggregates, the federal funds rate, and the growth of loans - are all influenced by bank behavior and bank regulation. Understanding changes and taking action in a timely fashion can be achieved only by maintaining contact with examiners who are directly monitoring banks (Syron 7). The banking system is what ultimately determines monetary policy. It is only common sense to have personnel in the Fed that have a better understanding of the system other than just through financial statements and examination reports. The Fed also needs the authority to change bank behavior that is inconsistent with its established monetary policy and with financial stability. This requires both the responsibility for writing the regulations and the responsibility for enforcing those regulations through bank supervision. State banking charters have already started to be affected. Under the proposed plan, state chartered banks would be subject to two regulators. While the federal bank would have only one. Thus, making the state bank charter less attractive. However, an increasing