Human Evolution

Inward Struggle Of Coming Out Methodology - 1344 Words

Inward Struggle Of Coming Out-Methodology Methods The transgender community continue to battle the acknowledgment of independent identity within society. The ongoing problem has been the continued gender crisis with mistaken the identity of transgender as the same as gay or lesbian sexuality. Gay is a term commonly used to refer to homosexuals, but transgender is the state in which a person’s gender identity does not match with his/her physical sex (Gay Couple Fertility Care, 2015, p. 1). Transgender people may identify as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, polysexual, or asexual. It does not imply to any specific form of sexual orientation (Gay Couple Fertility Care, 2015, p. 1). X amount of transgender individuals participated in a brief survey, compiled of questions centered around possible differences between gay/lesbian and transgender sexual orientation. Toward the end of the questionnaire, the individual is asked to give his/her own personal view of how the transgender community should be defined or viewed by society. The participants will be made up of transgender women (male birth sex), transgender men (female birth sex), between the ages of 19-35 years of age; with various race backgrounds. Purpose The main purpose of the research problem is to gain a clearer definition of transgender. In addition to, there must be some type of resolution that can pave the way for acceptance within society to embrace and understand the transsexual community. ThereShow MoreRelatedImportance Of Strategic Management Concepts For Organizational Planning And Development Essay3056 Words   |  13 Pagesmanager evaluate the results against the goals if plan has been carried out for it. If goal is not being met, the manager must also take any necessary corrective to continue to work towards that goal. Controlling involves ensuring that performance does not deviate from standards Question A2: Describe two strategic management process Strategic Methodology #1 Name of Methodology Porters Five Forces Description of methodology Named after Michael E. Porter, this model identifies and analyses 5Read MoreDifferent Type of Budgeting Technique6663 Words   |  27 Pagesliving paycheck to paycheck or earning six-figures a year, you need to know where your money is going if you want to have a handle on your finances. Unlike what you might believe, budgeting isn’t all about restricting what you spend money on and cutting out all the fun in your life. It’s really about understanding how much money you have, where it goes, and then planning how to best allocate those funds. Here’s everything you need to help you create a budget using different approach. (a)Incremental BudgetingRead MoreInternship Report on One Bank13005 Words   |  53 Pagesof service of ONE Bank Limited. âÅ"“ Make recommendations to improve the level of service quality in order to enhance customer satisfaction âÅ"“ To see the working process of the ONE Bank Ltd. Methodology While conducting the study, sources were explored for primary information and data. But hardly any updated data could be found. In the absence of updated information or data dependence on secondary data has been inevitable. However, whenever possibleRead MoreParental Grief Essay14598 Words   |  59 Pagesoverwhelming sense of its magnitude, a sense that the pain will last forever, a sense that the grief is etched into ones very being. They explain that it is also important for these parents to express their anger outwardly so that it will not turn inward and possibly become a destructive force in the future. These specialists say that although there are many commonalities in parental grief, individual reactions often vary and that the same person may even experience contradictory reactions. They alsoRead MoreIndustry Analysis Report of Electrical Industry7050 Words   |  29 PagesINDIAN ELECTRICAL INDUSTRY PROSPECTS OF THE INDIAN ELECTRICAL INDUSTRY Like every other industrial sector in India, the Indian Electrical/Electronics Industry too is slowly emerging from out of its protective cover. For far too long has Indian Industry remained shackled and consequently inward looking. Over the past fifty years there was no exposure to global players and competition, with the result that the Industry grew up in a sheltered environment, dependent on the Government for everythingRead MoreDefining a Role-Based Organization6315 Words   |  25 Pagesworrying about. But still, even those who see the changes coming know that role-based learning and acting, much like project-based activities, are about putting experts in their silos. What happens around them by the others in the organization may just be part of the cost of change that is already in the making (Pruneau, 2008). In some ways, it can be said that role-based organizations are set up like performance stages where valued actors play out their scripts while the audience who often cannot sometimesRead MoreIbsen11859 Words   |  48 Pagesmake decisions for life or death. The theme of captivity has several applications in the areas of literature and performance. Through an understanding of the literary theme of captivity, the reader will be able to more profoundly connect with the struggles of Ibsen’s female protagonists, and unite this theme of non-physical captivity to the realm of human nature. The actor can also benefit from an increased understanding of the textual theme of captivity in Ibsen’s plays, and portray the character’sRead MoreGoogle Organizational Culture9872 Words   |  40 Pagesintensive field studies that attempt to understand the development and behavior of people who are members of a social unit. Types of methodologies most commonly used in connection wi th anthropological research try to get the researcher to experience firsthand as much of the organization as possible, frequently emphasize the importance of ethnography in its approach and methodology. Given the central role that culture plays in business anthropology, it is important to have a definition on which to base one’sRead MoreTerm Paper on Islami Bank Limited17265 Words   |  70 Pagesinvestments of IBBL. ââ€" ª To identify the problems related to investments faced by IBBL. ââ€" ª To recommend actions that may be necessary to redesign the investments of IBBL. 1.3 Methodology The study is performed based on the information extracted from different sources collected by using a specific methodology. The methods of completing the report have included some steps which are followed by one by one. First of all I selected the topic of the report then I had to collect information relatingRead MoreOne Significant Change That Has Occurred in the World Between 1900 and 2005. Explain the Impact This Change Has Made on Our Lives and Why It Is an Important Change.163893 Words   |  656 PagesSmith’s essay provides an overview of the gendering of political and social transformations over the course of the twentieth century. Attentive to differences across cultures and regions and under varying political regimes, Smith chronicles the struggles of women to improve their situation within the domestic sphere and the conditions under which they labored to expand the career opportunities available to them at different times and in diverse settings. She places special emphasis on the important

Atomic Threat New Weapon of the 1940s Free Essays

string(63) " Truman up to that time until after the showdown with Molotov\." What follows will be a brief summary and review of three books concerning the advent of the atomic bomb, its use on Japan, the politics and diplomacy involved   and the effects that Truman and his cabinet suspected that the bomb would have on future wars and future politics.   Three authors, Gar Alperoitz, Herbert Feis and J. Samuel Walker present similar information about the development and use of the atomic bomb and the concerns that those few politicians with intimate knowledge of the bomb suspected its existence would have on future global politics. We will write a custom essay sample on Atomic Threat: New Weapon of the 1940s or any similar topic only for you Order Now The authors speak from different perspectives and yet at points provide strikingly similar details about the events surrounding the development of the bomb.   While all three authors focus on the development and use of the bomb, each approaches the subject from a slightly different perspective.   Alperovitz focuses on diplomacy with Stalin, Walker focuses on the situation in Japan and Feis pays more attention to those involved with the development of the bomb, both politicians and scientists.   We will begin our considerations of these different approaches with Alperovitz’s focus on the effects the bomb had on diplomacy and move on from there. Alperovitz book consists of a long 60 page introduction, eight chapters and four appendices describing the relations between the United States and the Soviet Union prior to and after the advent of the bomb.   He begins with Truman’s concerns about the Russians when he took over from FDR. As he prepared for his first meeting with a USSR representative Truman declared that â€Å"if the Russians did not care to cooperate, ‘they could go to hell.'† A few hours later, the President expressed the same view to Soviet Foreign Minister V. M. Molotov in rather undiplomatic terms. Truman desired to continue FDR’s policy of cooperation with the Russians, but his attitude when he spoke the above words were not the result of a moment’s flash of temper. Problems were developing over the USSR’s dealings with Poland.   Alperovitz’s primary argument that the bomb had a very significant influence on American views of diplomacy with the USSR long before the bomb. The bomb was inextricably bound with Truman’s strategy at Potsdam in July 1945 and â€Å"was regarded as a ‘master card’ of diplomacy.† (Alperovitz, p. 1)   Alperovitz states that â€Å"†¦a major reason the bomb was used was ‘to make Russia more manageable†¦.† (Alperovitz, p. 1).   Touched upon the impact of nuclear weapons on the beginning of the Cold War. â€Å"In August 1945, Eisenhower felt that ‘before the atom bomb was used, I would have said yes, I was sure we could keep peace with Russia. Now, I don’t know†¦People are frightened and disturbed all over. Everyone feels insecure again.† (Alperovitz, p. 2)   Truman and some members of his cabinet believed that Russia was attempting to dominate Eastern Europe so concerns over Poland had been chosen as a symbolic issue to force a showdown with Stalin because of Truman’s concern that Stalin was had plans for all of Eastern and Central Europe.   (Alperovitz, p. 70)  Ã‚   Secretary Forrestal stated, â€Å"This difficulty over Poland could not be treated as an isolated incident.† (Alperovitz, p. 70) â€Å"Forrestal argued: ‘We had better have a showdown with them now rather than later.'† (Alperovitz, p. 70) On the surface, this showdown strategy seemed to have been a complete reversal of FDR’s policy only a few weeks earlier. There were three major obstacles to Truman’s firm, showdown approach. First, FDR appeared to have had a strong belief that cooperation with Russia was possible. Second was the concern that American-Soviet cooperation might be destroyed and that a separate peace accord between Germany and the USSR might be signed, a concern that was eliminated when the German government collapsed. The third concern was that a showdown with Russia might result in the loss of Soviet help in the war against Japan. While Truman’s approach was one of an immediate showdown with Stalin, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill took a different approach. â€Å"He believed it might be possible to obtain additional concessions from the Russians if he could maintain the extended troop positions†¦Ã¢â‚¬  rather than withdrawing Anglo-American troops as General Eisenhower had proposed. (Alperovitz, p. 90) Churchill was prepared to use any argument at his disposal to persuade Truman to his point. Churchill cabled Truman, â€Å"‘The Russian occupational zone has the smallest proportion of people and grows by far the largest proportion of food†¦Before we move from the tactical positions we have at present achieved,’ the Russians should be forced to agree that ‘the feeding of the German population must be treated as a whole and that the available supplies must be divided pro rata between the occupational zones.'† (Alperovitz, p. 91) When Truman took up the issue with his Joint Chiefs of Staff for advice, they were unwilling to use troop positions for political purposes. Even though Truman recognized that the Russians were in a strong position, he followed the showdown on Poland with a firm approach to the problem of cooperation in Central Europe. (Alperovitz, p. 93) Truman’s joint action with Churchill stressed his willingness to present a united Anglo-American stand against Russia. Like General Eisenhower, various military authorities believed that this approach to the troop issue would yield negative results. By mid-May 1945, Truman’s plan for cooperative control of Central Europe was faced with a direct challenge. On April 24 1945, one day after President Truman had a showdown with Molotov, Secretary of War Stimson wrote President Truman stating, â€Å"(The atomic bomb) has such a bearing on our present foreign relations and such an important effect upon all my thinking in this field that I think you should know about it without further delay.† (Alperovitz, pp. 103-04) Up to this point, President was apparently unaware of the bomb. Stimson had casually mentioned to Truman about an â€Å"immense project†¦(that) was under way–a project looking to the development of a new explosive of almost unbelievable destructive power,† Stimson had felt no compelling reason or need to fully discuss the matter with President Truman up to that time until after the showdown with Molotov. You read "Atomic Threat: New Weapon of the 1940s" in category "Essay examples" (Alperovitz, p. 104) Secretary Stimson discussed the atomic bomb with the President for three quarters of an hour and it was â€Å"assumed–not decided–that the bomb would be used.† Truman was made aware that Japan had been the target of the weapon development program and that a special Air Force group was about to leave for its overseas base. Although Stimson expressed confidence that the bomb would shorten the war, the use of the bomb against Japan was not main subject of discussion. The diplomatic implications of the atomic bomb dominated private discussion between Stimson and Truman during the last week of April and the first week of May, 1945. President Truman eventually came to agree that the atomic bomb would have decisive implications for diplomacy with Russia. By shortly after April 25, 1945, British representatives knew that a committee would be set up â€Å"to consider the whole ranged of political issues which will arise in connection with the atomic bomb.† (Alperovitz, p. 110) News of the atomic bomb first came to the average American and to most senior government officials from the newspapers. The weapon’s power was disclosed in a way that produced great emotion and optimism about its usefulness as an instrument of high policy. (Alperovitz, p. 237) On August 16, 1945, after the bomb was used and the war ended, Truman told the press, that â€Å"Japan would not be divided into occupation zones, and declared †¦that as far as Japan was concerned, ‘in the event of any difference of opinion (among the Allied powers) the policies of the United States will govern.† (Alperovitz, p. 240) The atomic bomb had strengthened the American hand in diplomacy. In the â€Å"whirlwind days† â€Å"immediately after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, American diplomacy changed†¦swiftly.† Secretary Byrnes underscored the breadth and scope of the departures from typical diplomacy by saying, â€Å"Those†¦days†¦were full of action.† The sheer volume of work caused the Secretary of State to ask that the London foreign ministers’ meeting set for September 1 be postponed until September 10.† (Alperovitz, p. 243). Truman declared: â€Å"The atomic bomb is too dangerous to be loose in a lawless world†¦We must constitute ourselves trustees of this new force†¦The best interests of the United States require the utmost cooperation by all concerned in keeping secret now and for all time in the future all scientific and technical information†¦.† (Alperovitz, p. 243) One week later, Truman directed that no information on the nuclear development project be released without the specific approval of the President. (Alperovitz, p. 243) Alperovitz clearly points out that the atomic bomb and the temporary American monopoly in possessing the bomb was viewed as a â€Å"great advantage to American diplomacy. In (Secretary Byrnes’) view, the ‘primary task was to establish a â€Å"lasting structure of peace†Ã¢â‚¬ ¦A stable Europe, essential to world peace and American security alike, was the number-one goal. Byrnes believed that the nuclear monopoly could be maintained for at least seven years†¦within that period, with the support of the revolutionary weapon, his diplomacy could easily achieve its idealistic objectives. Thus, the weapon seemed a crucial factor in forcing agreement to an American plan for permanent peace–a plan which, ipso facto, would prevent another world war.† (Alperovitz, p. 245) Alperovitz goes on to add that Byrnes vision â€Å"obviated the danger of an arms race.† (Alperovitz, p. 245) History has shown that Byrnes was clearly wrong. Not only did the atomic bomb fail to eliminate the arms race, but it seems to have added to the race tremendously, but with all that was at stake, the bomb made going to war a much more risky proposition than it had been in the past. J. Samuel Walker’s book â€Å"Prompt and Utter Destruction† focused on another aspect of the new weapon. Walker notes in his preface that, â€Å"The question of why President Truman used atomic bombs against Japan has intrigued me since I was an undergraduate history major. Indeed, it was the first issue in which the competing arguments of different scholars caught my interest†¦.† (Walker, p. ix) This statement in his preface sets up the direction for his book. Walker states, â€Å"In fact†¦Truman never faced a categorical choice between the bomb and an invasion that would cost hundreds of thousands of American lives†¦the prevailing perception (about the president’s alternatives) vastly oversimplifies the situation in the summer of 1945†¦.† (Walker, p. 5) Walker points out 1) that there were other available options for a â€Å"reasonably short time† end to the war without resorting to the bomb, 2) Truman and his key advisers believed that Japan was so weak that the war could end even before an invasion began and 3) American military planners believed that even in a worst case scenario, American casualties would be far fewer than the hundreds of thousands Truman and his advisers claimed after the war. So, â€Å"Was the use of the bomb necessary at all† and if so, 2) â€Å"What exactly did it accomplish?† Walker begins by taking a look at the President. Truman won greater affection and esteem from the American people after his presidency and after he died than he had while president. He was honest, often indiscreet and blunt and needlessly offensive and â€Å"his decisiveness could lead to superficial or impulsive judgments.† (p. 7) The world was embroiled in a global war that made his arrival into the Oval Office a period of extraordinarily difficult problems and, even though he had been vice president, he came to the White House without adequate preparation. Indeed, he began his turn at the helm basically â€Å"in the dark about many of his predecessor’s policies and commitments†¦.† (Walker, p. 9) The one fundamental military strategy from Roosevelt that seemed clear to Truman was his predecessor’s desire â€Å"to achieve complete victory at the lowest cost in American lives.† (Walker, p. 9) After October 1941, President Roosevelt authorized a major effort to explore the feasibility of an atomic bomb. The Manhattan project began with the purpose of addressing the â€Å"bewildering variety† of scientific and engineering uncertainties connected with nuclear energy and the bomb. Once scientists had proven that a nuclear chain reaction was possible, the Manhattan Project focused on designing a bomb and producing the fuel to make it work. All of this was kept secret from Vice President Truman, so when he suddenly became President, he knew virtually nothing about the Manhattan Project or the bomb even though he had learned of â€Å"a massive and highly secret effort to build a new weapon† while he was chairman of the Special Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program in the Senate. However, while serving as a senator he did not receive any details. Secretary Stimson confirmed and elaborated information about the bomb to the President in a meeting on April 25, 1945, but Secretary Stimson warned, â€Å"the existence of such a weapon would create profound problems because the United States would not be able to maintain a monopoly on the technology. Further, the issue of sharing information about the atomic bomb would become ‘a primary question of our foreign relations.† (Walker, p. 13) When Truman took office, he was outraged by the Soviet conduct in Poland, but he did not want to ruin the relatively good relations between the United States and the Soviet Union. Germany surrendered on May 8, 1945, less than a month after Truman became president, but the war in Japan raged on. Americans were still upset about the attack on Pearl Harbor and had also become outraged when the U.S. government learned about how the Japanese mistreated American prisoners and released that information to the public and the Japanese were equally as disdainful of Americans thanks to the â€Å"warped stereotypes† Japanese leaders painted of Americans during the war. So, the Americans fought a â€Å"war without mercy in Japan. (Walker, p. 23) Even though the Japanese people were losing confidence in their leaders and public morale was deteriorating, the fact that Japan was on the verge of defeat did not mean that the country was on the verge of surrender. By the end of June 1945, both American and Japanese leaders, including Japan’s emperor, as well as the Japanese people realized that the war would end in Japan’s defeat.   On June 17, 1945, President Truman wrote in his diary that deciding between invading Japan and relying solely on bombing and blockade to end the war was his â€Å"hardest decision to date.† ( Walker, p. 35) Advisers in the Truman administration realized that â€Å"‘there was a large submerged class in Japan’ that did not favor the war but would ‘fight tenaciously’ for their homeland.† In a meeting on June 18, 1945, Secretary Stimson hinted that he â€Å"thought the war might end by some other means, though at this time he did not specify what the alternatives were.† (Walker, p. 37) Meanwhile, although there were some proponents who were in favor of moderating the stance for Japan’s unconditional surrender, the prevailing attitude in the United States as a whole was for the unconditional surrender of Japan. By July 13, 1945, it was clear that America’s demand for an unconditional surrender was the main obstacle to a settlement. So, despite the mutual desires of the American people and the Japanese people for peace and the leaders of both countries faced the same obstacle–unconditional surrender. President Truman faced choices as to how to overcome this dilemma. There were three choices, including invasions with the potentially high costs. A fourth alternative also existed, the atomic bomb. Truman and his advisers proceeded with their planning as if the bomb didn’t exist because the bomb had not been tested successfully, but those in the administration who knew about the bomb hoped that a successful test would lead to their goal of ending the war at a lower cost than the alternatives. Final preparations for the atomic test, named â€Å"Trinity† proceeded amid strain, excitement, uncertainty and ominous weather forecasts, but at 8:00 AM on July 16, 1945, Secretary Stimson receive news of the successful test of the bomb. President Truman was delighted when he heard the news. Secretary Byrnes was committed to the belief that the bomb would be an instrument to advance American diplomacy, particularly in light of growing differences with the Soviet Union. On the diplomatic front, Truman took his cue from Secretary Byrnes and agreed that the bomb would serve as a valuable tool for diplomacy. Ultimately, it appears that Truman used the bomb â€Å"because he had no compelling reason to avoid using it.† (Walker, p. 95) American leaders had assumed that the bomb would be used when available and there were no military, diplomatic, political, or moral considerations contrary to that assumption. Diplomatically, it placed America in a stronger position with the Soviets and it was politically popular as a means in ending the war quickly as opposed to the dire prospects of victory without the bomb. Herbert Feis opens his work by considering how the war could be ended. In May 1945 the war in Europe was over and Japan fought alone. Japanese life and production was being â€Å"smashed and burned†. The question was, â€Å"How could (the war) be ended surely and quickly?† (Feis, p. 3) â€Å"The obvious and perhaps most certain was was to beat down the Japanese until they could no longer fight on–by enlarging the assaults on Japan and Japanese armed forces wherever they could be reached†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Feis, p. 3) Another means was by inducement and a third, the most secret, was by shock. Each of these approaches could end the war or two or three of them could do so in combination. The end of the European war made American, British and Russian troops available for use in the Pacific. As for the war in the General Marshall felt â€Å"that the hope that air power alone would be able to drive Japan out of the war was unjustified; and that the task would be the more difficult there since the Japanese were scattered through mountainous country.† (Feis, p. 9) The U.S. had planned an invasion of Kyushu, but there were concerns that America could not go further and force its way upon Tokyo. (Feis, p. 11) The Joint Chiefs adopted strategic plans for the war in the Pacific on May 25, 1945. Those plans were approved by President Truman on June 18th, but those plans included the desire to have Russian forces enter the final assault with U.S. forces. General MacArthur emphatically stated to a visitor from the War Department that â€Å"no attempt ought to be made to invade Japan proper unless and until the Russian army had been previously committed to action in Manchuria; that he though this was essential, and should be brought about without†¦delay†¦.† President Truman’s tone was stern. He felt that Japanese aggression against China, the Japanese assault upon America and the Japanese cruelties during the was warranted severity and he reaffirmed his intention to carry on the war â€Å"until the Japanese military and naval forces lay down their arms in unconditional surrender.† (Feis, p. 16) On the morning of May 28, 1945, President Truman was urged to try to induce the Japanese to surrender by dispelling the worst fears of the consequences. Secretary Stimson and General Marshall concluded that â€Å"the question of what to say to the Japanese and when to say it, should be governed by whether and when the United States had the atomic bomb.† (Feis, p. 19) Others in the cabinet did not believe that Japan would heed any warnings of surrender until the Japanese were more thoroughly beaten down. (Feis, p. 19) Although the prime incentive for making the bomb was the effort to defeat Germany (Feis, p. 28), the dimensions of creating the bomb became apparent and its creators were compelled to face the fact that the war against Germany might be over before the bomb was ready for use. The number of issues surrounding the creation of the bomb included what type of bomb to make. During the creation of the bomb, those in the Roosevelt administration who knew about it believed that knowledge needed to make the new weapon could be confined long enough as to allow the United States and Britain to secure an advantage that would keep the Soviet Union from being too pushy.   When Roosevelt died, Secretary Stimson lingered after the first Cabinet meeting to tell the new President briefly about the immense undertaking regarding the bomb of which the former vice president now president had no knowledge. As Truman learned more about the weapon with time, Truman began to recognize the enormous significance of the new weapon. The President accepted Secretary Stimson’s belief that â€Å"†¦our leadership in the war and the development of this weapon has placed a certain moral responsibility upon us which we cannot shirk without very serious responsibility for any disaster to civilization which it would further.† (Feis, p. 38) When plans to use the bomb were considered, one consideration was to demonstrate the bomb’s power before using it, but there were concerns against its use. The possibility that a country could assure its security by increasing its nuclear armaments (as was later the practice) was viewed to be invalid. It was felt that â€Å"the safety of all nations henceforth could be achieved only if they agreed to subject their activities in atomic energy to international control. However, the chance of bringing about such an agreement would be greatly lessened by the sudden and unannounced use of the weapon against Japan. Both the diplomatic and military value of the bomb spanned a wide range of concerns. Using the bomb against Japan faced a range of concerns as evidenced by the following statement: â€Å"†¦they range from the proposal of a purely technical demonstration to that of military application best designed to induce surrender. Those who advocate a purely technical demonstration of atomic weapons, and have feared that if they would wish to outlaw the use of atomic weapons, and have feared that if we use the weapons now our position in future negotiations will be prejudiced. Others emphasize the opportunity of saving American lives by immediate military use†¦.† (Feis, p. 54) Before using the new weapon, Americans were determined to continue their assault on Japan and officials in Washington were striving to compose a statement which would tell the Japanese how we intended to treat them once they surrendered.(Feis, p. 63) Feis considers issues not discussed by the other authors. He wonders, â€Å"Whether, if the United States had pledged itself as soon as the war was over to destroy the other bombs it had and dismantle the factories in which they were made other countries would have been willing to join with it in a trustworthy system of control of atomic energy, must remain forever a provocation to the speculative historian.: (Feis, p. 190) I could be biased by this, but I certainly enjoyed each of these books, however I must admit to a great interest in many aspects of World War II, including matters surrounding the atomic bomb.   These books covered an aspect of the war that took concerns of future wars to a new and frightening level and often placed the reader right in the thick of issues and diplomacy connected with the atomic bomb and other issues of the war.   All three books discuss the global atmosphere at the time of a world in turmoil at the end of World War II and the bomb’s contribution that bringing that turmoil to an end, but at the same time, each of the books focus on aspects of the politics surrounding the bomb. All reveal the mutual suspicion and mistrust between Russia and her two strongest allies in the War, the U.S. and Britain.   They reveal how this mistrust played a role in the development, use and politics surrounding the bomb.   Each book portrays different details surrounding the development and use of the bomb.   Although or perhaps despite their different perspectives, all three books are interesting and had some surprizingly similar aspects.   Each author tells his story from a different perspective, each author outlines some aspects of their story with common events and from common perspectives. Alperovitz seems to focus a lot on Truman’s concern regarding Stalin’s desires for Poland and other areas of Eastern Europe.   Walker focused a great deal on events in the Pacific and Feis tended to concentrate much more of his focus on the development of the bomb.   Combined, these three books present an interesting and a more comprehensive look at how the bomb developed, its initial influence on diplomacy and how politicians felt that the existence of the bomb would impact future events in Europe. Each author tells an interesting and provacotive story with behind the scenes details from a different perspective and each author lays out interesting and compelling facts surrounding the concerns, suspicions and global politics between Russia and ther wartime allies, the United States and Great Britain.   I found each of them to be interesting and compelling reading. References Alperoitz, Gar (1965).   Atomic diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam; the use of the atomic bomb and the American confrontation with Soviet power .   New York, NY:   Simon and Schuster. Feis, Herbert (1966).   The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II.   Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press. Walker,   J. Samuel   (1997).   Prompt and utter destruction : Truman and the use of atomic bombs against Japan.   Chapel Hill, NC:   University of North Carolina Press.          How to cite Atomic Threat: New Weapon of the 1940s, Essay examples

Defining My Culture free essay sample

My culture Is defined by the stories that music has provided from slavery times to present day. Music holds significant meaning to the individual singer and Is used as a way to express emotions. A singer can relay spirituality, love or life experiences. Since the sass, our culture sang Negro Hymns to get through miserable and painful times. Our ancestors sang about their struggles and heartaches. They sung to the Almighty for relief and deliverance from the horrible conditions they were enduring, the racist and controlling masters, poverty and slavery itself.During this RA, music was a way to express our spirituality. Music was used a codes among our ancestors during this era. Songs held hidden meanings, such as The Gospel Train and Swing low, sweet chariot, referred to the underground Railroad, an informal organization who helped many slaves to flee. In the sass, our culture was able to sing a different story. We will write a custom essay sample on Defining My Culture or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Rhythm and Blues were used to sing about a new found love or a lost love. Blacks hung out in the Juke Joints and danceable and danced the night away to upbeat music.These songs told stories that were heart wrenching, like Ellen Williams Cause I Love You; early rotes, like Sam Cokes A Change Is Goanna Come: or pointing out injustices, like Marvin Ayes Whats Going On. A major portion of the story was written during this era. The sincere meanings of songs could be felt and it was easy to relate to situations the singers were going through at the time. In the 21st century, the younger culture uses Hip-hop to complete the story. HIP- hop Is used by young artists to talk about life experiences and the lessons learned. It is a continuation of expressing life while growing up. Rappers want to talk about hunger, homelessness and growing up in the Ghetto. Notorious B. I. G (Biggie Smalls) gives listeners guidelines to selling drugs through his lyrics in Ten Crack Commandments; Tubas take on teen pregnancy In Breads Got a Baby; or accusations of murder expressed by Snoop Dogs Murder Was the Case are songs used to express life lessons.Music is a collection of short stories and each singer has a different story to tell. The black culture has used music to put together a memorable story that will leave a lasting impact on my culture. Defining My Culture By ways girl My culture is defined by the stories that music has provided from slavery times to present day. Music holds significant meaning to the individual singer and is used as and Swing low, sweet chariot, referred to the Underground Railroad, an informal joints and danceable and danced the night away to upbeat music.

Garcia v Fairey is one of the most talked about mo Essays - Data

Garcia v Fairey is one of the most talked about modern day cases in respect to copyright law. This case is a heavy tug of war between the two. Who has the right to what? Who deserves the money? Most of all, who's in the right? In this essay, the discussion of rights and copyright law will be discussed, and how, at the very least in a legal respect, Fairey crossed no lines. In the case Garcia v Fairey, the legal proceedings cannot be followed through as you would on any average litigation case. This case is truly only based in the eye of the beholder. Art can only be so objective, and that is shown in the metaphorical tug of war throughout this case. The first case to be made throughout this trial was whether Fairey had infringed upon the copyright that was already placed upon Garcia's photograph of Obama. Whether or not this is true is up to the jury, however, there are far too many differences between the image, and the poster, to pose a reasonable argument against Fairey's image. Fairey had changed enough, down to the angle of then-senator Obama's neck. The image was not clearly infringing on any copyright laws, as shown in section 1303 in chapter 13 of Circular 92 Copyright Law of the United States, which was revised in 2016. This says that all revisions, adaptations, and so forth are protected, so long as the design is a substantial rearrangemen t from the original. This can be proven, as clearly, Fairey could not have just used posterize and printed HOPE' over it. This image was hand drawn, and there are enough differences between the photograph and the drawing to make a case that the rearrangement is substantial. The composition is changed, the image itself changing from having a complex background to focusing just on Obama, with his head tilted further upward, and with no background. Not to mention the change in colors, the lack of complexity and so forth, all form to be a fairly easy case to make in Fairey's favor. Even with this evidence, however there is the case to be made of referencing, and whether or not that could be classified as infringing upon copyright laws. The use of Garcia's image, be it as a reference or a mere inspiration, is difficult to argue against when comparing the two images, (And later, Fairey did admit to the accusations being true). However, referencing an image can hardly be considered a crime. If one were to go to court over referencing, almost every artist would be put to court for this crime. While royalties would be appreciated, Fairey was under absolutely no requirement to follow through with doing so- the image had a reasonable difference between both images. Those who say it is too heavily referenced, or is too similar to the original photograph are entitled to their opinions, however, there must be an objective look at the art. There are plenty of differences between it, and to say that it's a blatant plagiarization is just ignoring all the obvious differen ces that have been mentioned before. The coloring, the shading, the angle, Fairey even edited the position Obama was in to make him both seem more leaderly' and to fit in an emblem (or pin) on the suit. These differences cannot be argued just because the poster was referenced by the image, or because it is similar to it. The grounds on which Garcia based his lawsuit are flimsy, and difficult to prove, even with a scan over. Unless he somehow manages to prove that Fairey traced over his image, specifically (and looking at the details of the piece, that's yet another hard case to make.) Details have either been added or omitted that would make it an obvious trace. In the end, there's no way of proving it, and referencing is not a crime- if it were, all artists would be guilty. The obstruction of evidence is what hurt Fairey's case, but the use of a reference is no crime- while willful negligence is. In the end, the defense could have made a case surrounding Fairey referencing off Garcia's photograph, but Fairey committed

Whens the last time you were bored Maybe its been too long.

Whens the last time you were bored Maybe its been too long. â€Å"I’m boooorrrrrrrrrrred!† Early on a Saturday evening, I admitted to a friend that I had watched a Netflix movie the night before and was likely going to watch another one that night. For many people, watching videos two nights in a row would not be a remarkable occurrence. But for me, it was an anomaly- a rare sign of boredom. â€Å"I don’t think I’ve ever heard you say that before,† said my friend. Indeed, it is not unusual for me to go a month without finding a single 2-hour block of time to sit and watch a video. What did it mean that I had two such blocks of time to fill in one weekend? Had I failed in some way by not scheduling something more â€Å"important†? In fact, I think my unexpectedly empty time meant that I had gotten enough done and was sufficiently on top of my schedule that I felt unpressured to fill that time with productive activities. A success, not a failure! Yet my inner voice was saying, â€Å"Brenda, you’re bored. You had better do something to occupy your brain.† I considered my options. Should I watch my Netflix video, The Blind Side? Or find something on my business task list to tackle on this Saturday night? Surely there must be something for me to write or edit! I let the wheels in my brain spin for a while. And, after a few minutes of â€Å"boredom,† I settled on a new idea: a blog article about this very topic. I wondered if other people had identified boredom as a positive emotion or event, and if so, what factors were at work in our bored brains? The Value of Boredom Not long ago, I heard someone complain of being bored and explained to him that I celebrate boredom despite the discomfort it may entail. I see boredom as an opportunity to rest my brain- an empty place that is necessary for the spark of creativity to take hold. I discovered quite a bit of interesting material that supported my opinion. First was a TED talk by Genevieve Bell. Ms. Bell explained that the experience of boredom is a moment when, neurochemically, the brain lights up. The bored brain is almost as active as the engaged brain! Boredom is an opportunity for the brain to reset itself, and this reset is apparently a very active process. Ms. Bell also referenced Heidegger, who argued in 1929 that being bored is a fundamental state of being human- and that we should spend less time putting it at bay and more time embracing it. The Quest for Boredom Nowadays, it’s hard to be bored. A text message or facebook update awaits us at every moment. If we don’t like one thing, we move on to the next. We are more likely to be overloaded than bored. For me, this overload shows up as the inability during most months to find time to watch the Netflix video sitting on my desk. Yet those times of disconnection, when the brain gets a rest, are often the most pleasurable times in life. As Peter Bregman stated in his Harvard Business School blog article, Why I Returned My iPad: Being bored is a precious thing, a state of mind we should pursue. Once boredom sets in, our minds begin to wander, looking for something exciting, something interesting to land on. And that’s where creativity arises. My best ideas come to me when I am  unproductive. When I am running but not listening to my iPod. When I am sitting, doing nothing, waiting for someone. When I am lying in bed as my mind wanders before falling to sleep. These â€Å"wasted† moments, moments not filled with anything in particular, are vital. They are the moments in which we, often unconsciously, organize our minds, make sense of our lives, and connect the dots. They’re the moments in which we talk to ourselves. And listen. To lose those moments, to replace them with tasks and efficiency, is a mistake. What’s worse is that we don’t just lose them. We actively throw them away. An Astonishing Feat!! Finally, I discovered a June 13, 2011   â€Å"On Point† episode with Tom Ashbrook, featuring guest Peter Toohey who wrote an entire book about boredom (Boredom: A Lively History). Callers largely agreed that boredom is the key to creativity. And neuroscientist Jonah Lehrer jumped on to share that boredom is the precursor to daydreaming, an â€Å"astonishing mental feat† wherein, he confirmed, just as much brain activity occurs as when we are focused on something. I suppose the daydreaming phenomenon occurs whether boredom comes from having â€Å"nothing† to do or from disinterest in whatever we are doing. From my cursory research, I found that there is a clear connection between boredom and the birth of new ideas. Reportedly, many of the best ideas arise when we can untether ourselves from the constant stream of information that bombards us in every minute. I’m glad I chose not to put that DVD in my computer. It’s still there when I want it, and I found a friend who asked to watch it with me. In the end, by allowing boredom to set in for just a few short minutes, I created a fascinating, brain-lit-up Saturday evening.

Has the American Dream changed Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Has the American Dream changed - Essay Example under the American Dream dogma is that the aforementioned benefits of being an American are available to anyone, regardless of where they hail from, and are distributed according to a person’s motivations and unique talents and abilities (Library of Congress 1). The conception of the American Dream has changed significantly from the 1960s to today, as what constitutes success and happiness, as well as freedom, is now underpinned by new social, professional and economic ambitions which were not dominant needs or ambitions in 1960s society. In the 1960s, the American Dream, as iterated by the venerated Martin Luther King, Jr., were the achievement of social equality and freedom from various types of oppression that were guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution that all men are created equal (Armitage 16). During the 1960s, it was not just African-Americans being oppressed, but many diverse ethnic groups and population subsets (for example homosexuals) that continued to be socially ostracized by other members of majority society. The American Dream, therefore, for those living in the 1960s, was ensuring achievement of true liberty and putting an end to social subjugation for failing to comply with the norms of society which asserted that being different from the majority was an opportunity to dominate and oppress. In today’s America, my personal American Dream is the achievement of wealth through self-governance of lifestyle and profession which underlines the ability to maintain a better quality of life. More wealth, from my perspective, brings opportunities for travelling, living in a top quality home, and procuring products and services that enhance one’s image, both physically and socially. In the 1960s, King saw the American Dream as ending the plight of â€Å"disinherited children of God† who were rising up to bolster the American Dream as related to â€Å"the most sacred values in our Judeo-Christian heritage† (Kloppenberg 147). Further reasserting the 1960s