Comparing the Two Versions of To Build a Fire Essay -- comparison comp

Contrasting the Two Versions of With Build a Fire   I am completely sure that past the theme itself, there is no similitude of treatment whatever (544). Jack London, writing in December 1908, was reacting to a request from the Richard W. Gilder, proofreader of Century Magazine. Gilder, having quite recently distributed To Build a Fire in his magazine, was stressed when he went over another variant distributed 6 years sooner. London's clarification was that the primary story was for young men and the upgraded one was for men; the main similitude being simply the theme. Through cautious investigation of the two stories, considering this letter to Gilder, and another letter to Cloudesly Johns, it is clear that in spite of the fact that London guarantees no likenesses (other than the theme), they unquestionably exist.   Before the similitudes are talked about, it is important to take a gander at the conspicuous contrasts that London clarifies are in the treatment (544). The 1902 rendition was distributed for young men, while the 1908 variant was distributed for men. London clarifies that the theme was exceptionally solid, however was extremely obvious (on the same page). It appears that he previously distributed it for young men as such an instructive story; showing the adolescents the risks of the chilly climate. Thus, after Tom Vincent learns his exercise, he makes it to camp and doesn't get any genuine harm. Afterward, London was concerned that he had given the theme lacking treatment (on the same page). Hence, he took care of the theme once more, this time for men, including a canine for good measure. Since this story was intended for a more seasoned crowd, subjects could be raised that weren't fitting to be examined in the first: the man thought about executing the canine and utilizing his body for warmth. Furthermore, the most obviou... ...story they are perusing.   Jack London has composed an exemplary short story in the 1908 adaptation of To Build a Fire. This is the great story of man battling nature. In many sorts (for example films, books, short stories) the primary character beats the competition, anyway far-fetched that is. Jack London takes abstract naturalism and shows the peruser how unmerciful nature is. Much like Stephen Crane in The Open Boat, wherein the one of the characters kicks the bucket, London doesn't get tied up with that must have a decent closure contraption. Through examination of two London's letters (to R.W. Gilder and Cloudesly Johns) these two adaptations of To Build a Fire wake up with new importance. Despite the fact that there are numerous distinctions on a superficial level, the two stories utilize his way of thinking as communicated to Johns and both show an ethical exercise, one which won't before long be overlooked: Never travel alone.  

The Hero Diary Entry Essay Example

The Hero Diary Entry Paper The elderly person unexpectedly began to cry tears since she saw that I would advise her about his children passing and I didnt recognize what to do so I chose to proceed with my solid and steady discourse stronger than I was telling it previously. However, her sobbing additionally got stronger and with a higher force. I at long last chose to stop yet I didnt have enough dauntlessness and certainty with her to get ever closer that I was heartbroken so I got up. She didnt even notification I was strolling towards the entryway however when I opened it she quit crying. I looked towards her and I saw she was murmuring something delicately with her neck twisted. I remained at the entryway tangle until she said straightforwardly to me that she needed me to remain and enlighten her regarding the last time I was with Jack and what he educated me concerning her. I stood discreetly adjacent to her and she inquired as to whether all that I had said was valid. The issue in my brain began again on the grounds that I wasnt sufficiently bold to come clean about the apprehensive mentality of her child. I gave her Jacks identification and the uniform he utilized in war. She grinned straightforwardly to me however I felt awful about myself since I realized that coming clean would influence her sentiments a great deal. We will compose a custom exposition test on The Hero Diary Entry explicitly for you for just $16.38 $13.9/page Request now We will compose a custom exposition test on The Hero Diary Entry explicitly for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Recruit Writer We will compose a custom article test on The Hero Diary Entry explicitly for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Recruit Writer I remained with her only somewhat longer in light of the fact that my genuine work was in the bleeding edge and when I went out the climate was a lot colder and dismal; simply equivalent to the womans sentiments. There are a great deal of these circumstances in war day by day however this was a remarkable case which I am certain I will recollect for my entire life. Im so sure in light of the fact that consistently in my fantasies since that day, I can see the old woman in her front room, in a similar lounge chair I was sitting when I went there, sobbing for her child since she was pleased with him, since he passed on for her and for her nation.

Dunkirk Evacuation

Dunkirk Evacuation From May 26 to June 4, 1940, the British sent 222 Royal Navy ships and around 800 non military personnel vessels to empty the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) and other Allied soldiers from the seaport of Dunkirk in France during World War II. Following eight months of inaction during the Phony War, British, French, and Belgian soldiers were immediately overpowered by Nazi Germany’s lightning war strategies when the assault started on May 10, 1940. As opposed to be totally demolished, the BEF chose to withdraw to Dunkirk and trust in clearing. Activity Dynamo, the departure of over a quarter million soldiers from Dunkirk, appeared to be a close to unthinkable errand, yet the British individuals arranged and eventually saved around 198,000 British and 140,000 French and Belgian soldiers. Without the departure at Dunkirk, World War II would have been lost in 1940. Getting ready to Fight After World War II began on September 3, 1939, there was a time of roughly eight months in which fundamentally no battling happened; writers considered this the â€Å"Phoney War.† Although conceded eight months to prepare and strengthen for a German intrusion, the British, French, and Belgian soldiers were very ill-equipped when the assault really started on May 10, 1940. Some portion of the issue was that while the German Army had been given any expectation of a successful and unexpected result in comparison to that of World War I, the Allied soldiers were deadened, certain that channel fighting indeed anticipated them. The Allied pioneers additionally depended intensely on the recently manufactured, cutting edge, guarded fortresses of the Maginot Line, which ran along the French outskirt with Germany †excusing the possibility of an assault from the north. Along these lines, rather than preparing, the Allied soldiers invested a lot of their energy drinking, pursuing young ladies, and simply trusting that the assault will come. For some BEF fighters, their stay in France felt somewhat like a small get-away, with great food and little to do. This all changed when the Germans assaulted in the early long stretches of May 10, 1940. The French and British soldiers went north to meet the propelling Germany Army in Belgium, not understanding that a huge segment of the German Army (seven Panzer divisions) were slicing through the Ardennes, a lush zone that the Allies had thought about impervious. Withdrawing to Dunkirk With the German Army before them in Belgium and coming up behind them from the Ardennes, the Allied soldiers were immediately compelled to withdraw. The French soldiers, now, were in extraordinary confusion. Some had gotten caught inside Belgium while others dispersed. Lacking solid administration and viable correspondence, the retreat left the French Army in genuine disorder. The BEF were additionally retreating into France, battling clashes as they withdrew. Delving in by day and withdrawing around evening time, the British officers got almost no rest. Escaping evacuees stopped up the boulevards, easing back the movement of military staff and gear. German Stuka jump aircraft assaulted the two fighters and exiles, while German troopers and tanks sprung up apparently all over the place. The BEF troops frequently got dissipated, yet their resolve remained moderately high. Requests and systems among the Allies were evolving rapidly. The French were asking a pulling together and a counterattack. On May 20, Field Marshal John Gort (administrator of the BEF) requested a counterattack at Arras. Albeit at first effective, the assault was not sufficiently able to get through the German line and the BEF was again compelled to withdraw. The French kept on pushing for a pulling together and a counteroffensive. The British, notwithstanding, were beginning to understand that the French and Belgian soldiers were excessively complicated and debilitated to make a sufficient counteroffensive to stop the exceptionally compelling German development. Considerably more likely, trusted Gort, was that if the British joined the French and Belgian soldiers, they would all be obliterated. On May 25, 1940, Gort settled on the troublesome choice to not just surrender the possibility of a joint counteroffensive, however to withdraw to Dunkirk with expectations of a departure. The French accepted this choice to be renunciation; the British trusted it would permit them to battle one more day. A Little Help From the Germans and the Defenders of Calais Amusingly, the departure at Dunkirk couldn't have occurred without the assistance of the Germans. Similarly as the British were pulling together at Dunkirk, the Germans halted their development only 18 miles away. For three days (May 24 to 26), German Army Group B waited. Numerous individuals have proposed that Nazi Fuhrer Adolf Hitler intentionally let the British Army go, accepting that the British would then more promptly arrange an acquiescence. The almost certain purpose behind the end was that General Gerd von Runstedt, the authority of German Army Group B, didn’t need to bring his heavily clad divisions into the marshy zone around Dunkirk. Likewise, the German gracefully lines had gotten incredibly overextended after such a fast and extensive development into France; the German Army expected to stop long enough for their provisions and infantry to make up for lost time. German Army Group A likewise held off assaulting Dunkirk until May 26. Armed force Group A had gotten trapped in an attack at Calais, where a little pocket of BEF officers had stayed. English Prime Minister Winston Churchill accepted the epic guard of Calais had an immediate relationship to the result of the Dunkirk clearing. Calais was the essence. Numerous different causes may have forestalled the liberation of Dunkirk, however it is sure that the three days picked up by the protection of Calais empowered Gravelines waterline to be held, and that without this, even disregarding Hitler’s instabilities and Rundstedt’s orders, the sum total of what might have been cut off and lost.* The three days that German Army Group B stopped and Army Group A battled at the Siege of Calais were basic in permitting the BEF an opportunity to pull together at Dunkirk. On May 27, with the Germans by and by assaulting, Gort requested a 30-mile-long guarded edge to be built up around Dunkirk. The British and French troopers keeping an eye on this border were accused of keeping the Germans down so as to give time for the departure. The Evacuation From Dunkirk While the retreat was in progress, Admiral Bertram Ramsey in Dover, Great Britain started thinking about a land and/or water capable departure beginning on May 20, 1940. Eventually, the British had not exactly seven days to design Operation Dynamo, the enormous scope clearing of British and other Allied soldiers from Dunkirk. The arrangement was to send ships from England over the Channel and have them get troops looking out for the sea shores of Dunkirk. In spite of the fact that there were over a fourth of a million soldiers standing by to be gotten, the organizers expected to just have the option to spare 45,000. Some portion of the trouble was the harbor at Dunkirk. The delicate racking of the sea shore implied that a great part of the harbor was unreasonably shallow for boats to enter. To explain this, littler art needed to head out from boat to sea shore and back again to assemble travelers for stacking. This took a great deal of additional time and there were insufficient little vessels to satisfy this activity rapidly. The waters were additionally so shallow that even these littler specialty needed to prevent 300 feet from the waterline and fighters needed to swim out to their shoulders before they could move on board. With insufficient oversight, numerous frantic troopers unconsciously over-burden these little vessels, making them invert. Another issue was that when the primary boats set out from England, beginning on May 26, they didn’t truly realize where to go. Troops were spread out more than 21-miles of sea shores close to Dunkirk and the boats were not told where along these sea shores they should stack. This created turmoil and postponement. Flames, smoke, Stuka jump planes, and German mounted guns were unquestionably another issue. Everything appeared to be ablaze, including vehicles, structures, and an oil terminal. Dark smoke secured the sea shores. Stuka plunge planes assaulted the sea shores, however concentrated along the waterline, trusting and regularly prevailing with regards to sinking a portion of the boats and other watercraft. The sea shores were enormous, with sand rises in the back. Warriors held up in long queues, covering the sea shores. Albeit depleted from long walks and little rest, troopers would dive in while holding up in line †it was too uproarious to even consider sleeping. Thirst was a significant issue on the sea shores; all the perfect water in the zone had been polluted. Speeding Things Up The stacking of warriors into little landing create, shipping them to the bigger boats, and afterward returning to reload was an unbearably moderate procedure. By 12 PM on May 27, just 7,669 men had made it back to England. To speed things up, Captain William Tennant arranged a destroyer to come straightforwardly nearby the East Mole at Dunkirk on May 27. (The East Mole was a 1600-yard-long interstate that was utilized as a jetty.) Although not worked for it, Tennant’s arrangement to have troops set out legitimately from the East Mole worked brilliantly and from that point on it turned into the fundamental area for officers to stack. On May 28, 17,804 officers were reclaimed to England.  This was an improvement, yet many thousands all the more despite everything required sparing. The rearguard was, for the present, holding off the German ambush, yet it involved days, if not hours, before the Germans would get through the protective line. More assistance was required. In Britain, Ramsey worked vigorously to get each and every pontoon imaginable †both military and regular citizen over the Channel to get the abandoned soldiers. This flotilla of boats in the end included destroyers, minesweepers, hostile to submarine trawlers, speedboats, yachts, ships, dispatches, scows, and some other sort of pontoon they could discover. The first

Features Of Affirmative Action - Free Essay Example

INTRODUCTION In these class notes, I consider arguments concerning whether anything in addition to protection from fraud, theft, and interference with one’s pursuit of happiness is needed from the government to ensure that there is a just (`just’ as in justice) distribution of wealth. In particular, I examine this question as it pertains to whether there should be laws in place recognizing the permissibility of affirmative action. Though I do my best to provide various arguments in a way that is clearer than can be found in the current literature (these arguments are not original to me! And the reader may email me for other texts on affirmative action), I leave the reconstruction of the arguments in standard form and the evaluation of the arguments to the reader.. A market consists of producers and consumers. Interactions in the marketplace consist in transfers of property, holdings, wealth, or things of that nature. Assume that each interaction is just and that this implies that there is no fraud, theft, or interference with one’s pursuit of happiness. So, assume that at a bare minimum, the government has the obligation to interfere in the marketplace whenever there is fraud, theft, or interference with one’s pursuit of happiness. Still: Is there anything in addition needed from the government to ensure that the distribution of holdings or wealth in the society is just? We will deal with this question, especially as it pertains to affirmative action this week. Setting that aside, though, there is another set of questions: Assume producers may not engaging in fraud, theft, and the interference in another’s pursuit of happiness. Do producers or business managers have any additional obligations? Specifically, do they have any obligations about how they should spend their money? Who do they owe these obligations to? These questions fall under debates on whether corporations have social or ethical responsibilities to (certain) members of society, especially as these pertain to how business managers spend a corporation’s earnings. Next week, we will discuss Friedman, Singer, Jensen, Hussain, and (maybe) others on corporate social responsibility. But first thing is first. RAWLS’S RESPONSE TO NOZICK The framework within which Rawls argues is by now familiar to us. As a refresher, consider the following two principles: Rawlsian principle: If having a more equal distribution of holdiings (or wealth) maximizes the opportunities or happiness of the least well-off, then the government should intervene to produce a more equal distribution of holdings (or wealth) provided that the intervention does not interfere with anyone’s liberty. Gung-ho! (non-Millian) Utilitarian principle: If having a less equal distribution of holdings (or wealth) maximizes total happiness of the entire collection, then the government should intervene to produce a less equal distribution of holdings (or wealth). How should we choose between these two conditional obligations? According to Rawls, when we compare any two ethical principles, we must pretend that we do not know our own social status, race, gender, wealth, intelligence, strength, outlook on life, etc. Rawls is not denying that many (if not all) of these attributes make you, you and have (to some extent) already been determined. Instead, he is asking you to pretend you stand behind a veil of ignorance regarding these morally irrelevant attributes of you and your fellow citizens. So, according to Rawls, we must choose between these two principles regarding the distribution of holdings within the ethical mindset, behind the veil of ignorance. To help us do this and to see the difference of what these two principles imply with respect to choosing which of two societies is preferable (morally, speaking), consider the following. As we have already stipulated, it has already been determined who you are and what features about you make you, you, but suppose you do not know any of this nor do you know any morally irrelevant features of your fellow citizens. You are in a complete state of ignorance or uncertainty considering everyone’s ancestry, wealth, health, race, gender, and so on (yours included). You do not even know how probable such attributes are. Given this ethical mindset, which of the following two societies would you choose? Commune: The first consists of 100 people but suppose that under some rotational scheme, everyone takes a turn at being a worker. Suppose this means that each person gets 35 utils (or happiness points). The total is 3,500 = 35*100. Resort: The second consists of 100 people with 10 being workers and the rest free to engage in any pleasure they wish. Each worker receives 1 util while the other 90 receive 90 utils each. The total is 8,110 = 10 + 90*90. Rawls believes that if these are your options, behind the veil of ignorance you should choose the Commune. He would claim that supposing I am one of the least well-off, I should choose the Commune. Why? The argument takes the form of many arguments for imperfect duties in the Kantian tradition. One should maximize one’s opportunities, and if I am one of the least well-off and I should choose the Resort, then I would not be able to maximize my opportunities. For, assume I am one of the least well-off and assume that the amount of utils I have positively correlates with the opportunities I have. I would have 35 utils (if I choose the Commune) and I would have 1 util (if I choose the Resort). If I should choose the Resort this is like choosing 1 util over 35 utils, but I was supposed to be maximizing my opportunities, not minimizing them. So, relative to the choice between these two societies, if I am one of the least well-off, then I should choose the Commune. The argument might, then, continue as follows. Either I am one of the least well-off or I am not, and (by assumption) I am not permitted to believe I am not one of the least well-off. But if I am not one of the least-well-off, then I should choose the Resort only if I am permitted to believe I am not one of the least well-off. So, either way, I should choose the Commune. Finally, if the Commune is (morally) preferable to the Resort, as we have just argued, then the Rawlsian principle is (morally) preferable to the gung-ho! Utilitarian principle. For, assume the Commune is better than the Resort. Suppose we should choose the gung-ho! Utilitarian principle over the Rawlsian one. The gung-ho! Utilitarian principle implies that if a less equal distribution of holdings maximizes total happiness (this is the case relative to the two societies considered here), then intervening to make our society more like the Resort should be done. In other words, the gung-ho! Utilitarian principle implies that the Resort is better than the Commune. But we just got done saying that the Commune is better than the Resort. So, to avoid contradicting ourselves, we should choose the Rawlsian principle over the gung-ho! Utilitarian principle. For the sake of completeness, perhaps we ought to make sure that choosing the Rawlsian principle is consistent with our assumption that the Commune is better than the Resort. So, suppose we should choose the Rawlsian principle over the gung-ho! Utilitarian one. The Rawlsian principle implies that if a more equal distribution of holdings maximizes the opportunities or happiness of the least well-off and choosing the Commune over the Resort does not interfere with anyone’s liberties, then intervening to make our society more like the Commune should be done. In this case, relative to these two societies, a more equal distribution does maximize the opportunities or happiness of the least well-off. If we further assume that everyone would choose (given the reasoning above) the Commune over the Resort, there is no sense in which our liberties would be messed with. Afterall, we are in control over which of the two societies to choose, so, intervening to make our society more like the Commune should be done. The Rawlsian principle is consistent with our assumption that the Commune is better than the Resort, provided everyone would consent to choosing the Commune over the Resort. Let us relate this back to the marketplace. Not only should the government interfere in the market when fraud, theft, and interference with the pursuit of happiness occur, but now the government, in addition, has an (imperfect) duty. The government must somehow ensure that the holdings are distributed in such a way that it maximizes the opportunities or happiness of the least well-off so long as doing so does not interfere with anyone’s liberty or ability to choose what to do with their holdings (or wealth). This is meant to be a very abstract obligation without any real concrete policy implications. If one takes the intervention to be taxation-based, libertarian philosophers like Nozick have problems with this Rawlsian principle (not to mention the gung-ho! Utilitarian principle). But the Rawlsian principle is not obviously only linked to taxation of citizens (though it might entail that in a democratic society). What else might we have in mind? Well, in his response to Nozick, Rawls is clearly for federal recognition of the permissibility of collective bargaining between employees and employers. Collective bargaining is a process through which employers and workers discuss and negotiate their relations, in particular, the terms, conditions, and wages for work. So the idea is that in the situation where, for example, we have two classesthe corporate bosses and the workersRawls thinks it is the case that making a more equal distribution of wealth or holdings maximizes the opportunities or happiness of the least well-off (i.e., the workers). Given this, the government should intervene in a way to produce a more equal distribution of holdings without interfering with people’s liberty and their ability to choose what they want to do with their wealth. One way to implement such an intervention is the redistribution of holdings via taxation in a democratic society. Another way, one that Rawls explicitly discusses, is by enacting a law recognizing the permissibility of collective bargaining rather than a law forbidding it. With such a law, though things would not likely be perfectly equal, the distribution of holdings would be more equal than with a law making collective bargaining impermissible. Hence, assuming everyone (behind the veil of ignorance) would vote on such a law so as not to interfere with anyone’s liberty, we have the following result. For the part of society consisting of corporate bosses and their workers, the government should enact a law recognizing the permissibility of collective bargaining. On page 465, Rawls uses the example of collective bargaining to reject Nozick’s entitlement theory. His claim is just the opposite of Nozick’s theory: It is incorrect that if the initial holdings is just and everyone engages in free transactions in the marketplace, then the distribution of holdings will automatically remain just. His argument for this claim is simple. If there is no legal recognition of the permissibility of collective bargaining, then the resulting distribution of holdings will not automatically remain just. And because there is no such legal recognition in Nozick’s theory, the resulting distribution of holdings will not automatically remain just even if we assume (with Nozick) that the initial distribution of holdings is just and that everyone engages freely in marketplace transactions. Similar reasoning underlies what is probably the best argument for the legal recognition of the permissibility (rather than the impermissibility) of affirmative action. That is, there is a similar argument to be made which makes the following Rawlsian claim: For the part of society consisting of employers and competing prospective emplyees, the government should enact a law recognizing the permissibility (rather than the impermissibility) of affirmative action. But collective bargaining is one thing, affirmative action is another. Some of the best arguments against affirmative action challenge the analogous reasoning for affirmative action in the sense that because affirmative action policies do interfere with people’s liberties, the Rawlsian claim concerning affirmative action does not follow. Let us turn to affirmative action now.

President Herbert Hoover a Biography

Hoover was born on August 10, 1874, in West Branch, Iowa. He grew up a Quaker. From age 10, he lived in Oregon. His father died when Hoover was 6. Three years later, his mother died, and he and his two siblings were sent off to live with various relatives. He attended a local school as a youth. He never graduated from high school. He was then enrolled as part of the first class at Stanford University in California. He graduated with a degree in geology. Family Ties Hoover was the son of Jesse Clark Hoover, a blacksmith and salesman, and Huldah Minthorn, a Quaker minister. He had one brother and one sister. On  February 10, 1899, Herbert Hoover married Lou  Henry. She was his fellow student studying Geology at  Stanford University. Together they had  two children: Herbert Hoover Jr. and Allan Hoover. Herbert Jr. would be a politician and businessman while Allan would be a humanitarian who founded his fathers presidential library.   Herbert Hoovers Career Before the Presidency Hoover worked from 1896-1914 as a Mining Engineer. During World War I, he headed the American Relief Committee which helped Americans stranded in Europe. He then was the head of the Commission for the Relief of Belgium and the American Relief Administration which sent out tons of food and supplies to Europe. He served as the U.S. Food Administrator (1917-18). He was involved in other war and peace efforts. From 1921-28 he served as the Secretary of Commerce for Presidents Warren G.  Harding and Calvin Coolidge. Becoming the President In 1928, Hoover was nominated as the Republican candidate for president on the first ballot with Charles Curtis as his running mate. He ran against Alfred Smith, the first Roman Catholic to be nominated to run for president. His religion was an important part of the campaign against him. Hoover ended up winning with 58% of the vote and 444 out of 531 votes. Events and Accomplishments of Herbert Hoover’s Presidency In 1930, the  Smoot-Hawley Tariff  was enacted to help protect farmers and others from foreign  competition. Unfortunately, other nations also enacted tariffs which meant that trade around the world slowed down. On  Black Thursday, October 24, 1929, stock prices began falling heavily. Then on October 29, 1929, the stock market crashed even further which began the Great Depression. Because of massive speculation including many individuals borrowing money to purchase stocks thousands of people lost everything with the stock market crash. However, the Great Depression was a worldwide event. During the Depression, unemployment rose to 25%. Further, around 25% of all banks failed. Hoover did not see the enormity of the problem soon enough. He did not enact programs to help the unemployed but instead, put some measures in place to help businesses. In May 1932, approximately 15,000 veterans marched on Washington to demand immediate payment of bonus insurance money that had been awarded in 1924. This was known as the Bonus March. When Congress did not answer their demands, many of the marchers stayed and lived in shantytowns. Hoover sent  General Douglas MacArthur  in to move the veterans out. They used tear gas and tanks to make them leave and set fire to their tents and shacks. The  Twentieth Amendment  was passed during Hoovers time in office. This was called the lame-duck amendment because it decreased the time when an outgoing president would be in office after the November election. It moved the date of inauguration up from March 4th to January 20th. Post-Presidential Period Hoover ran for reelection in 1932 but was defeated by Franklin Roosevelt. He retired to Palo Alto, California. He opposed the New Deal. He was appointed as the coordinator of the Food Supply for World Famine (1946-47). He was chairman of the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government or Hoover Commission (1947-49) and the Commission on Government Operations (1953-55) which were intended find ways to streamline government. He died on October 20, 1964, of cancer. Historical Significance Herbert Hoover was president during one of the worst economic disasters in Americas history. He was unprepared to take the necessary measures to help the unemployed. Further, his actions against groups like the Bonus Marchers made his name synonymous with the Depression. For example, shanties were called Hoovervilles and newspapers used to cover people from the cold were called Hoover Blankets.

Hydraulic Fracturing The Good And The Bad - 1381 Words

Hydraulic Fracturing: The Good and The Bad. Hydraulic fracturing in combination with advancement in directional drilling has made it possible to economically extract oil and gas from unconventional resources. The growth in U.S. oil and gas exploration and production made possible by the increase in use of hydraulic fracturing, has raised concerns about its potential to impact human health and the environment. Concerns have been raised by the public about the effects of hydraulic fracturing on quality and quantity of drinking water resources. The hydraulic fracturing water cycle includes five main activities: the withdrawal of ground or surface water needed for hydraulic fracturing fluids; the mixing of water, chemicals, and proppant on the well pad to create the hydraulic fracturing fluid; the injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids into the well to fracture the formation, the return of injected fluid and water produced from the formation to the surface; and the reuse, treatment and disposal of wastewater generated at the well pad, including produced water (U.S. EPA, 2015). With the water cycle being so massive and prolonged, the presence of potential negative impacts is greatly increased. As a future petroleum engineer and a professional who will be responsible for the safety, health and welfare of the public, I would like to research and assess the potential for hydraulic fracturing to impact the quality or quantity of drinking water resources, and identify factorsShow MoreRelatedHydraulic Fracturing : Good Or Bad?1401 Words   |  6 PagesHydraulic Fracturing: Good or Bad? Carol French owns a dairy farm in Pennsylvania. French’s dairy farm was thriving until one day a startling change in her water occurred. On March 15, 2011, French turned on her sink faucet and â€Å"the water came out white with a green moss settling on top of sand† (â€Å"A Dairy†). After the water settled for a while it became gelatin like. After being exposed to the water, â€Å"French’s daughter became sick in October of that year with a fever, weight loss (10 pounds inRead MoreLaws 310 Course Project1187 Words   |  5 PagesLAWS 310 – THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT Hydraulic Fracturing 10/12/2013 â€Æ' TABLE OF CONTENTS What is Hydraulic Fracturing 2 Enivromental Issues 2 Water Contamination 2 Management of Waste Water 3 Air Quality Issues 3 Fracking Chemicals 3 State and Federal Laws 4 Federal Regulations 4 State Regulations 4 U.S. Energy Needs 5 Conclusion 5 Referrence Page 6 â€Æ' Hydraulic Fracturing What is hydraulic fracturing or fracking, and is it safe for our environment? What types of environmentalRead MoreWhat ´s Hydraulic Fracturing 763 Words   |  3 PagesHydraulic Fracturing is a process/technique that was produced around the 1940s and it is a way in which we can allow natural gas and oil to be able to move around from the rock pores in which they are trapped inside of, to allow this to move to a producing well. Hydraulic Fracturing is used because it recovers energy resources as well as producing great amounts of hydrocarbons from each well. If we use this process, this will mean that we no longer would need to use the drilling processRead MoreEssay on Hydraulic Fracturing and Natural Gas800 Words   |  4 PagesIntroduction Natural gas to power vehicles and machinery has been a big approach that the United States government has made in order to further the advancement of being environmentally green friendly. Burning of natural gas is not as bad as burning real fossil fuel gas which is for that natural gas is the same gas that is used in house for heating, laundry drying, and also cooking. It is the gas that disperses and diminishes faster than original gas. Original gas causes global warming more whenRead MoreFracking : Fracking And Fracking1524 Words   |  7 Pages Hydraulic Fracturing Research Paper Hydraulic Fracturing (also commonly known as fracking) is a process used to extract natural gasses deep within the earth. This is done by drilling vertically into the ground until the desired depth; then drilling horizontally; and pumping millions of gallons of water, sand, and other chemicals into the drill at a high pressure to create fissures through which the gas can escape. Currently, hydraulic fracturing is extensively used in the United States in orderRead MoreHydraulic Fracturing And Its Effects On The Environment1737 Words   |  7 PagesHydraulic Fracturing has led to less cases of contamination than any other method of oil extraction, which is contrary to popular belief. There have been many useful regulations that turned a once feared industry to an environmentally safe, highly profitable industry. Hydraulic Fracturing is worth the risks it poses on the environment, because it will bolster the U.S. economy and foreign policy, provide billions of Petroleum barrels and t rillions of square feet of natural gas, and it is not as harmfulRead MoreFracking : Too Many Fracking Problems1631 Words   |  7 Pagesout of fossil fuels. But it may end because burning these wonderful fuels puts the planet farther down a path we don t want to head down†. Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is a petroleum mining method to reach remote gas under water that is located in the crust of the earth. Fracking uses a blend of water, sand, and chemicals. Hydraulic Fracturing, â€Å"has contributed to a resurgence of oil production in the USA and a dramatic increase in natural gas production† (Hassett). It is speculated to growRead MoreEssay on Natural Gas Fracking Risks1519 Words   |  7 Pagesabove ground. Hydraulic fracturing or fracking is a process that extracts natural gas from the ground. As harmless as the billion dollar producing oil companies would want us to believe, environmental groups, scientists, and average citizens have raised concerns abou t the negative impact of hydraulic fracking on the environment and surrounding communities. Hydraulic fracking is used in the natural gas drilling booms, like the one in Louisiana. â€Å"Modern day hydraulic fracturing results from theRead MoreThe Greatest Industry Of Hydraulic Fracking And Its Environmental Impact2424 Words   |  10 Pagesone of the most oil rich parts of Texas but yet is still one of the driest with only 21 inches of rainfall a year at the heart of the shale, Carrizo Springs. The reason we are interested in this area is to discuss the very fast growing industry of Hydraulic Fracking and its environmental impact. To understand why this area is so rich in oil and natural gas we must first look at how the shale was formed. Shale is formed over millions of years and makes up much of the earth’s crust. Shale is createdRead MoreThe Need to Stop Fracking616 Words   |  3 Pagescracks and keep them open this is the process of fracking. Tell the recipient of your letter why you chose to share this information with them: I am writing to good morning america because a lot of people watch that show i believe that if someone hears this then they will want to put a stop to it because its a very popular show. these are some bad things about fracking .the chemicals they use for fracking sometimes get into peoples water and could cause us to get very ill..a lot of animals lose their

Running from a Gamble by Company of Thieves free essay sample

Running from a Gamble, released on May of 2011, is the second studio album by Company of Thieves. It was released under Wind-Up record label. Genevieve Schatz (the vocalist) and Marc Walloch (the guitarist) wrote all of the songs on the album. It did not take long for this album to become my new favorite record and â€Å"Won’t Go Quietly† to become my favorite song. As a classically trained (German method) violinist, I would like to point out just a few reasons why every person should take the time to listen to Company of Thieves. The album, unlike so much of current new music, has very deep and meaningful lyrics. Every lyric has a meaning instead of bands like Train’s desire to rhyme whether it makes sense in context of the song or not. A particular favorite line from their song â€Å"Death of Communication† is as follows: â€Å"We struggle and we fight ‘cus it feels good to wonder why our lives are happening†. We will write a custom essay sample on Running from a Gamble by Company of Thieves or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Song topics range from perception to starting the band to existentialism. A particular thing I like about Company of Thieves music is how they so often create a complex and/or beautiful sheet of music by layering simple lines over each other. The drums are often very simple and just serve the point of keeping the music moving. They keyboardist/organist adds a lot to the music as well. Often he plays non-chord tones (most often pedal-tones) which add interest to the songs. It does not take a musically trained person to tell that the band has talent, but upon further review, a musical person can easily tell they must have some classical training themselves. The use of non-chord tones is the most prominent example pointing me to this assumption. As stated above pedal-tones can be heard in many of their songs but other non-chord tones are also incorporated. My favorite is their use of appoggiaturas in â€Å"Won’t Go Quietly†. It makes it catchy and adds to the musical layers I mentioned before. But one of the best things about this band may be that Genevieve’s voice is just as beautiful as she is. Running from a Gamble not only lives up to, but surpasses Ordinary Riches (the band’s first album). It is great to see the growth of the band musically and creatively. I recommend that every person goes out and listens to this album, it is money well spent. I can’t wait to see what Company of Thieves has up their sleeves for their next trick.