The exhibition entitled Face of our Time Research Paper

The exhibition entitled Face of our Time - Research Paper Example The Swiss photographer, Daniel Schwartz, focused his subjects to the effects of globalization. The photographs were able to portray less exposed subjects such as Bazaar Day. The photographs were a collection of his travel. Though the images offer the audience less feeling of vulnerability, the photographs remain persistent. These pictures spoke that globalization is widespread and a lot of places were very much affected. Poverty and inequality can be seen in the pictures. If some countries have very clean and organized places such as market, a lot of places in central Asia do not have these opportunities and facilities. Thus globalization has its own series of pitfalls. Looking at Schwartz’s collection, he really wanted to convey a message about globalization to the world. Someone’s perfect place can mean to give another one’s place inadequacy. If there are countries that were blessed because of globalization, there are also those suffering because of it. Zanele Muholi’s collection and work gave voice to the visual identity of the marginalized queer black people in South Africa. Her elegant photographs of queer and transgendered women showed a strong message regarding marginalization of this kind of population. The collection spoke of identity and being of the queers. Discrimination especially based on gender has long been an issue not only in South Africa but in the world. The elegant portraits by Muholi showed pride, strength, and identity of the queer blacks. South African queers, with reference to the pictures.

History Essays Atomic Bomb

History Essays Atomic Bomb America’s Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb on Japan The United States rightful decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a military measure calculated to speed the end of the war. The bombings were nuclear attacks during World War II against the Empire of Japan by the United States. The ultimate decision made by President Harry Truman was one of the most divisive and controversial issues of the twentieth century, since he had to ask himself whether it was right to use a weapon of unspeakable destructive force. Prior to President Truman’s presidency, Franklin Roosevelt has authorized a team of the Army Corps of Engineers the task of creating an atomic bomb, and the project was headed by Major General Leslie R. Groves (Dinkins, 125). It became known as The Manhattan Project†, and was kept as a top secret was obvious reasons. After six months of intense firebombing of Japanese cities, â€Å"Little Boy†, as the bomb came to be known as, was dropped on the city of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945. It was followed by the detonation of the â€Å"Fat Man†, the second nuclear bomb, over Nagasaki (Hoyt, 45). Although many may argue that the bombing was unethical and immoral, from a traditionalists’ point of view, I strongly believe that it was more beneficial since it shortened the Pacific War. President Truman was looking for a way to end war as quickly and painlessly as possible for the United States; he was not looking for a way to avoid using the bomb. Winning the war decisively at the lowest cost in American casualties was the primary goal of the United States, and the bomb was presumably the best solution to accomplish the objective. He believed that â€Å"The bomb will shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans.† (Walker, 93).Furthermore,Truman’s concerns were broader. In order to explain his reasoning to satisfy the American people, he had no other alternative but to use the bomb once it became accessible. Many believed that if he had backed off from using a weapon, public confidence in his capacity to govern would be put into question, and persistently challenged as well (Hoyt, 46). As an added incentive, another reason for using the bombs was to provide diplomatic benefits by making the Soviet Union â€Å"more open to America’s wishes† (Walker, 94). Also, Truman didn’t drop the bomb initially to insult or impress the Soviets, but it was a by-product, or a â€Å"bonus† to America. All in all, his primary consideration in using the bomb immediately was not to frustrate Soviet desires in Asia, but to end the war at the earliest possible time (Lewis). Diplomatically, it would urge them to accept our positions. Hence, the growing differences with Soviet Union was just a factor that led the American officials to think about the dropping. In addition, Japan’s aggregation was another factor that led America to unleash the nuclear bombs. According to the ancient Samurai tradition, the Emperor did not intervene in political affairs since he held a God-like status and therefore, could not face disappointment (Walker, 56). Hence, the Japanese army was quite ferocious, as their utmost duty was to serve the emperor, and sacrificing ones life for it was regarded as a great honor. In the kamikaze missions led by the Japanese, the suicide bombers would risk their lives for combat, and would die in these attacks. During the battle of Okinawa, of the 117,000 Japanese soldiers stationed on the island, and only 7,000 were left alive. On April 6th alone, 355 planes participated in kamikaze missions (Lewis). All this indicated that they were not going to give up regardless. Also, U.S had offered Japan to surrender unconditionally, and the peace negotiations were also denied, which left Truman with no other open options. In conclusion, other reasons such as the violation of the Kellogg- Briand Pact due to the invasion of Manchuria in 1931, and the dreadful attack on Pearl Harbor contributed to America’s decision as well. The results were received well among many Americans. It not only saved over half a million lives, but also prevented us from the bereavement of thousands of lives that would have been sacrificed. Not only military, but diplomatic, and political considerations weighed heavily in favor of the use of the bomb as well; the American leaders, too, had always assumed that it would be dropped when it became available (Walker, 96). It would speed the end to the war militarily, while it would make the Soviets accept our demands. On the contrary, delaying this vital action which would conquer us victory could have had severe consequences. Also, the bomb was used as a self-defense for America on the whole, since the Pacific war had made our home-fronts vulnerable to land invasion as well, which would have put numerous lives in danger at home. All in all, the bomb was the only way to end the suffering of the millions who were being held captive by the Japanese oppressor, and therefore, was the right decision that was made. Works Cited Dinkins, David. Why Did President Truman Drop the Atomic Bomb? 4 Oct. 2003. Hoyt, Edwin P. Japans War: the Great Pacific Conflict, 1853 to 1952. McGraw-Hill Publishing, 1986. Lewis, Chris. The Impact of the Atomic Bomb on Japan. Atomic bomb on Japan 21 Oct. 2002 09 January 2008 . Walker, Samuel J. Prompt and utter destruction: Truman and the use of atomic bombs against Japan. The University of North Carolina Press, 1197.

Madeleine Neveus Epistle To My Daughter :: Neveu Epistle Daughter Essays

Madeleine Neveu's "Epistle To My Daughter" Madeleine Neveu eloquently gives words of wisdom to her daughter Catherine in her piece entitled, "Epistle to My Daughter." Madeleine is quite aware of the attitude surrounding educated women in her time period. Yet, she abandons those opinions to express her own for her daughter. Her epistle embraces the need for a woman to be true to herself and to stand on her own two feet, as opposed to relying on a man to hold her up. Madeleine’s epistle is quite straightforward. Her message to her daughter is very sincere. She starts her epistle by referring to traditional views on how one should live their life. "Ancient lovers of learning, / Said that to God one must do one’s duty, / Then to one’s country, and a third to one’s lineage" (ll.1-3). But Madeleine is quick to refute those opinions. She then states that while she does honor God, she is completely helpless when it comes to public service affairs on the other hand because men have all the power. "I revere the Lord God; as for my country, I lack all power, / Men have full authority" (ll. 7-8). It is here that Madeleine refers to the Salic Law, the law that excludes women from the throne. But Madeleine’s duty to her "lineage" or daughter is taken much more seriously. Since Madeleine has no control over Salic Law, she takes control of the matters she has a say in. Her daughter is under her control. She feels the need to provide the best life for her daughter as possible. And thus she writes this piece as a guide for her. After Madeline refutes the ideas of the old, she presents ideas for the future. The piece seems to pause just before she focuses solely on her daughter. The tone of the first nine lines is snobbish almost. Madeleine seems to be raising her nose to ideas of the old. But as she begins to focus on her daughter, the tone changes. The snobbish tone becomes softer, gentler, as if she’s raising her daughter’s chin to meet her gaze and speak to her: But as concerns you, my daughter, who are so dear to me / I would be liable to great blame and reproach / If I were to lead you on the beaten path, / Seeing that your heart is born into virtue.

Matthew Arnold Comments on Philistinism in England and America

In his essay, â€Å"Philistinism in England and America,† Matthew Arnold examines the ancient ideas of Plato in the context of a twentieth century, capitalist society. As he agrees with almost all of what Plato had to say, he also admits that he is outdated, and that some of his teachings cannot be applied to us, living in an industrial superpower such as the United States. Still, though, Arnold defends the ancient philosopher. Education as a route to mental and physical righteousness is always a good idea, whether it is in modern America or Ancient Greece. I disagree with this, and it is here that I must contest the writings of Plato, as well as the essay by Arnold, for he is definitely a strong backer of the ancient ideals. In Plato†s mind, the value of an education is to clear one†s mind of impure thought, bring it to a higher lever than at the start, and attain a certain level of righteousness. This may have been a good idea 2300 years ago, but today, I see it as very limiting and impractical. In his time, only the rich aristocrats went to school. It†s purpose was not for the students to learn skills or ideas that would help them later in life, but to expand their minds, thus making them into ‘better people. † There was no need for them to learn any job skills. Back then, if you came from a rich family, you were rich. Working at simple jobs was for the peasants and slaves. Today, life is different. Our society is completely unlike that of the ancient Greeks. We have no caste system limiting the wealth and prominence of any citizen, we have no slavery to handle all the manual labor, our army is proportionately smaller and much less honored, and religion is a part of one†s private life, not a dominating public force as it was to the Ancient Greeks. Most people today have a regular, day to day job, whether it be in an office, store, factory, or anywhere else. We have to earn our wealth by working, not inheritance. That is why most people go to school today. I am attending NYU so that I can get a job later in life. I study chemistry and engineering, in the hopes that I can become a chemical engineer. According to Plato, this is wrong, and I†m corrupting my mind. At this point in my life, I should be reading history and literature, enhancing my mind, and not worrying about developing a skill. To me, that is an unrealistic goal. As I get older, I want to have a job that pays well, so that I can support a family, and be free to do whatever I want in my spare time. I don†t want to have to deal with restrictions in my life caused by a lack of money. If I lived and was educated in the way that Plato suggests, my life would probably turn out differently from that, and that is why I dislike his ideas. In the fourth century BC, when Plato was alive and writing, society was different. His writings on education relate to that time, when modern capitalism was over two thousand years away. He had no idea what life would be like today, so it is ridiculous to base one†s life on what he said so long ago. Arnold refuses to admit this. He does say that Plato†s ideas are outdated, but adds that the basis for his thoughts could still be applied today, for the betterment of society and the people that live in it. If that†s the way he feels, I†m fine with it, but for me, learning a skill that will make me some money when I†m older is more important than purifying my mind. Matthew Arnold Comments on Philistinism in England and America In his essay, â€Å"Philistinism in England and America,† Matthew Arnold examines the ancient ideas of Plato in the context of a twentieth century, capitalist society. As he agrees with almost all of what Plato had to say, he also admits that he is outdated, and that some of his teachings cannot be applied to us, living in an industrial superpower such as the United States. Still, though, Arnold defends the ancient philosopher. Education as a route to mental and physical righteousness is always a good idea, whether it is in modern America or Ancient Greece. I disagree with this, and it is here that I must contest the writings of Plato, as well as the essay by Arnold, for he is definitely a strong backer of the ancient ideals. In Plato†s mind, the value of an education is to clear one†s mind of impure thought, bring it to a higher lever than at the start, and attain a certain level of righteousness. This may have been a good idea 2300 years ago, but today, I see it as very limiting and impractical. In his time, only the rich aristocrats went to school. It†s purpose was not for the students to learn skills or ideas that would help them later in life, but to expand their minds, thus making them into ‘better people. † There was no need for them to learn any job skills. Back then, if you came from a rich family, you were rich. Working at simple jobs was for the peasants and slaves. Today, life is different. Our society is completely unlike that of the ancient Greeks. We have no caste system limiting the wealth and prominence of any citizen, we have no slavery to handle all the manual labor, our army is proportionately smaller and much less honored, and religion is a part of one†s private life, not a dominating public force as it was to the Ancient Greeks. Most people today have a regular, day to day job, whether it be in an office, store, factory, or anywhere else. We have to earn our wealth by working, not inheritance. That is why most people go to school today. I am attending NYU so that I can get a job later in life. I study chemistry and engineering, in the hopes that I can become a chemical engineer. According to Plato, this is wrong, and I†m corrupting my mind. At this point in my life, I should be reading history and literature, enhancing my mind, and not worrying about developing a skill. To me, that is an unrealistic goal. As I get older, I want to have a job that pays well, so that I can support a family, and be free to do whatever I want in my spare time. I don†t want to have to deal with restrictions in my life caused by a lack of money. If I lived and was educated in the way that Plato suggests, my life would probably turn out differently from that, and that is why I dislike his ideas. In the fourth century BC, when Plato was alive and writing, society was different. His writings on education relate to that time, when modern capitalism was over two thousand years away. He had no idea what life would be like today, so it is ridiculous to base one†s life on what he said so long ago. Arnold refuses to admit this. He does say that Plato†s ideas are outdated, but adds that the basis for his thoughts could still be applied today, for the betterment of society and the people that live in it. If that†s the way he feels, I†m fine with it, but for me, learning a skill that will make me some money when I†m older is more important than purifying my mind.

US Pres Johnson’s Policy in Vietnam

The United States of America is often described as invincible and unyielding. Yet during the Vietnam War, America was forced to look at its weaknesses, both politically and militarily. President Lyndon B. Johnson, in sending U. S. Marines in March 1965, followed shortly thereafter by U. S. Army ground combat units, broke the strategic continuity of American involvement in Vietnam and, in so doing, paved the way for the U. S. forces' ultimate defeat. Thus, it is plausible that President Johnson†s policy in Vietnam was â€Å"doomed to fail† from the beginning. Although South Vietnam asked for help, which the United States had previously promised, the entire conflict was managed in order to meet personal political agendas and to remain politically correct in the world†s eyes rather than to bring a quick and decisive end to the conflict. This can be seen in the selective bombing of Hanoi throughout the course of the Vietnam War. Politically, this strategy looked very good. However, militarily it was ludicrous. War is the one arena in which politicians have no place. War is the military†s sole purpose. United States involvement in Vietnam continued to escalate throughout the 1950†³s and into the early 1960†³s. On August 4, 1964, the Gulf of Tonkin incident occurred in which American Naval Vessels in South Vietnamese waters were fired upon by North Vietnam. On August 5, 1964, President Johnson requested a resolution expressing the determination of the United States to continue in its basic policy of assisting the free nations of the area to defend their freedom. On August 7, 1964, in response to the presidential request, Congress authorized President Johnson â€Å"to take all necessary measures to repel any attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression†¦ † (A). The selective bombing of North Vietnam began immediately in response to this resolution. In March of the following year U. S. Troops began to arrive. Although the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution specifically stated that we had no military, political, or territorial ambitions in southeast Asia, the interests back home were of a different nature. The United States was not expecting a more extensive development in Vietnam, and Johnson shocked the nation by his exclusive decision. â€Å"A mature great power will make measured and limited use of its power†¦ Since in this generation we have become a great power, I am in favor of learning to behave like a great power†¦ † (B). Thus a major downfall of Johnson†s policy was his blatant misuse of his respective power. According to Johnson in his State of the Union Address, â€Å"We will stay because in Asia-and around the world-are countries whose independence rests, in large measure, on confidence in America†s word and protection† (C). However, the political involvement in Vietnam was about much more than just promised aid to a weak country in order to prevent the spread of communism. It was about money. After all, wars require equipment, guns, tools and machinery. Most of which was produced in the United States. â€Å"We intervened with money, â€Å"advisors†, bombers, and weapons at a time when even our own government did not claim that North Vietnam was sending forces south† (G). It was about proving America†s commitment to stop communism. Or rather to confine communism in its present boundaries. Most of all it was about politics. The military involvement in Vietnam is directly related to the political management of the military throughout the war. The military controlled by the politicians. The management of the military by the White House for political gain is the primary reason for both the length and cost, both monetary and human, of the Vietnam War. One of the largest problems was the lack of a clear objective in the war and the support to accomplish it. â€Å"So-how do we end the war in Vietnam?†¦ We must revise our objective. Instead of negotiation, our objective must be to make the war so costly for the Communists that they will end it†¦ We must fight the war from our strength, not theirs† (F). The politicians dictated the war in Vietnam. It was a limited war; the military was never allowed to fight the war in the manner that they thought that they needed to in order to win it. To conclude on the Vietnam War, the political management of the war made it unwinnable. The military was at the mercy of politicians, especially Johnson, who knew very little about what needed to be done militarily in order to win the war. And it is the failure of that regime to come to the bargaining table that has thus far frustrated every effort to move the problem of South Vietnam from a military to a political solution† (E). Therefore, the U. S. Military should be allowed to conduct any war, conflict, or police action that it has been committed to without political interference or control because of the problems and hidden interests which are always present when dealing with politics. There is an enormous difference between political judgment and military judgment. This difference is the primary reason for the outcome of the Vietnam War. Vietcong knew they could beat us by wearing the United States down until they surrendered (H). It was the policy of military escalation in Vietnam, however, that proved to be Johnson's undoing as president. It deflected attention from domestic concerns, resulted in sharp inflation, and prompted rising criticism, especially among young, draft-aged people. â€Å"†¦ mood of Congress changed, a reflection of public attitudes strongly influenced by the news media, particularly television† (I). Although society originally supported Johnson†s policy, he lost a large amount of support due to his mistakes. Escalation also failed to win the war. The drawn-out struggle made Johnson even more secretive, dogmatic, and highly sensitive to criticism. His usually sure political instincts were failing. On March 31, 1968, President Johnson was faced with increasing antiwar sentiment. He announced a halt in all bombing north of the 20th parallel and offered to negotiate for peace with North Vietnam. Peace talks began in Paris in May, but were quickly deadlocked. After the United States stopped bombing North Vietnam in early November, the North Vietnamese agreed not to escalate the war. In January 1969 South Vietnam and the NLF joined the talks. (History of the United States) Americans judge the Vietnam War to have been a â€Å"mistake. † Unfortunately, few claim to know what the U. S. should have done differently. President Johnson made various unfavorable decisions, and his ignorance led to the demise of our military and political policies. Through the corruption and misuse of power, the strategically wrong military setup, and the high cost, the Vietnam War was doomed to fail from the beginning. It is inevitable that Johnson received the blame.

Book Report on A Seperate Peace essays

Book Report on A Seperate Peace essays The novel A Separate Peace is set against the background of World War II. The book depicts a peaceful New England's boy's school by the name of Devon. It is confining place, surrounded by enormous playing fields. However, it brings a peaceful atmosphere as it is filled with sunshine, and has a peaceful river flowing through campus. The school is based upon the authors own experience at boarding school, therefore is accepted as an accurate representation of school life at the time. Gene is the protagonist and narrator of the novel who tells of his experiences at Devon when he was sixteen and seventeen years old. He is depicted as a person who normally followed the rules and regulations of school and society in general; however, when he is with his roommate, Finny, he behaves very differently. In Finny's presence, Gene always wants to act like him and be a free man, not affected by the judgments of others; but he never really succeeds at doing this. As a result, he becomes insanely jealous of Finny, and his jealousy turns into brutality. All Gene can think about is wanting to humiliate Finny and bring him down to his level. Hence, he bounces his friend out of the tree, causing his leg to break. Because of the accident Finny becomes a cripple, which causes Gene much guilt and shame. Finny is Genes roommate and close friend. Both his teachers and his classmates admire him. He is considered the best athlete in school, moving with perfect physical grace, harmony, and coordination. He is also known as the boy who never makes a mistake, even though he is always spontaneously saying and doing the unexpected. Finny enjoys things that are new and different. He thrives on challenges, and when none presents itself, he invents one: the tree-jumping game is the first- and ultimately the most costly. Gene idolizes him. ...

Case Note Essay

Case Note Essay Case Note Essay Case Note Smith v. Shannon, 100 Wn. 2d 26, 666 P.2d 351 (1983) Facts In February 1976, Vera Smith was referred by her attending physician Dr. Raymond Lynberg to Dr. Roger Shannon, a radiologist with defendant Radiology Associates of Spokane. Regarding Ms. Smith’s possible kidney complications, Dr. Shannon chose to administer an intravenous pyelogram (IVP) to Ms. Smith and took X-rays on her kidneys and ureters. Before administering the IVP, Dr. Shannon informed the patient of some possible risks along with the treatment. She might become flushed, nauseous and unconscious. However, he did not inform her of 10 other risks mentioned in the Physician’s Desk Reference (PDR). In this case, Renographin-60, as the contrast agent, might cause thrombophlebitis to the patient, but Dr. Shannon did not inform his patient of this information. Ms. Smith began to sneeze and experienced a shooting pain down her arm while receiving the injection. But Dr. Shannon viewed these reactions as insignificant and didn’t notice her pain. A week after t he IVP, Ms. Smith visited Dr. Lynberg for the pain in her arm persisted. And Dr. Lynberg diagnosed reactive phlebitis, an inflammation of the vein in reaction to the Renographin-60. The plaintiff’s pain has continued and she has seen several physicians and been through related surgery twice. Specialists have diagnosed her pain as caused by damage to the nerves in her arm. But the record does not disclose whether or how this damage is related to Dr. Lynberg’s initial diagnosis of reaction phlebitis. Procedural History Ms. Smith filed a suit under two cause of action against Dr. Shannon. One is that Dr. Shannon is negligent; the other is that he failed to obtain her informed consent. However, the trial court dismissed Ms. Smith’s claim of the physician’s negligence, since she had not demonstrated any deviation by Dr. Shannon from the established standard of medical practice. Also, the trial court rejected Ms. Smith’s second claim, on the ground that though Dr. Shannon didn’t inform her of all risks described in the PDR, the plaintiff had failed to prove that the information â€Å"was in fact medically important or recognized risks†. The trial court especially noted that Ms. Smith had failed to provide sufficient expert testimony on the issue and it considered such testimony necessary. Ms. Smith appealed and the Washington Supreme Court affirms the trial court’s judgment that a valid disclosure was made and that the claimed error in determ ining negligence had not been preserved for appeal Discussion As to the lacking informed consent claim, the Court firstly points out that the doctrine of informed consent is premised on the fundamental principle that â€Å"every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body†. Schloendorff v. Society of N.Y. Hosp., 211 N.Y. 125, 129, 105 N.E. 92 (1914) (Cardozo, J.). A physician should inform his or her patient of the attendant risks of the treatment and obtain the patient’s consent. In Washington state, Miller v. Kennedy, 85 Wn.2d 151, 152, 530 P.2d 334 (1975) is the seminal case on this doctrine. In Miller, the Court of Appeals emphasized that it is for the patient to evaluate the risks of treatment and that the only role to be played by the physician is to provide the patient with information as to what those risks are. It is the patient to determine what information should be disclosed; otherwise, it would be in direct conflict with the underlying principle of patie nt sovereignty. However, it does not mean that every risk, no matter how minute, must be disclosed. Only when the possible risks are of a serious nature should them be disclosed by the physician. That is, â€Å"the guide for disclosure is materiality†. Miller, at 287. The test of materiality is an objective one incorporating the underlying concept of patient sovereignty. If the specific risk is