Wwii Atomic Bombs Essay Example For Students

Wwii Atomic Bombs Essay WWII Atomic BombsWhen the atomic bomb went off over Hiroshima on Aug. 6th, 1945, 70,000 lives were ended in a flash. To theAmerican people who were weary from the long and brutal war, such a drastic measure seemed a necessary,even righteous way to end the madness that was World War II. However, the madness had just begun. ThatAugust morning was the day that heralded the dawn of the nuclear age, and with it came more than just the lossof lives. According to Archibald MacLeish, a U.S. poet, What happened at Hiroshima was not only that ascientific breakthrough . . . had occurred and that a great part of the population of a city had been burned todeath, but that the problem of the relation of the triumphs of modern science to the human purposes of man hadbeen explicitly defined. We will write a custom essay on Wwii Atomic Bombs specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now The entire globe was now to live with the fear of total annihilation, the fear that drove thecold war, the fear that has forever changed world politics. The fear is real, more real today than ever, for theease at which a nuclear bomb is achieved in this day and age sparks fear in the hearts of most people on thisplanet. According to General Douglas MacArthur, We have had our last chance. If we do not devise somegreater and more equitable system, Armageddon will be at our door. The decision to drop the atomic bomb onJapanese citizens in August, 1945, as a means to bring the long Pacific war to an end was justified-militarily,politically and morally. The goal of waging war is victory with minimum losses on ones own side and, if possible, on the enemys side.No one disputes the fact that the Japanese military was prepared to fight to the last man to defend the homeislands, and indeed had already demonstrated this determination in previous Pacific island campaigns. Aweapon originally developed to contain a Nazi atomic project was available that would spare Americanshundreds of thousands of causalities in an invasion of Japan, and-not incidentally-save several times more thanthat among Japanese soldiers and civilians. The thousands who have died in the atomic attacks on Hiroshimaand Nagasaki were far less than would have died in an allied invasion, and their sudden deaths convinced theJapanese military to surrender. Every nation has an interest in being at peace with other nations, but there has never been a time when theworld was free of the scourge of war. Hence, peaceful nations must always have adequate military force at theirdisposal in order to deter or defeat the aggressive designs of rogue nations. The United States was thereforeright in using whatever means were necessary to defeat the Japanese empire in the war which the latter began,including the use of superior or more powerful weaponry-not only to defeat Japan but to remain able followingthe war to maintain peace sufficiently to guarantee its own existence. A long, costly and bloody conflict is awasteful use of a nations resources when quicker, more decisive means are available. Japan was not then-orlater-the only nation America had to restrain, and an all-out U.S. invasion of Japan would have risked the victoryalready gained in Europe in the face of the palpable thereat of Soviet domination. Finally, we can never forget the maxim of Edmund Burke: The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is thatgood men do nothing. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor brought us into a war which we had vainly hopedto avoid. We could no longer do nothing but were compelled to do something to roll back the Japanesemilitarists. Victims of aggression have every right both to end the aggression and to prevent the perpetrator of itfrom continuing or renewing it. .ua095e240cfbc036e6b86a9a7ddb0d843 , .ua095e240cfbc036e6b86a9a7ddb0d843 .postImageUrl , .ua095e240cfbc036e6b86a9a7ddb0d843 .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .ua095e240cfbc036e6b86a9a7ddb0d843 , .ua095e240cfbc036e6b86a9a7ddb0d843:hover , .ua095e240cfbc036e6b86a9a7ddb0d843:visited , .ua095e240cfbc036e6b86a9a7ddb0d843:active { border:0!important; } .ua095e240cfbc036e6b86a9a7ddb0d843 .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .ua095e240cfbc036e6b86a9a7ddb0d843 { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .ua095e240cfbc036e6b86a9a7ddb0d843:active , .ua095e240cfbc036e6b86a9a7ddb0d843:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .ua095e240cfbc036e6b86a9a7ddb0d843 .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .ua095e240cfbc036e6b86a9a7ddb0d843 .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .ua095e240cfbc036e6b86a9a7ddb0d843 .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .ua095e240cfbc036e6b86a9a7ddb0d843 .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .ua095e240cfbc036e6b86a9a7ddb0d843:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .ua095e240cfbc036e6b86a9a7ddb0d843 .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .ua095e240cfbc036e6b86a9a7ddb0d843 .ua095e240cfbc036e6b86a9a7ddb0d843-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .ua095e240cfbc036e6b86a9a7ddb0d843:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: Chinese Pottery Essay Our natural right of self defense as well as our moral duty to defeat tyrannyjustified our decision to wage the war and, ultimately, to drop the atomic bomb. We should expect politicalleaders to be guided by moral principles but this does not mean they must subject millions of people toneedless injury or death out of a misplaced concern for the safety of enemy soldiers or civilians. President Trumans decision to deploy atomic power in Japan revealed a man who understood the moral issuesat stake and who had the courage to strike a decisive blow that quickly brought to an end the most destructivewar in human history. Squeamishness is not a moral princip le, but making the best decisions at the time, giventhe circumstances, is clear evidence that the decision maker is guided by morality. The atomic bomb was considered a quick and even economical way to win the war; however, it was a crueland unusual form of punishment for the Japanese citizens. The weapon that we refer to as quick was just theopposite. On one hand, it meant a quick end to the war for the United States, and on the other hand, a slow andpainful death to many innocent Japanese. According to a book called Hiroshima Plus 20 the effects of radiationpoisoning are horrific, ranging from purple spots on the skin, hair loss, nausea, vomiting, bleeding from themouth, gums, and throat, weakened immune systems, to massive internal hemorrhaging, not to mention thedisfiguring radiation burns. The effects of the radiation poisoning continued to show up until about a month afterthe bombing. In fact the bomb also killed or permanently damaged fetuses in the womb. Death and destructionare always a reality of war; however, a quick death is always more humanitarian. When this powerful nation called the United States dropped the bomb, we sent out the official go ahead for therest of the world that nuclear weapons were a viable means of warfare. We unofficially announced that it wasO.K. to bomb women, children, and elderly citizens. The thought that atomic weapons are needed to keep thepeace is exactly the idea that fueled the cold war. Albert Einstein said in a speech, The armament racebetween the U.S.A. and U. S.S.R., originally supposed to be a preventative measure, assumes hystericalcharacter. On both sides, the means of mass-destruction are perfected with feverish haste . . . The H-bombappears on the public horizon as a probably attainable goal. Its accelerated development has been solemnlyproclaimed by the president. In short, according to Hiroshima Plus 20, by now, the military has at least 50, 000 nuclear warheads in storageand ready with a handful of people in charge of them. In the words of James Conant, President of Harvard, Theextreme dangers to mankind inherent in the proposal wholly outweigh any military advantage. Has the atomic bomb introduced the fear of total annihilation . ..that has forever changed world politics? Thatseems to be the main point of the argument against dropping the atomic bomb on Japanese cities in August,1945. Yet this judgment completely abstracts from the concrete circumstances in which the decision wasmade-a world exhausted by war; an implacable, cunning and ruthless enemy; hundreds of thousands ofcasualties in an allied invasion of Japan; permanent strategic considerations; and the like. In other words, thereply fails to meet the argument for dropping the bomb and changes the subject from the immediate decision tothe long-term consequences of the decision. But even if one grants the point about fear of annihilation, it is not clear that the world has fundamentally changednor that the whole world is always in danger of nations from time immemorial. For example, ancient Romesacked Carthage, plowed it under and salted the earth. Medieval and modern religious wars have annihilatedmillions. .u654fd088e0ccfdbec24186ecf82a32e2 , .u654fd088e0ccfdbec24186ecf82a32e2 .postImageUrl , .u654fd088e0ccfdbec24186ecf82a32e2 .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .u654fd088e0ccfdbec24186ecf82a32e2 , .u654fd088e0ccfdbec24186ecf82a32e2:hover , .u654fd088e0ccfdbec24186ecf82a32e2:visited , .u654fd088e0ccfdbec24186ecf82a32e2:active { border:0!important; } .u654fd088e0ccfdbec24186ecf82a32e2 .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .u654fd088e0ccfdbec24186ecf82a32e2 { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .u654fd088e0ccfdbec24186ecf82a32e2:active , .u654fd088e0ccfdbec24186ecf82a32e2:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .u654fd088e0ccfdbec24186ecf82a32e2 .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .u654fd088e0ccfdbec24186ecf82a32e2 .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .u654fd088e0ccfdbec24186ecf82a32e2 .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .u654fd088e0ccfdbec24186ecf82a32e2 .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .u654fd088e0ccfdbec24186ecf82a32e2:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .u654fd088e0ccfdbec24186ecf82a32e2 .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .u654fd088e0ccfdbec24186ecf82a32e2 .u654fd088e0ccfdbec24186ecf82a32e2-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .u654fd088e0ccfdbec24186ecf82a32e2:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: Jubilee Year Essay More recently, there was Hitlers genocidal six-million-death final solution to the Jewish problem, andthe Communists ten of millions of mass murders continue to this day. All this has been done without benefit ofnuclear power. Gen. MacArthurs comments came at the beginning of the atomic or nuclear age, and while the source and thejudgment deserve respect, experience has shown that nuclear power in Western hands deterred a third worldwar and ultimately caused the collapse of the greatest threat to world peace since World War II, namely, theSoviet Union. But even during the much-decried arms race of the Cold War years, both East and West refinedtheir crude nuclear technology to suit the requirements of waging war, e.g. targeting the enemys missiles,aircraft and submarines, rather than putting all their eggs in the nuclear annihilation basket. War is a terriblething but the fear of annihilation will curb even the greatest tyrants bloodlust. In short, fear is part of the human condition and those peaceful nations which learn to live with the destructivepotential of nuclear power are capable of great good. Great evil is more likely to be the result of uncheckednuclear power in hands of lawless nations. As ever, peace and safety depend upon military power being in theright hands. English Essays

The Identity of Frederick Douglass essays

The Identity of Frederick Douglass essays Slavery was perhaps one of the most appalling tragedies in the history of the United States of America. To tell the people of the terrible facts, runaway slaves wrote their accounts of slavery down on paper and published it for the nation to read. Frederick Douglass and Harriet Jacobs were just two of the many slaves who did this. Each of the slaves had different experiences with slavery, but their narratives have one thing in common; they tell the tale of the abominable institution of slavery and the adverse effect it had on their lives. The purpose of this paper is to give an extensive look at the experience of Frederick Douglass as a male slave and compared it to Harriet A. Jacobs experience as a female slave. Frederick Douglass was a successful abolitionist who changed Americas views of slavery through his writings and actions. He grew up as a slave and experienced all of the hardships, such as whippings, scarce meals, and other forms of abuse. Douglass provided a powerful voice for slaves during this period of American history and he is still honored today for his contributions to the fight against racial injustice. Fredericks life as a slave had the greatest impact on his writings. Due to his personal experience with slavery, he was able to channel and develop the necessary emotions and experiences for him to become a successful abolitionist writer and reach the American people. Frederick Douglass Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, was an autobiography written about his experiences both during and following his life as a slave. The narrative is Douglass tool for establishing himself as an abolitionist leader as well as teaching a varied audience about the reality of slave. I n his narrative, Douglass wrote the complete story of his wretched life as a slave and his strive to obtain freedom. The main motivational force behind his character was to make it through another day so that so...

Women's Place in Society Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Women's Place in Society - Essay Example The wife loses her original self in her attempt to come up to the expectations of the husband, yet the husband considers it her duty and thus, does not owe her a â€Å"thank you†. The tragedy is that this discrimination on the basis of genders is all man-built. God had created men and women equal to each other. In this paper, Grimke’s contentions about women that she mentioned in her letters have been explored. 1. For a lot of reasons, status of the woman in the society has been deemed similar to that of a slave. The document mentions several laws that guide upon the way a woman has to be dealt with in different circumstances. Presence or absence of her husband in the surroundings or his approval or disapproval of her actions makes a fundamental difference in the legal status of a woman’s actions. In this document by Sarah Grimke, woman has been considered as so weak as compared to the man that her self is considered to get merged into that of her husband after m arriage. Since marriage unites the two souls into one, man has been discouraged to offer anything to woman as a present because if he does so, it is thought of as an action to separate the woman from his own self. Even the law does not hold a man chargeable for anything that a wife asks him for except what is basic, though a man is free to waste his resources and money on gambling and fulfilling his lustful desires. A woman may not seek treatment if she gets injured until her husband approves of. Like a master pays for the injuries inflicted on a servant, a husband is responsible for the expenses incurred by a woman for her injuries. Even if she provides sufficient evidence that her husband made her do a certain crime, the woman is believed to have violated the eighth commandment. When she claims a bond with man, the two are considered one. In cases when the woman tends to get her separate self acknowledged, she is considered inferior to the man. Despite that, when found guilty of a crime, she is deemed liable for the punishment of the same level of severity as is inflicted upon the men in their case. 2. Human perception and remembrance of the difference between genders remain profound when a man and a woman interact with each other. Thus, the way a woman is approached by a man is a considerably blow to her dignity. Man favors woman to address her weaknesses, and once he earns her appreciation, he uses her for his own purposes. God has made man and woman equal. Therefore, in order to be best able to benefit from each other’s societies, it is imperative that man and woman interact with each other with no regard to sex. Women’s intellectual abilities have conventionally been underestimated by men and they have been used as domestic products. Women themselves are also partly responsible for this injustice since they have allowed men to treat them that way. By stepping into the society and socializing with people to do good to them and spread the mes sage of the Creator, women would only add to their purity and would be able to optimize on their intellectual abilities and oratory skills. Besides, woman assumes a very important role in the familial structure in that she is the manager of the house and the nurturer of the children that are the building blocks of the society. Concluding all that has been discussed above, women have been forced to live as slaves to men. Although they were born with the same level of intellectual ability as that of men, yet they were forbidden to explore their abilities by the men. Women’s low status in the society can be fundamentally attributed to their own submissiveness to the men. If women want to live on an equal footing with

Equity and trusts Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Equity and trusts - Essay Example pective of property relations such that even if married couples lived together in a property owned by one of them prior to the marriage and used the same as family home after the marriage the law does not deem the newcomer as a part owner of such property. Albeit the courts enjoy wide discretion under the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1973 to distribute the properties between divorced husband and wife, a declaration dividing the matrimonial home equally between the ex-spouses cannot be made ipso facto because courts usually take into account legalities and legal requirements in adjudicating such property. Thus, in Pettitt v Pettitt [1970] AC 777 HL, the Court declared that the husband has no equitable interest in the couple’s family home despite the fact that he contributed labour and money in the improvement of the property. The Court held that the wife is the legal and equitable owner of the property because she used her own money in its purchase. This decision was held despite the fact that the husband relied on the provision of s 17 of the Married Women’s Property Act 1882, which allowed the Court discretion to distribute properties between contending husbands and wives. In another interesting case, Lloyds Bank v Rosset [1991] 1 AC 107, [1991] All ER 1111, a married couple purchased a farmhouse out of family funds. The sellers, however, insisted that the purchase should be made in the name of the husband alone but the wife had a significant role in supervising the extensive repairs over the property. The family funds, however, were not enough to pay for the entire purchase price of the property and the husband, without the knowledge of the wife, sought loan from a bank and secured the same with a legal charge over the property. When the payments for the loans defaulted, the bank moved to foreclose the property over the objection of the wife who claimed beneficial interest over it. The Court disagreed holding that the wife had no beneficial interest over it

Gorn Chapter Essay Example for Free

Gorn Chapter Essay What powers awarded to congress in the Constitution of 1787 would an Anti- Federalist be most likely to oppose? Anti- Federalist were against the Constitution all together but most of all, I think the Anti-Federalist were against the fact that the state government’s would no longer have as much power like it did with the Articles of Confederation. The constitution supported the idea of a powerful and strong central government. The congress had the power to tax people, and make rules and regulations as it says in document two. With liberty being the Anti-Federalist’s biggest argument, the federalist got the idea that with all the power congress had, their freedom and rights would be threatened or even taken away and that’s what they feared most. 2. According to the Constitution of 1787, what are the eligibility prerequisites and selection processes for a) members of the House of Representatives Members of the House of Representatives are chosen every two years by the people and the number of representatives each state gets is proportional to the population. The members has to be twenty-five years of age or older, has been a citizen of the United States for at least seven years and shall not be, when elected, an Inhabitant of the State in which he is representing. b) members of the Senate, and Each state has two senators serving a six year term. In the Constitution of 1787, the senate was appointed by the Legislature and must have at least one vote. Members of the Senate must be 30 years of age, been a citizen of the U. S. for nine years, and should not be an Inhabitant of that State. ) the president and vice president? Both the President and Vice president serve in the same term of four years. The person running for president and vice president had to be a citizen of the United States for 14 years and naturally born in the U. S. and they had to be at least 35 years of age. The president had to have a majority vote for a guarantee to be president if not the House of Representatives chose in other situations. 3. Critique the provisions co ntained in the Constitution of 1787 from the point of view of each of the following groups: I think all together the only people who felt they would benefit from the Constitution was the smaller populated states and the African Americans. The smaller States would gain more of a say then being overlooked by the larger States, although in the Constitution they would only have a few representatives for their state, it still was a good outcome because they would at least have some sort of say and opinion in what laws were passed due to the power of their representative’s votes. The Constitution’s main goal was to make sure all states were equal and with that being said, it led up to the African American’s being free and gave a sense of something they had never felt, which was equality. The Anglos and Native American’s had to have a sense of anger because not only did they feel like their territory was being taken away, they also now had to have treaties with America if they were beyond the boundaries of the States, in order to trade or do any business with the U. S. The larger states were probably not as approving of the Constitution because with the greater amount of population in their states’, their governments got to do whatever and all the people had to follow their rules they set for themselves. In the Constitution, Congress is given the power over the whole Country, if a state wanted to make something a law or tax people, they had to get the approval of congress. 4. In which of the six objectives designated in the preamble has the Constitution of 1787 lived up to its promises? In what areas has it not fully achieved its goals? The Constitution was truly meant to be looked upon as a good thing, it was not suppose to cause any harm or uneasiness in the States. I think out of the preamble, the Constitution did eventually achieve success in all six objectives but the biggest issure that most Anti-Federalist had was the constitution not establishing justice or secure the blessings of liberty. If you really think about how the Constitution was made, it was illegal. The writers were only allowed to fix the Articles of Confederation, not make a whole new Government. I think that’s why Anti-Federalist were not convinced about the Constitution because it was done out of secrecy and the writers did not allow for the Anti-Federalist to make a common ground and make the Constitution mutual on both sides, that alone made it seem like the writers were just trying to take over America and make rules that seemed to take away the rights that were important to them. In the Constitution there were specific laws for people’s safety, different forces were to be formed in case of any attack or just to promote general welfare. Although, the army had not been figured out yet on how each state’s army would form together, the idea of the forces coming together for safety was in tact. 5. If you were a delegate to a state ratifying convention, would you have voted for or against the Constitution of 1787? Explain the reasons for your vote. If I was a delegate to a state ratifying convention, I would have voted for the constitution of 1787. The United States were at the point of time were reformation was needed. Although many people at the time were against the Constitution, I think overall it put the United States in a more successful path compared to the problems they were already facing as a nation. At the time prior to the Constitution, State’s had set there own laws that were to be abided by which made the outlook on the country as a whole, unorganized. The United State’s needed a more stable government, with the Articles of Confederation, it was basically like there was no government or any uniformed army in place in case of any attacks from other countries. The Constitution made the United States come together in the long run and a good authority with a fair amount of power was needed in order to get America straightened out. 6. Did the writers of the Constitution of 1787 desire to create a democracy or aristocracy? According to what I read, I think the Constriction of 1787 was desired to be a aristocracy government. It was not until the Bill of Rights came into Constitution that made the United States a democracy. The constriction was first made with no checks and balance system which made the strong central government, have more power than it has today. The government in the Constitution had the power to do many things that the Anti-Federalist felt shouldn’t have the right to have. Many of the people living in the state’s felt their unalienable rights were being taken away slowly so many Anti-Federalist decided to push and continue to get the Bill of Rights passed so the government wouldn’t gain too much power, that everyone felt they wanted.

LSD AND THE CIA :: essays research papers

LSD was invented in Switzerland by Albert Hofmann, a researcher for Sandoz pharmaceuticals. It did not spontaneously appear among the youth of the Western world as a gift from the God of Gettin’ High. The CIA was on to acid long before the flower children. So, for that matter, were upstanding citizens like Time-Life magnate Henry Luce and his wife, Clare Boothe Luce, who openly sang the praises of their magical mystery tours during the early sixties. Henry, a staunch conservative with close connections to the CIA, once dropped acid on the golf course and then claimed he had enjoyed a little chat with God. While the cognoscenti had the benefit of tuned-in physicians, other psychedelic pioneers took their first trips as part of CIA-controlled research studies. At least one person committed suicide after becoming an unwitting subject of a CIA LSD test, crashing through a highstory plate-glass window in a New York hotel as his Agency guardian watched. (Or perhaps the guardian did more than watch. In June 1994 the victim’s family had his thirty-year-old corpse exhumed to check for signs that he may have been thrown out that window.) Numerous others lost their grip on reality. MK-ULTRA was the code name the CIA used for its program directed at gaining control over human behavior through â€Å"covert use of chemical and biological materials,† as proposed by Richard Helms. The name itself was a variation on ULTRA, the U.S. intelligence program behind Nazi lines in World War 11, of which the CIA's veteran spies were justly proud. Helms later became CIA director and gained a measure of notoriety for his 'Watergate "lying to Congress" conviction and a touch of immortality in Thomas Powers's aptly named biography, The Man Who Kept the Secrets. Helms founded the MK-ULTRA program and justified its notably unethical aspects with the rationale, â€Å"We are not Boy Scouts.† At the time, the spook scientists suspected that LSD had the potential to reprogram the human personality. In retrospect, they were probably right-Timothy Leary spoke in similar terms, though he saw unlimited potential for self-improvement in this â€Å"reprogramming.

Comparing Of mice and men to the hunger games

It's a bit like the Hunger Games as they need ACH other as allies to survive. They would help each other and because Curlers wife knelt down beside him it's like she sees him as one of her own, like they are on the same level power wise. Will return to this image later on in my essay. We have been introduced to Curlers wife as the libertine featherbrain by the males on the ranch â€Å"Jesus what a tramp [George to Leonie]†the boys don't personally know her yet they are all prejudging her of her looks and the way she acts. This shows that the only way she has the power over the men is sexually.Not even Curler takes her seriously. She mess lonely and only wants to talk to the men so that she can relate to them and find a friend. The reason why the men would judge her so much is due to sexual frustration that is caused by her. This could also link back to the sass's as women we meant to just look pretty and pleasure their men. Not only that, they were seen to have no rights to th emselves. They couldn't vote, couldn't go off on their own, they had to marry the first man that asks and do his dirty washing for the rest of their lives.In Of Mice and Men, Curlers wife was viewed as † jail bait† this basically means that she's a trap that's being fished onto all of the men and trying to catch one unlucky sap to say he forced himself upon her. This could lead to being fired or being lynched. In the sass's all you needed to do was touch a women's dress and she could say you penetrated her and get you lynched in front of the whole town. This shows that the male characters were scared and threatened by Curlers wife due to her power of getting them killed or tortured.You've got to remember that these men were in an all-male society and this one woman comes in and to all these men she comes across like she's purposely sexually frustrating them. This could link back to power as it shows that the men on the ranch are weak when it comes to sexual tension. It c ould show how little they think of themselves. Another way that we know they are sexually closed up or more like insecure. All the males go to a ‘Where house† at the end of each month. The fact that they go to women who do it for a living and are paid to pleasure the males no matter what they look or are like on the inside.This shows that the males could be shy and insecure about intercourse. It doesn't show much emotion and the girls don't need to personally feel a connection between homeless and the clients. Just think of it like the end of the first hunger games; Jennifer Lawrence established a fake romance with Josh Hucksters to survive. Metaphorically, the prostitutes are Jennifer Lawrence as they are doing whatever they can to survive and it's just so happened that they could only get work in the ‘Hover house†.The males are josh Hucksters as they are weak and are supported in some way by the prostitutes. They are supporting the guys on the ranch by lett ing them release all of the sexual anger that builds up due to Curler's wife. The more you hear about it the more it comes clear that the men on the ranch are assumed to been seen as the lowest of normal society's power show. Although most characters have no recognized social power because of their low social class; they all try to absorb the little power each other has.For example; Crooks' nasty strike on Leonie is the best example upon this statement. â€Å"Expose George don't come back no more [Crooks to Leonie)†. Crooks was taking his knowledge and Lien's vulnerability and tried to seem more powerful. They are both outcasts drawn by people who tell them what to do; â€Å"yes ma'am† Crooks eying this to Curlers wife as it shows that she is the boss over him. Ma'am is used formally as the other guys on the ranch refer to her as â€Å"Curlers wife†. This show that Crook is powerless compared to her. She is holding the reins and Crooks is the horse.A horse is se emed to be a free beautiful creature but they are controlled by others showing that they aren't quite the same power as the rider but when they are by themselves they are the most powerful creatures around. This could represent crooks amazing as he is extremely powerful its only the color of his skin that hold him back. Like most colored people in the 1 ass's. Going back to the statement that previously wrote; while Leonie breaks the segregation rule of the sass's Crooks is feeling like it's his right to be the most powerful person in the room.Although he is colored it is also his â€Å"shed house†. It was the one place where he could be himself without having the pressure of society on his shoulders. Although you could argue that that Crooks having his own separate â€Å"shed house† is automatically reminding people of the society in the 1 ass's, but it is the one place you could see him happy. Compared to all the men living in the bunk souse he is living in a palace! His living conditions are so much better than the bunk house. He gets personal possessions. No one in the bunk house seems to have meaningful possessions but crooks does.Crooks has a whole room all to himself. It gives him some entitlement and a hope for some power. It gives off the power as he is the only person in the â€Å"shed house† it will only be disrupted when white people walk into his house. Like Leonie did. He was only fighting for his power like any person would if they felt intimidated in their own home. During the sass's if there was one slight thing rung with you; you would be viewed as an outcast. If you were mentally or physically disabled they would chain you up in a mental institution.If you were colored but mainly black they would lynch you for the color of your skin. You would be looked down on for the special qualities that made you. What IM trying to say is that everyone desperately wanted to fit in to society and be what was observed to be normal. The re are many ways this is translated in the book. Id personally have to say that the best way to show this in the book is the conversation Crooks and Leonie shared when Leonie kook away Crook's privacy when he entered his home; ‘ ‘They II take hay to the booby hatch †¦Tie you up with a collar like a dog' this shows that Steinbeck wanted everyone to know what would happen to the people who were unfortunate enough to be pushed to the bottom of the barrel. Booby hatch refers to a mental institution. Full of people who were looked upon as America's sins. It isn't a very pleasant thing to say but it was honest and that would've been quite lucky for Leonie and even Crooks! If Crooks stepped one foot out of line he would've been lynched for a fact! It goes on about saying hat they will tie him up with a collar like a dog; this gives us the impression of Leonie being pinned down like he has done something wrong.When in fact he hasn't done anything wrong. Once again this also links back to power when you see that dogs are pets, pets are meant to obey their owners. The owners being the powerful one in the situation. Leonie being the metaphoric dog shows that he has no power, he has to be the one to bow down. He is presumed to be the mute of the society on the ranch. In conclusion; people in Of Mice and Men were treated with abuse and prejudice. Most people were/ loud react differently depending on how they were treated; but they had to take it.