The Role of the U.S. Government in Supporting Green Energy

Free-market capitalism is the central core of the U.S. economy. However, there are some cases in which the solution favored by the free market is not in the best interest of the country. Ever since the industrial revolution, America has been the leading consumer of fossil fuels. These energy sources are cheap and efficient, making them economically ideal. However, use of fossil fuels has many negative effects. Fossil fuels have a definite supply, which will eventually run out. Our need to purchase oil makes us dependent on many unstable regimes all over the world. Furthermore, burning fossil fuels releases dangerous pollutants in to the atmosphere, which causes many health problems and may be impacting global warming. There are many ways to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, such as renewable fuel sources or more energy efficient technology. However, these alternatives are often more expensive, leaving businesses and individuals no financial incentive to use them. The federal government needs to make it easier for Americans to switch to green energy providing financial incentives.
For the past century, America has been struggling with an unhealthy addiction to Fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are problematic both for the world’s reliance on them and for their effects on the planet. Fossil fuels such as oil and coal are non-renewable, meaning that once we deplete them, they will be so scarce that it will be too costly to retrieve what is left of them. When burned for energy, these fossil fuels also release harmful chemicals into the air including CO₂, a major greenhouse gas [1]. Once the greenhouse gases that result from the combustion of fossil fuels are released into the air, they build up in the atmosphere. This buildup allows the heat from the sun to warm the surface of the earth, but doesn't let it leave the atmosphere. This “greenhouse” effect is known as global warming. The process is deemed by climatologists around the world to be a serious threat to planet earth; the more greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide humans add to the atmosphere, the faster temperatures rise, and the more humans contribute to global warming. The United States consumes more fossil fuels than any other country in the world, and fossil fuels make up over 85% of America’s total energy consumption [2]. If the U.S. can not reform it’s energy habits, there could be detrimental consequences four the country, as well as the world.
The largest source of energy in the United States is petroleum products, better known as oil. According to Walter Youngquist, “oil fuels the modern world,” and this could not be more true [3]. The United States takes advantage of this resource more than any other country. In the modern world, oil is the most convenient source of energy. It is readily available, safe and opportune to use, and quite versatile. Oil is able to generate huge amounts of energy, and is also easy to store and ship. These factors have turned oil into the central fuel source of America. While oil is cheap and convenient, the negative aspects of it’s use are becoming apparent. Science is showing that the use of oil has a drastic impact CO₂ into the Earth’s atmosphere, on global climate change. Combustion of oil releases depleting the ozone layer and causing the global temperature to rise [4]. Over time, this climate change may have a significant impact on future generations. Additionally, two thirds of necessary U.S. oil is imported from foreign nations. For example, the Middle East and Africa, two oil-rich regions, have become major economic partners with America over the trade of oil. However, these regions are both plagued by violence and instability. By importing oil from them, the United States has been supporting these unstable nations. Additionally, we run the risk of an energy crisis if we become unable to buy oil from these countries. Trading oil with these developing regions is not safe and is far too big a part of the country’s foreign policy. The United States needs to limit its use of oil so it can secure a more stable energy supply.
As a response to our dependence on fossil fuels, the U.S. has been pursuing the use of renewable energy sources. These are sources that can never run out or be completely used up. They also emit far fewer pollutants into the air than do fossil fuels. Renewable sources include solar power, wind power, geothermal, and many more [5]. Many scientists warn that if we continue to exhaust the world’s oil supply and to use harmful fossil fuels, then “future economic and humanitarian disasters are inevitable” [3]. Therefore, the United States, the country responsible for the most greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, needs to increase its energy independence from oil and shift to an energy supply that focuses on renewable energy (Wald,2009). However, many view the use of renewable energy as impractical. Renewable energy sources typically cost more money and are more difficult to use. To help overcome these obstacles, the federal government needs to create incentives towards the use of renewable energy. “The U.S. government would be wise to allocate federal funds to the development of renewables” [4]. Supporters of alternative energy say that if the United States government doesn’t find a way to replace oil, and continues to consume as it does now, then, according to scientist Alan Betts, “the cost of doing nothing will be far higher than the cost of using our technology to fix a problem that was generated by our technology in the first place.” [4]. The scientific community is clearly stating that the U.S. government needs to start taking action before it is too late.
If renewable energy sources are to compete with fossil fuels as major sources of energy, then they require serious government funding. There are many different means of doing this. First, there is a method called “cap-and-trade.” This method caps, or puts limits on greenhouse gas emissions for companies. Permits that allow companies to emit these gases are then auctioned off. This method would stop pollution from companies while promoting new cheap and clean forms of energy. While critics argue this could lead to job loss, it could actually lead to profit from the auctioned caps, and a much cleaner environment [5]. This process has already proven to be successful in an agreement called the Kyoto Protocol. Many European countries have joined it and already there has been a 3% reduction in emissions since it was started in 1990 [4]. Another potent method is government incentives. Often in the form of tax breaks, these incentives offer companies money if they are willing to use any renewable sources. These are a way to help companies and limit the effects of global warming. If many companies were to take these incentives, it would help to further develop alternative energy, thus making it more affordable and leveling the playing field between fossil fuels and renewable energy[2].
Clearly, action needs to be taken to decrease the U.S.’s dependence on fossil fuels, especially oil. These harmful resources are nonrenewable, contribute to global warming, and are imported from unstable regions of the world. Renewable resources are much more favorable in the long run; they cannot be depleted, they are much cleaner than fossil fuels, and they ultimately are more dependable than oil. In order to increase the use of these renewable sources, the United States government must take steps towards making this happen. Providing financial rewards for those who use green energy and penalties for those who refuse to adapt is necessary to get our country back on the path towards a cleaner future. If the government does not provide these opportunities, businesses and individuals will be forced to stick with fossil fuels. Spending money on green energy may be a difficult action to take now, but it is an investment in the future of our country.

References

1. Clemmitt, M. (2006, January 27). Climate change. CQ Researcher, 16, 73-96. Retrieved from http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/
2. Cooper, M. H. (1997, November 7). Renewable energy. CQ Researcher, 7, 961-984. Retrieved from http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/
3. Youngquist, W. (n.d.). Alternative Energy Sources. Retrieved from http:// www.hubbertpeak.com/youngquist/altenergy.htm
4. Global Warming. (2009, October 12). Issues & Controversies On File. Retrieved from Facts On File News Services database.
5. Wald, M. L. (2009, March 28). Cost Works Against Alternative and Renewable Energy Sources in Time of Recession. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/business/energy-environment/29renew.html

America's Television Addiction

Obesity. Violence. Irrational Fear. All of these are major issues with Americans, and they all have one root cause. In millions of homes across the country, the casual desire for entertainment has developed into a full on addiction. The molding and conforming of Americans to the ideas expressed on television as a serous issue for our society to overcome.
Our society values uniqueness and originality, however the widespread use of the television is homogenizing Americans at a rapid rate. Technology allows the same shows to be broadcast across the country, coast to coast, and throughout the country people are watching the same exact thing. In every home, people absorb the messages and biases of the show they are watching. Corbett Trubey pointed out that television has become "a 24-hour ad-plastered, brainwashing, individuality bleaching, stereotyping, couch-potato product." When every person receives the same information with the same messages expressed, we begin to lose the diversity that makes America the great country it is.
This repetitive message broadcast throughout the United States is not even a beneficial one, but rather a defiance of American morals. To create exciting and interesting programs, networks enjoy pushing the limits. A perfect example of this trend is the popular TV show Gossip Girl. In 2008, the show came under intense criticism for its provocative show that featured teens consuming alcohol and engaging in sexual relations. The show used this criticism to drive it's advertising by putting quotes from the Parents Television Council on advertisements. Lines such as "Mind-Blowingly Inappropriate" became positives for the show and ultimately drove their ratings up. This sent a large message to the television industry: making shows inappropriate does more good than harm.
The messages sent by these shows often have a large impact on how we handle situations in our own life. Steven Johnson argues that the complicated plots of television acts as a brain exercise and forces us to think more. However, shows will often force us to to think irrationally based on the dramatized events on television. Amid the constant plot twists on the show "24", there is a constant theme of terrorists on that have reached domestic soil, ready to blow up innocent Americans. The reality is that thousands government officials work night and day to keep America save, and actual incidents are rare. Shows like this create a paranoia in the minds of citizens as well as strong feelings of distrust towards Muslims.
All these factors of Television lead to a population addicted to television. Where children would once play outside after school, they now sit down and zone out for hours while they eat. Television creates unhealthy habits that Americans are suffering from. Obesity results from the long term viewing habits in front of TV, and the unhealthy food advertisements worsen the habits. While senators argue about health care, our biggest health problem comes from at home.
If Americans wish to continue as the most intelligent country in the world, we need to remove ourselves from TV. Healthier lifestyles will lead to healthier lives.[1][2]

References

1. Catlin, Roger . "Bad Reviews Make Good Ads for 'Gossip Girl'". The Hartford Courant. 3/7/2010
   http://blogs.courant.com/roger_catlin_tv_eye/2008/08/bad-reviews-make-good-ads-for.html
2. Johnson, Steven. "Watching TV Makes You Smarter". New York Times 2005.

The Crucible & McCarthyism

In the 1940s, America was living in fear. Hiding in plain sight, Communists were infiltrating the country. Everyone from government employees to actors were being subpoenaed to testify before congress. However, the truth behind this story is that an ambitious Senator named Joseph McCarthy had scared the country into alienating large groups of innocent Americans. The paranoia that ensued lead to a congressional committee accusing and in some cases imprisoning these citizens only for their alleged beliefs. Arthur Miller’s play The Crucible explores a similar time period, a period of great fear and meritless accusations. Miller explores the similarities between The Salem Witch Trials and the House Un-American Activities Committee and the damage which they inflicted on their communities.
One key element to both the Salem Witch Trials and the House Un-American Activities Committee was punishment for refusing to confess. This system essentially rewards those who falsely confess, perpetuating the cycle of fear and accusations. This is evident when Tituba is being interrogated by Hale. “No, no, don’t hang Tituba!” she cries, “I tell him I don’t desire to work for him.”(44) She continues to name Sarah Good and Goody Osburn as witches, continuing the witch hunt. According to Puritan ideology, confessing to witchcraft means you wish to return to God, and therefore are not punished. A similar situation occurred in congress during the McCarthy era. In 1947, the HUAC subpoenaed a number of members of the Hollywood film industry concerning suspected communist activities. When ten witnesses refused to cooperate with the committee, citing First Amendment freedoms, they were charged with contempt of congress and sentenced to prison time. Others who cited Fifth Amendment protection from self-incrimination could often avoid charges, but many still lost jobs by doing such[1]. When one is faced with public humiliation or even death if they refuse to confess, they will often say anything to clear their name. Both systems encourage lying and lead to further false accusations.,
Both witchcraft and communism and were extremely serious accusations in their respective time periods, and simply being suspected could drastically alter one’s life. In the highly religious community of Salem, Massachusetts, witchcraft was a hangable offense. In the process of sorting out the wicked from the worthy, nineteen people were hung, countless lives were ruined and an entire town plunged into infamy. While nobody died as a result of the Red Scare, the careers and reputations of many important and influential Americans were ruined. The drastic outcomes of these situations show the consequences of a paranoid and xenophobic society.
It is difficult to think that in modern America, the leaders of our country would not stand up against the persecution of men simply for their beliefs. However, Joseph McCarthy and other congressmen worked hard to make sure that anyone who questioned the threat of communism were seen as communist emphasizes and un-American. Miller brings attention to this by showing the similar situation in Salem. Anyone who publicly questioned the validity of the witch trials would automatically be suspected of Witchcraft. As Judge Danforth describes, “a person is either with this court or he must be counted against it, there be no road between.” (58) It is possible that those with doubts about the accused witchcraft, such as Hale, could have prevented the executions had there not been such pressure to agree with the court.
After these various witch hunts had ended and their damage done, those who persecuted the innocent saw their own downfall. In an epilogue, Miller notes that Abigail would become a prostitute in Boston, while Parris “was voted from office, walked out on the highroad, and was never heard of again.” (146) Senator Joseph McCarthy suffered a similar fate after the Red Scare era ended. After being formally condemned by the Senate for his tactics, McCarthy left public office. He continued to rally against communism, with little support, and eventually died of an inflamed liver [2]. These endings are symbolic of the nature of these characters. Parris, Abigail and McCarthy all accused others to gain power, and destroyed lives in the process. Ironically, these actions would come to destroy their own lives and define them as people.
We are told to learn from the mistakes of history or else we are destined to repeat them. We would like to think that our society has advanced to an age in which a witch hunt could never happen, and yet the McCarthy era shows us that we are still capable of irrationally accusing innocent people and forcing them through a broken system. Arthur Miller’s portrayal of the Salem Witch Trials shows us how a quickly a witch trial can escalate and forces us to think twice before condemning others based upon hearsay or perceived beliefs.

References

1. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/episodes/arthur-miller/mccarthyism/484/
2. http://www.apl.org/history/mccarthy/biography.html

America & The Mexican Drug War

In the past decade, over 4000 American soldiers have died while serving in Iraq, and over 1000 in Afganistan (ICasualties: Operation Iraqi, 2009). In addition, both these wars have cost our country over one trillion dollars (National Priorities Project, 2010).Despite the great toll these wars have taken on our country, we have been told that they will protect our national security and keep citizens safe. While the security these wars has created is debatable, the U.S. has been much more reluctant to respond to another threat right on the U.S. border. The Mexican Drug war has already claimed the lives of thousands of people including a number of Americans and continues to devastate many small towns throughout Mexico. To ensure the safety of American and Mexican citizens, the U.S. Government needs to drastically increase their role in the Mexican Drug War.

The issue of illegal drug cartels is no new issue for Mexico. After the 1910 Mexican revolution, the newly formed government allowed military officials to take a share of drug profits in exchange for enforcing order and non-violence.(Katel, 2008, p. 1019). Despite some minor scandals, the drug cartels continued to spread throughout the country, and throughout the Mexican government. In the late 1960s, the skyrocketing use of marajuana lead the U.S. government to intensify it’s policy towards Mexican drug smuggling. In 1969, President Nixon went as far as to order the search of every car, boat or airplane entering the U.S. from Mexico. A few years later, the Mexican Government showed it’s intent to stop the drug trade by sending 10,000 soldiers into the Sinola mountain range. This plan, named “Operation Condor,” effecively diminished the growth of drugs for the time being, but would end up further spreading the reach of the drug cartels. The U.S. and Mexican governments celebrated these victories as the end of the Mexican drug trade, but that victory would be short lived.

By the mid-1980s, the drug trade had once again returned to Mexico and the United States was investing hundreds of millions of dollars in fighting the cartels. After the successful raid of a large marijuana plantation by the DEA, cartel leaders kidnapped and tortured a DEA agent and his pilot. After the DEA identified a suspect in the murders, the man was tipped off by a Mexican police commander and fled (Katel, 2008, p. 1022). These murders as well as the apparent corruption among the Mexican police drew lots of attention to the drug issues in Mexico. U.S. Customs commissoner William von Raab accused the Mexican government of widespread corruption, claiming that “Whenever Customs has a joint drug interdiction operation in a certain area in cooperation with Mexican police, if the Mexicans are told about it in advance, the activity always seems to drop off in that area,” ("'My Position Hasn't," 1986). Mexican authorities worked hard to fight the spreading corruption, at some points firing hundreds of police officers and arresting others (Katel, 2008, p. 1022). Policies by the Mexican government were able to reduce some of the corruption and violence, but the drug trade still remained a very prominent party of the country.

The drug cartel activity remained relatively low until 2000, when the country faced a massive political shift. After 71 years in power, the Revolutionary Industrial Party of Mexico was replaced with Viccente Fox. Fulfilling his promise to be tough on drug cartels, Fox began prosecuting army officers and state officials for their ties to drug gangs. He began campaigns to swiftly capture cartel leaders and lock them up. The efforts of the Fox administration were unprecedented and were seen as a sign of hope to many. However, the drug cartels had become far too strong and influential, and easily pushed past Fox’s efforts. In 2006, Viccente Fox was succeded by Felipe Calderón, who continued to dedicate a great deal of resources to the drug war (Katel, 2008, p. 1024). Calderón once again used military power to put pressure on drug cartels and thoroughly investigated suspected police forces, but drug cartels remained powerful and more violent than ever.

It will be nearly impossible for America to defeat the Mexican drug cartels if we can’t even trust the Mexican officials sworn to defeat them. Corruption is a major problem in Mexico among both law enforcement and government officials. Many instances have shown the great levels of incompetence among Mexican police officers. In 2001, notorious drug trafficker El Chapo Guzman was able to escape from maximum security prison simply by bribing his guards (Katel, 2008, p. 1024). Despite repeated efforts to eliminate government ties to drug cartels, the Mexican government has been unsuccessful. This is a difficult problem for the United States to confront, as it does not have authority over Mexican officials. It could, however, offer the services of U.S. intelligence agencies to run investigations into alleged corruptions and turn over the names of offenders to the Mexican government. Diplomatically, this may be a difficult task, but it is clear that the government can not eliminate the drug cartels until the cartels are removed from the government.

While directly aiding Mexico is beneficial to disrupting the drug cartels, the U.S. Government must also consider methods of reducing the demand for illegal drugs. Some states like California and Oregon have legalized the use of Marijuana for medical purposes and decriminalized the possession of small quantities of it (Suellentrop, 2009). Over 60 percent of drug cartel profits come from the sale of Marijuana, so domestic production of the drug would be a significant dent in the power of the drug cartels (Fainaru & Booth, 2009). Legalizing marijuana would also provide other benefits such as increased tax revenue and a decreased number people arrested on Marijuana charges. If Mexican drug cartels remain the main source of marajuana, the result could be an even bigger threat to our national security. According to the National Drug Intelligence Center, some Mexican cartels have chosen to start marijuana farms on American soil to streamline the production and avoid smuggling drugs across the border. Drug opperations run by the Mexican cartels have the potential for the type of violence that is occurring in Mexico, which would directly put Americans at risk. The easiest way to eliminate the demand for these farms is to legalize marijuana and allow it to be grown domestically.

While legalizing Marijuana is a feasible approach to reducing the demand for illegal drugs, stronger drugs such as cocaine and heroin must be dealt with in different ways. The current system of harsh punishments for drug possession does little to reduce repeat offenders or break addictions. Many argue that a system which promotes rehabilitation rather than punishment for drug crimes will reduce drug problems throughout the country (Daremblum, 2009). In addition to helping those addicted to drugs, the government can reduce future drug use by supporting drug education programs in schools. These programs are shown to reduce drug use by students and will lower the demand for illegal drugs in the future. Congress must be proactive with these steps to help eliminate the need for illegal drug smuggling in the future.

America not only provides a market for the sale of illegal drugs, but it is also the primary source of guns for the drug cartels. In 2008, the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms (ATF) testified that approximately 90 percent of weapons used by these gangs are purchased in America. It is clear that regulating and limiting gun sales would help reduce the violence in the south, but this idea is very controversial. The second amendment to the U.S. constitution which states that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” has invoked heated debate over what types of weapons are constitutionally protected. One plan is to reinstate the 1994 Assault Weapons ban. The ban outlawed many popular military-grade semi-automatic weapons such as the AK-47 and the AR-15, and prohibited weapon characteristics such as threaded muzzles or grenade launchers. The law was written to last for ten years, and in 1994, the ban expired.("U.S.-Mexico Relations.," 2010) While speaking before congress this May, Mexican President Felipe Calderón noted that the increase in violence in Mexico occured only shortly after the expiration of the assault weapon ban. Calderón encouraged congress to restore the assault weapon ban, but was met with mixed reactions (Knowlton, 2010). The bas is opposed by almost all republicans and many democrats as well. The simple mention of reinstating the ban by Attorney General Eric Holder in 2009 created a political firestorm and was almost instantly dialed back by the White House (Isikoff, 2009). Despite the large opposition to the ban, limiting the sale of assault rifles would stop cartels from easily obtaining new weapons. Americans enjoy our right to bear arms, but it is costing thousands of lives down in Mexico.

While it is unlikely that congress will be able to pass substantial legislation restricting gun sales, there are other steps that can be taken to limit the supply of weapons to the Mexican drug cartels. Agencies such as the ATF are working to try to figure out how to stop the purchase of guns in the U.S. by Mexican cartels. Cartels often will recruit American citizens with clean records to purchase their weapons, known as “straw buyers”. In an attempt to discover the main sources of these guns, the ATF has set up a new program to help track weapons. The program, named eTrace, is designed to allow the Mexican government to trace any U.S. gun back to it’s dealer. Unfortunately, many claim the program has been unsuccessful, citing a 31 percent success rate from 2009. ATF deputy director Kenneth Melson defends eTrace, stating that "the information was being submitted by people who didn't know how to trace guns," (Corcoran, 2009). Regardless of the success of this individual system, eTrace is the type of program that the government needs to invest in to cut off the supply of weapons to Mexico.

The drug war taking place in Mexico is directly connected to the actions of the United States and it’s citizens. To protect our national security and the security of Mexico, the U.S. needs to increase it’s role in the Mexican Drug war. America’s lack of action on this issue could lead to widespread violence in the country, much like in Mexican cities. Fighting the cartels may be difficult and expensive, but it is necessary to protect American citizens.

World War I

World War I showed the world how horrible a war could be when so many countries were involved. Although the actual war started when Serbia assassinated Franz Fernandez, the true cause of the war was Germany's aggressive behavior and cruel tactics. Germany was responsible for wrongfully invading Belgium, forming the Triple Alliance, and carelessly testing the relationship between France and Britain.

Although Britain did start the naval race shortly before World War I, Britain was the least to blame out of the major European powers. Throughout this war, Britain tried to avoid confrontations. Britain's involvement in the war came from a need to become allies with other countries for protection, and when Britain's allies, like France, were attacked, Britain was dragged into the war with them. Britain's only aggressive move in this war was their creation of the HMS Dreadnought, a large, powerful battleship which rendered all other ships obsolete. Germany created their own version of a super-naval ship, launching the two countries into a naval race, which, according to the pamphlet "The End of Old Europe" by Josh Brooman, was won by Britain when they built the HMS Queen Elizabeth. As an island nation, a strong national border protection was very important to Britain's defense. Germany had a much smaller coastline, and their navy was less important, especially since Germany borders France and Russia. Germany's naval aggression was unnecessary and was another reason why Germany was at fault for World War I.

Much of the bloodshed of World War I was the result of the large alliances that dragged uninvolved countries, like Britain, into the war. The alliance system began over thirty years before the war started when Germany asked Austria-Hungary to form an alliance. This treaty was extended to Italy in 1882, forming the Triple Alliance. This alliance scared France and Russia, who became allies. With Europe squaring off against each other, Britain was forced to become become allies with France to protect themselves. Ultimately, all the major powers in Europe had taken sides and were ready for battle, all because of Germany's initial alliance.

In 1897, Germany had a thriving economy and a strong army, but the German government decided that was not enough. This was why, that year, they announced Germany's new "World Policy". This policy established that Germany would try to become more imperialistic and capture new territories. This new policy was not easily accomplished, and Germany made many enemies along the way. Their objective was to take over countries that could be an asset to their empire, mainly in rural Africa and the middle east. Germany's path to imperialism demonstrated how they strived to become a world power without regard to who they hurt along the way.


When France and Britain signed an alliance, Germany was doubtful that the two former enemies would really defend each other in battle. Germany decided to test their relationship, and almost started a war in the process. In 1905, Germany's Kaiser Wilhelm visited Morocco, a country France was trying to make one of their colonies. He told the Moroccan people that it was important that Morocco remain an independent country. At a conference, all the European powers except for Germany's ally Austria-Hungary and Morocco voted against Germany's idea of an independent Morocco and France took over Morocco. Once again, Germany tried to test the waters in Morocco when they sent a gunboat to Morocco to "protect German interests", which was interesting because the packet "Background: Power Politics and the Coming of War" states that German interests in this region were already protected by a special treaty. Soon after the boat arrived, a German foreign minister demanded that France hand over the French Congo to Germany. France, not wanting to start a war with Germany, handed this territory over, avoiding a confrontation. Twice Germany had tested France's readiness for battle, which showed that Germany was eager to start fighting.

When Germany was preparing for war, they saw that they would probably be faced with fighting on two fronts; both Russia and France were enemies of Germany. Count Alfre Von Schlieffen, a general of the German army, created a plan that would allow Germany to fight France and Russia without splitting their army. Schlieffen realized that Russia had a slow train system, so if Germany invaded France, then quickly turned towards their Russian border, they could avoid splitting their army. However, the plan also called for Germany to attack France through Belgium, which had declared themselves neutral. A letter to Belgium from Germany in the book "What Were the Causes of World War I?" states that Germany expected Belgium to let them use their "railways, roads, tunnels, or other similar works." This cruel invasion was the reason that Britain declared war on Germany, to help protect Belgium from the radical German powers. Germany's invasion of Belgium was a perfect example of their raw aggression and hostility that started this war.

World War I became one of the worst wars in human history, and this all could have been avoided had Germany not take the actions that they did. Germany needs to pay for their crimes, and we need to make sure that a country like Germany never starts such a horrific war again.

Mao: The Man Who Changed China

Emperor Mao Zedong's beliefs changed the way that China exists to this day. His ideas revolutionized Chinese culture and lifestyle for decades. His changes resulted in the deaths of millions of people, wasted time and brainwashed the people of China to follow his often misguided lead.

A part of Mao's rise to power involved millions of people dying. Regularly land was taken from the landlords and given to the peasants who worked the land. This was a positive change in that it improved the lives of many Chinese people. Unfortunately, Mao also encouraged the public humiliation and murder of these landlords. Thousands of these men were put on stages, harassed and killed. Although the landlords made life miserable for the Chinese farmers and peasants, they were simply the children of a corrupt system. Had they chosen not to be landlords, they probably would have had to become farmers and suffered the same as the peasants. Mao's Great Leap Forward made an effort to push China ahead but it ended up hurting China more than it helped. For example, Mao's Great Sparrow Campaign caused famine which killed 20 to 30 million people [1]. Mao's Great Leap Forward did not work, but Mao refused to accept the failure and continued on with his plans. Mao is quoted [2] as saying "'Half of China may well have to die'" regarding the Great Leap Forward. Additionally, during Mao's Cultural Revolution, the Red Guards (a group of young people in China who supported Mao) humiliated, tortured and killed those who opposed Mao. Millions were killed, and they weren't even all against Mao. Schoolteachers who had taught children to support Mao were punished for representing authority. The Red Guards were merciless, even killing other Red Guards who they thought were not the true Red Guards.

Mao's intentions had always been to help improve China, and this is exactly why he ordered canals to be built for irrigation during the Great Leap Forward. The construction of the project took huge amounts of men, many of which died, and used many of the countries resources, like steel. When Mao decided to try to return to power in 1966, he enlisted the Red Guards would travel across China convincing people to support Mao and punishing those who didn't. This threw the country into turmoil and stopped it from progressing. This period is known as the "10 Wasted Years" because it suffered through so much violence and fighting that education and technology were set back and the economy was nearly destroyed. Another article[3] concludes, "The Cultural Revolution ruptured China's political system, maimed the nation's intelligentsia, disrupted the economy and, at times, brought Chinese society to the brink of civil war." When Mao first took power, he moved the country forward and saved time but he ended up wasting time later.

The people of China thoroughly believed that Mao could achieve the perfect society that he talked about and were willing to do everything they could to help him accomplish it. Whenever Mao asked the people of China to do something for the country, they almost instantly responded. The negative of this response is that many people stopped their regular work and jobs to try and help Mao, which was catastrophic. During the Great Leap Forward, Mao often asked for citizens to accomplish tasks to help improve the country, but these tasks frequently had bad outcomes. In 1958, Mao made the Great Sparrow Campaign where he asked for citizens to kill as many sparrows as possible to help crops. After years of killing sparrows, the Chinese realized that sparrows primarily ate insects that eat crops. This disruption of the food chain destroyed many crops and caused the Great Chinese famine. To assist in the building of canals, Mao asked citizens to produce steel for its construction. Villages set up steel furnaces all over and people melted down their pots and pans to help. In the end, after so many people had stopped working and sacrificed their possessions, it was discovered that this steel was brittle and could not be used. Mao had so much influence and control over the people of China, that even his bad orders were carried out by the mass of the population.

Although Mao had good intentions and in many ways helped improve the lives of the Chinese people, he should not be celebrated because he did more bad than good and as a result the country wasted time and resources and the lives of millions of people where lost during his rule over China. 

References

1. Judith Wyman "A Great Leader, Who Made Some Mistakes"
2. Adi Ignatius "The Mao That Roared"
3. "Mortalizing Mao"

Perspective & Our Town

Everyone has a moment that they are looking forward to. Times like weekends, holidays and days off help guide us through our life. While this way of thinking has many positive aspects, we lose the appreciation of all details of the moments that pass us by. Because we may see moments like holidays as "better" moments, we often fail to see the quality of the smaller ones that we overlook. We see these "small moments" in Thornton Wilder's play Our Town. The play takes us to a small town in New England and we see how simple it is, to the point where we may get bored due to the similarity to our lives. After witnessing events in the play we might have formerly perceived as big and important portrayed as relatively simple and straightforward, we begin to question how important these events are in our life. Not until death does one of the characters realize how much of life was ignored. But after death, she can see how much everyone goes through life without noticing the events that are occurring all the time. To show us that these lessons are true in our own lives, Wilder uses devices such as the lack of props and directly connecting us to the cast to enable us to better relate to the play. He then uses drastic shifts in focus and perspective on events in our lives to drive home what is truly important in life. Finally, by quickly jumping around through time, Wilder shows us that while time passes, our lives stay relatively the same. Wilder uses these techniques to set up the important lessons about how to live our lives. Our Town shows us that everything in life is unique and special, so we should appreciate every moment.

The lack of props helps generalize the play and makes it easier to relate the story to our own lives to teach us that every moment is important in our life. The absence of props is the first thing that is even in the play: the first stage direction reads "No curtain. No scenery." (p. 4) The lack of props is a key element of this play. By removing them, we are forced to create our own imaginary surroundings. By creating our own environment, we become connected with the play and can easily relate the town in the story to our own town. A short bit later, the Stage Manager is showing us around the town. He announces "There's some scenery for those who think they have to have scenery" (p.7). The Stage Manager is telling us that while some people "think they have to have scenery," we should fill in these gaps with scenery from their own life. Because Wilder's objective is to show us a better way to live our life, we must be able to see that the characters in the play are no different than we are. When we can connect with the characters in the story, we can learn how to better relate to them and appreciate the big and small moments of our life.

Throughout the play, Wilder uses a rather unconventional shift in focus by frequently moving back and forth between big and small events to show the significance of each moment. In the beginning of the play, we are taken to a simple and insignificant moment in Grover's Corners, Dr. Gibbs stopping to talk to Joe the paperboy. While many see this as boring and lacking plot, it is meant to represent the actions we take every day that become part of our routine and begin to lose meaning. Dr. Gibbs asks him if anything serious is going on in the world, to which Joe replies "Yessir. My schoolteacher, Miss Foster,'s getting married to a fella over in Concord"(p.9). This statement shows that our perception of big and little events is relative. Most people would consider that a big event in the world would deal with much larger issues than a local teacher getting married, but in the eyes of Joe, this is very big news. This transition between big and small events shows us that small moments in life are just as important as big ones.

Wilder uses another device to us perspective on our lives by dramatically shifting through time, showing the lack of change as time goes on. Early in the play, the Stage Manager introduces Doc Gibbs and his wife. Immediately after introducing them, he states "Doc Gibbs died in 1930...Mrs. Gibbs died first-long time ago, in fact" (p.8) By already knowing about his death, we view his actions in the play differently. Had Doc Gibbs known he would die in 1930, he would have lived life differently, appreciating every moment and spending time with his family. Wilder is trying to teach us the way that we should live our lives. We do not know anything about what happened between now and when he died, but we can assume that most of his life was the same as it had always been. By living a simple life and not taking notice to his surroundings, we can simply remove years of his life from the story without changing it. Although many people live their life aiming at a point in the future, once that moment arrives their life will still be basically the same, and the time spent waiting is time lost and unappreciated. The compression of time shows us the importance of time and how each unique moment should be appreciated rather than rushing towards a point in the future.

Unlike most plays, Our Town is unique in its connection between the cast and the audience to teach us the importance of appreciating insignificant events. In Act 1, the Stage Manager calls Professor Willard and Mr. Webb on to the stage to talk to us about Grover's Corners. He directly addresses the audience, asking "Is there anyone in the audience who would like to ask Editor Webb anything about the town?" (p.24). Actors placed in the audience respond to the Stage Manager with questions, such as a woman in a box seat who asks "Is there any culture or love of beauty in Grover's Corners?" (p.26). By directly involving us in the play, Wilder breaks the "fourth wall," and we can more easily relate to the story. Audience members do not feel the separation of themselves and the play because the play involves them and those around them. This is important because Wilder is trying to prove a point to us about the way that we live our lives, and by including us in the play, we can clearly see how our lives are the same as the characters in the story. By involving us in the play, we can better see Grover's Corners as our town, allowing us to more easily understand or appreciate Wilder's message.

Wilder points out that things that we may see as very important to our life are really not as significant as we may think. In the middle of Act II, the Stage Manager brings us back in time to when George and Emily were still in high school. He sets the scene by saying "George has just been elected President of the Junior Class... And Emily's just been elected Secretary and Treasurer. I don't have to tell you how important that is." (p. 63) The Stage Manager uses sarcasm here for us to understand how we exaggerate the importance of events. Although George and Emily probably saw their election as very important, this distracts them from noticing the truly important events. The truly important event occurs after this, when George and Emily walk home together. The Stage Manager is sarcastically calling these positions important so we realize that although something like being elected president of your class may seem important at the time, it is insignificant in the picture of your whole life.

This play helps us understand that what many people see as the most important day in a person's life is no different than any other day. In Act II, we see the wedding of Emily and George. During the ceremony, Mrs. Soames turns around to talk to us. "Don't know when I've seen such a lovely wedding," (p.77) she says.  Although Mrs. Soames is enjoying the wedding, it seems like a typical wedding to us. Mrs. Soames has built up the idea in her head that the wedding will be "lovely", so when it turns out to be a routine wedding, she assumes it is "lovely." From this we see that when we expect enjoy an event, we usually do. Unfortunately, we also tend to have the opposite expectation of other regular days. When we plan on having a normal day, we fail to notice the simple pleasures of the day; we simply pass them off as routine. Wilder wants us to appreciate every day for the way it is, not to just label the important days "good" and ignore the rest. Every day of our lives are unique, the ones with large events may seem more important, but they are really just as significant as any other day.

Act III begins to wrap up Wilder's lessons by clearly showing us that we do not fully appreciate life. The act starts with the funeral of Emily, however the focus of the act is not on her funeral but her experience in the afterlife. Emily enters the afterlife at her funeral and sits down in a chair next to Mrs. Gibbs. She is happy to be there, but she is still thinking like a living person. She begins to tell Mrs. Gibbs about their new drinking fountain, and tells her "We bought that out of the money you left us," to which Mrs. Gibbs replies "I did?"(p.88) Mrs. Gibbs understands the true importance of life, while Emily still thinks that money and possessions make life good. Wilder is showing us that we, like Emily, spend our lives focused on objects instead of experiences. We can never truly be  happy until we can learn to simply enjoy life. Emily soon realizes that she is thinking differently than the rest of the dead and asks Mrs. Gibbs "When does this feeling go away?-Of being... one of them?"(p.89) Emily is starting to comprehend what the living do not: that life should be enjoyed for the small events that happen every day, not the big events that happen rarely.

While many moments of our life seem boring and ordinary, Emily shows us how unique these moments really are. After Emily has died, the Stage Manager informs her that she may return to a day in her life. However, others among the dead advise her against taking this journey, calling it unwise. Emily disagrees, claiming "It's a thing I must know for myself" (p.92). Mrs. Gibbs provides one last piece of advice: "Choose the least important day in your life. It will be important enough" (p.100). In spite of this, she still chooses a rather important day, her 14th birthday. Emily's return to her past life is a shocking experience, as she realizes how much of her life she has passed by. She appears fourteen years into the past, watching the daily routine of the town. Everything that happens we have seen before, common things such as the milkman delivering bottles of milk and making conversation with others. Emily is delighted to be back in her town at first, but she soon begins to see her life under a different light. After spending time back in life, she breaks down in tears. "Do any human beings ever realize life while they live it?-every, every minute?" (p.108) she asks the Stage Manager. By reliving her life, she notices that no one stops to appreciate all that is happening every moment. From an outsider's perspective, she can see the world moving around her, while others maintain a narrow focus. Wilder uses this scene to reach out to us and urge them not to wait until it's too late to appreciate the world. If we can acknowledge the fine details of life every day, we would live a better life. Waiting for holidays and occasions to enjoy life is a waste of our time on this planet. As Emily discovers only after her death, we miss so much of every day as we rush towards the future, ignoring the present.

As the play comes to a close, we are reminded how everything in our life is viewed relatively and what may appear small upon first glance may be much greater. After returning to the others in the graveyard, Emily informs the deceased that it truly was a mistake to return to her life, as she has realized the way that humans ignorantly live their lives on Earth. After this, Mrs. Gibbs looks to the sky and exclaims, "Emily, look at that star. I forget its name"(p.101). This final quote sums up the fact that relatively small things can be huge. A star in the sky appears as just a speck, an intricate snowflake in a blizzard. However, that star in the sky can be millions of times bigger than our planet, and composed of an incomprehensible amount of energy. We look up to the sky and all we see is a field of bright dots, but close observation reveals much more than that. In our own lives, we find ourselves only paying attention to things that are blatant and in our face. Just like the star, paying close attention to small moments reveals more than we could ever imagine. Wilder uses this to teach us that our life consists of overlooking small things and paying attention to what holds our focus. For the small moments to which we do notice, such as a star in the sky, our knowledge is too often limited to a brief label, such as a name. Mrs. Gibbs only knows the star for it's name, not the wonders which occur on it. Mrs. Gibbs reference to the star in the sky truly provides us a way to see how many moments we let slip through our grasps, unappreciated.

The play Our Town warns us to appreciate every moment of our life or we will end up missing the truly important ones. While the first two acts of the play may bore the viewer, the third act shows that it is our life that we allow to be so boring. This proves Wilder's point better than any line could, by making us think about our lives and the way we handle day to day events. Wilder teaches us that to live a fulfilling life, we must appreciate every moment no matter how big or small. By ignoring what is happening around us and only looking towards the future, we miss out on the simple yet magical moments of the present.

Pride: A Rasin in the Sun

One of the most defining features of a man is his sense of pride. Pride is a person's self respect, and how much you have and how important it is to you can change your whole life. One must have pride and confidence in order to succeed, but false pride can be worse than no pride at all. In Lorraine Hansberry's play A Raisin in the Sun, the Younger family is struggling due to their overwhelming self pride. The main character of the play is proud of being a provider to the family and ends up making irresponsible decisions because of this. His poor decisions lead the family down a slippery path of blame and anger. Not until the end of the play does he realize that before he can be proud of himself, he must learn to be proud of his family. Thus, A Raisin in the Sun shows us that having pride in others allows us to have pride in ourselves so we can achieve our dreams.

Walter is also too proud to take responsibility for his problems, so he pushes them off on other people. From the beginning of the play, we see that from the moment Walter wakes up, he is arguing with Ruth. When Walter decides to go to the bathroom, Ruth tells him that Travis is in there. Frustrated, Walter says "He just going to have to start getting up earlier. I can't be being late to work on account of him fooling around in there." (p. 26) This situation clearly illustrates that Walter blames others for his problems. When he is late for work, he blames his son for using the bathroom when he should be blaming himself for keeping his son up late with his friends and then not getting up early enough. Walter must learn to take responsibility for his faults in order to help his family.

Early in the play, Walter's struggle to find pride in himself leads him to develop a false sense of pride. One morning before school, Travis is asking Ruth for some money which he was told to bring to school. Ruth denies him the money, stating that the family can not afford it. Walter walks in on this conversation and wants to make sure that Travis sees him as a provider. He responds to Ruth "What you tell the boy things like that for?" (p.31) and proceeds to give Travis twice as much as he had asked for. Walter needs to appear as the strong provider in the family. By doing things like giving Travis money that he doesn't have, he convinces himself that he is providing for his family. A short time later in the story, Walter reenters the room after storming out. "I need some money for carfare," (p.39) he says, clearly embarrassed and with hurt pride. Walter did not have the money to pay Travis, but it was more important to him to proudly give his son money. These events show that Walter's pride revolves around his image that a strong man should be able to provide for his family. Walter is constantly searching for ways that he can earn enough money to help his family, such as acquiring the liquor store, but until then he deceives himself to help boost his pride.

As the man of the house, Walter feels that he should he should be able to achieve his dreams without he help of others. After Walter's father died, the family was told that they would be receiving an insurance check. Although the money is Mama's, Walter wants the money for himself. He would use the money to start a liquor store with his two buddies, Willie and Bobo. We see how self centered he is when he complains to Mama, telling her "Mama- I want so many things..."(p.73) This shows that Walter is focused on achieving his own dreams, when he should be caring for his family and trying to help them achieve their dreams.

Later in the play, we see how important pride is to Walter. After Mama spends the insurance money from her husband on a new house, Walter is crushed, as his dreams of spending the money on a liquor store are now gone. Mama knows this, and to help her son, she gives him what is left of the insurance money, telling him to put half of it in the bank for Benetha and to keep the other half. "You trust me like that, Mama?" (p.107) Walter asks after he is told about the gift. Not only is Walter excited to have the money, but his pride is boosted by the fact that Mama would trust him with so much money, including money for his sister's schooling. Out of this excitement, Walter dreams up a scenario in which he becomes rich using the money and is a successful provider to the family. "I'll hand you the world!" (p.109) he states when talking to Travis. Walter's pride is so important that a simple gesture sets off visions of him becoming rich.

We first see Walter beginning to develop pride in others towards the end of Act II. The family has a visitor while Mama is out, a Mr. Lindner. He is a white man from the neighborhood where Mama has purchased her house. Mr. Lindner greets the family respectfully but nervously, and the family treats him well at first, but his true intentions soon become clear. Mr. Lindner has been sent to try to purchase the house back from the Youngers because they are black. "We don't want to hear no exact terms of no arrangements," (p.118) yells Walter in the middle of their conversation. This racism appears to have brought out pride in Walter's family. It seems that Walter is trying to protect his mother's dream, but we soon see that it is more personal than that. "Get out of my house, man," (p.119) he states to Mr. Lindner. Although the apartment actually belongs to Mama, Walter feels that he can be the man of the house by being strong and addressing this problem. Walter is gaining more pride in others, but still has strong pride in himself.

Walter wants to help his family, but with only self pride, his attempts to help the family end up hurting it more than it helps. Walter's self pride drives him to make extreme decisions with his life, rather that take pride in his mother fulfilling her dream. Mama had given Walter some of what was left of the insurance money after buying the house, and she told Walter to put the rest of the money in the bank for Benetha's college. We assume he did, until Bobo comes over and tells Walter that Willy has taken all the money after Walter gave it to him for their liquor store. Even in this situation, Walter still blames Willy rather than himself, shouting "NO WILLY!... WILLY DON'T DO IT!... PLEASE DON'T DO IT." (p. 128) When Walter gave away the money, he was focused on reaching his dreams when he should have been appreciating the fact that Mama's dream of owning a home was about to come true. Walter has still not fully changed and only thinks about his wrongdoing when questioned by Mama. "Mama- I never- went to the bank at all," (p. 129) he says when she asks him. Walter still blames others, but he is starting to see the faults in himself, thanks to Mama. Unfortunately, he did not see this when he gave the money to Willy.

By the end of the story, Walter has changed from a self absorbed man to a true, caring father and son. This change is clear when Walter talks to Mr. Linder. Walter had originally called Mr. Linder over in a moment of weakness to make a deal to sell their house. As Mr. Linder attempts to start the paperwork for selling the new house, Walter interrupts him. "That's my sister over there and she's going to be a doctor-and we are very proud-." (p.148) Walter is finally able to respect his sister and her difficult struggle to be a doctor. This is an enormous change from earlier in the play when Walter blamed Benetha for the family's financial problems. As Mr. Lindner tries to continue, Walter interrupts him again. "This is my son, and he makes the sixth generation of our family in this country," (p.148) Walter proudly announces to him. Walter no longer blames others for problems that are his fault, and he now takes pride in those around him, in this case, Travis. This sense of shared pride makes him even more proud than he used to be. Walter proudly turns down Mr. Lindner's offer to not move into the house, and by this act, Walter has given the family their dream. It is clear that he has won the respect of the family when Benetha responds to one of Mr. Lindner's questions "That's what the man said." (p.148) By showing pride in his family, Walter was able to have pride in himself as the provider of the family.

Throughout A Raisin in the Sun, we see the gradual yet complete transformation of Walter's perspective from a self absorbed man to a supportive father and husband. His dream had been to own a liquor store, boosting his pride and making himself the provider for the family. Walter gave up that dream for the dream of his mother: to own her own house. By having pride in his family rather than himself, Walter became a true provider by giving his family the house of their dreams.

The Paradoxes of Ragtime

Throughout E.L. Doctorow's novel Ragtime, the character Father seems to be constantly in conflict with from his environment. As the story progresses, it becomes apparent that despite his claim to be a progressive, he is very stubborn and resistant to change. Father's close-mindedness prevents him from seeing how close-minded he is, a cycle which only reinforces his unbending attitude. 

From the beginning of the book, Father's stubborn attitude prevents him from appreciating the very qualities of the country that welcomed his family because he so fears change. As Father departs on his Arctic journey, his ship passes a ship of immigrants headed to America. As he gazes across the faces of the new citizens, we are told that he "suddenly foundered in his soul." (12) It is odd that the thought of foreigners moving to America had such a dramatic effect on Father. The reader quickly learns that Father judges these people for the simple reason that he feels that they are going to change his country in some way or another. The irony of Father's reaction is that practically all citizens of the United States arrived as immigrants from other countries, and it is likely that Father's parents moved to America shortly before he was born. Still, he does not make that connection and he only sees this ship of people representing a change that is out of his control. 

Even the most trivial changes to society elicit a strong disapproval by Father. At this period of time archaeological discoveries in Egypt had worked their way into modern culture. While his son is fascinated by tombs and hieroglyphics, Doctorow notes that "Father, sensitive to every change, found his appetite diminished" (128) by these new topics. When he decries these changes, he is showing dislike for more than just Egyptian culture, but foreign changes to his own culture. He can not stand this outside influence over his lifestyle unless he is causing it. This need to control outside influences draws him to journey to the North Pole and later will send him on a fatal trip to Europe. However, when he can not control what is going on, he tends to dismiss things as lacking merit.

Father's tolerance for others is tested when the family meets the father of Sarah's child, Coalhouse Walker Jr. After many visits to court Sarah and make a good impression on the family, Father decides that "Coalhouse Walker Jr. didn't know he was a Negro." (134) Coalhouse's sophisticated language and and classy presence differed from Father's image of how a black man should act. In this period, black people were working to advance themselves and gain equality, but Father will not accept that. In his reluctance to embrace a sophisticated black man, he generates the idea that Coalhouse thinks he is white to satisfy his own preconceptions. 

Father appears to become disillusioned with his inconsistent views when he takes his son to a baseball game. To his dismay, the game he loves is now dominated by immigrants. Father thinks to himself that "there was no reason the Negro could not with proper guidance carry every burden of human achievement," however we do know that Father looked poorly upon Coalhouse for being as successful as a white man. Father is in denial about his beliefs; he likes to think of himself as someone who could be accepting of all types, but when it comes time to prove this, he acts much to the contrary. While watching the game, it is also mentioned that Father had "always thought of himself as progressive." (194) However, Father is actually not progressive enough to realize that his views are not progressive at all. This lack of insight shields Father from coming to the conclusion that he can not accept change. 

In spite of Father's progressive self-image, he is actually unwavering in his rigid attitudes and rejects even the slightest of changes. This outlook has a negative influence on his family and leads to the eventual separation of him and his wife. Ultimately, Father's attempt to hold on to the past ends up destroying his future.

Beloved: The Hardships of Sethe

Toni Morrison's post-slavery novel Beloved takes place in a time of hardship for all blacks living in the south. However, one character truly stands out as truly having a hard life. As a mother, Sethe's case of the blues roots in her deceased daughter Beloved who returns to visit her.

From early in the novel, it is clear that Sethe has not lived an easy life. Ever since she live in Sweet Home, her life has been filled with troubles. She tries to forget her past, but it keeps returning to haunt her. While Baby Suggs points out that "not a house in the country ain't packed to its rafters with some dead Negro's grief,(5)" Sethe has additional burdens on top of the average black woman's problems. The ghost of her baby constantly returns to her house to haunt her and make her life difficult. The haunting disturbs & attacks visitors such as Sethe's aquaintance Paul D. The ghost was even frightening enough that her sons Buglar and Howard were "chased off by the dead one(6)." The ghost's presence truly puts stress on her life.

However, Beloved, the ghost who haunted the house, returns to human form and comes to live with Sethe. Although they get along, Beloved begins to wear away at Sethe as time goes on. Sethe gives Beloved all the food while going hungry herself, creates fancy outfids for her and "when Sethe ran out of things to give her, Beloved invented desire. She wanted Sethe's company for hours...(241)" A violent storm is invoked form Beloved whenever Sethe attempts to regain her motherly control, so Beloved continues to drain Sethe's resources. It is through this tormenting that Sethe approaches the point where others need to help her. The love for her own child coupled with the fear of the wrath she may bring prevents Sethe from squelching the torture Beloved brings to Sethe.

The return of Beloved not only brings issues between her and Sethe, but it also adds tension between Sethe and others. With her attention fixed upon Beloved, Denver becomes an afterthought in the eyes of Sethe. Although once close with Beloved, Denver struggles without her mother or sister. Although the three occationaly do things like ice skating together, however "When it became clear that they were only interested in each other, Denver began to drift from the play." The return of beloved sparks the discussion of why Sethe killed Beloved. As one might expect, Paul D is shocked to learn about the brutal murder, proclaiming "You got two feet, Sethe, not four." By uttering this simple comparison, the closest man to Sethe devides himself from her, "a forest sprang up between them; trackless and quiet." After Paul D quietly exits, Sethe is solemn by this sad turn. Out of all the troubles piled up in front of Sethe, she now no longer has him to ease them.