Louis Leakey Essays - Louis Leakey, Mary Leakey, Anthropology, Kenya

Louis Leakey Louis Leakey Discovering the Secrets of Humankind's Past Louis Leakey was born to be an archaeologist, for his childhood in Africa truly prepared him for the field life he would later lead. The son of missionaries Harry and Mary Leakey, Louis grew up in Kenya near Nairobi, among the Kikuyu African tribe who the elder Leakeys were trying to convert. Despite intervening periods in which the Leakeys moved back to England, Louis grew up practically as a Kikuyu tribe member, and at the age of eleven he not only built his own traditional hut in which to live but was also initiated as a member of the Kikuyu tribe. It was within this hut that the beginnings of Leakey's archaelogical aspirations took place. In one section he started a personal museum, collected all things naturalistic, from bird eggs to animal skulls. It was in 1916, at the age of fourteen, when Leakey first truly realized that he was meant for archaeology; after reading the account of stone-age men entitled Days Before History he was hooked. After reading about the arrowheads and axeheads created by these people, Louis began collecting and classifying as many pieces of obsidian flakes and tools as he could find. After confirmation by a prehistory expert that these were truly stone tools of ancient Africans, truly links to the past, Leakey knew that the rest of his life would be devoted towards discovering the secrets of the prehistoric ancestors of humankind. Despite not being accustomed to the school structure back in England and the accompanying problems he had in public school, Leakey was accepted into Cambridge in 1922. However, blows to the head sustained during rugby games resulted in epilepsy and headaches for Leakey, and he had to leave school in 1923. This, however, was a blessing in disguise, for Leakey landed a job as an African expert on an archaeological mission to Tendaguru in what is now Tanzania. He was to accompany the archaeologist and dinosaur bone expert William E. Cutler. With his fluency in Swahili, Leakey soon orgainized an entire safari to the site. Working with and observing Cutler, Leakey learned more about the technical side of the search for and preservation of fossil bones than [he] could have gleaned from a far longer period of theoretical study. Many dinosaur bones were dug up although a complete skeleton was never found. After several months Leakey was forced to leave, leaving Cutler to continue. Back in En gland, Leakey wrote many articles and letters about the dig. Cutler, however, died in Africa a few months later, a victim of Blackwater fever. Leakey returned to Cambridge and studied anthropology. From these studies and independent ones, Leakey developed the view that early man had originated in Africa, not in Asia as most scholars believed at the time. He became fascinated with the Olduvai Gorge site and the Homo sapiens skeleton discovered by German paleontologist Hans Reck. Great controversy surrounded Reck's find because the age of the skeleton could not be proven. Further, Reck could not return to the site because, as he was German and Britain had won that region of Africa in World War I, he was not able to go there. Leakey was fascinated with the site and told Reck that they would one day go back. For the time being, this had to be put on hold. Finishing finals, Leakey graduated with excellent marks and recieved many grants for research in Africa. He was twenty-three, and he was about to lead his own expeditions. Over the next few years Leakey dug at many sites, finding many stone tools, animal bones, and other artifacts. His search, however, was for proof of the use of a specific Chellean hand-axe style found in other parts of the world. This he found in 1929, and its discovery pushed back the age of the Great Rift Valley in Africa a great deal. Further, it provided critical evidence for a level of sophistication in East Africa equal to that of European cultures at the time. By this time Leakey's work at caught the attention of the archaeological community and he began to receive much acclaim. In November 1929 he returned to England with a

What Are Small Colleges What Are They Like Should I Go

What Are Small Colleges What Are They Like Should I Go SAT / ACT Prep Online Guides and Tips Size is a really important factor to take into consideration when deciding where to apply to college. Both large and small colleges have their advantages, but it all really depends on what type of school will provide the best learning experience for you on a personal level. In this article, I’ll give you details about the types of experiences you can expect from small colleges and whether you should consider putting them first in your college search. What Is a Small College? A small college is typically defined as a college with a student enrollment of less than 5,000.Small colleges are characterized by more individual attention from professors and advisors, smaller class sizes, and a greater sense of community amongst students.However, they may also have fewer resources than large colleges and a less diverse social scene. Examples of small colleges include: Amherst CollegeDavidson CollegeHarvey Mudd CollegeSwarthmore CollegeWilliams College Here are some lists of the general pros and cons of small colleges: Pros Classes are usually taught by professors, not TAs, and you’ll get more of a hands-on learning experience. Many small colleges have great advising systems where students know their advisors well and have access to a lot of strong academic guidance. Classes are usually smaller even at the introductory level. Though some large colleges may cite similar student-teacher ratios to small colleges, this can be deceptive since they may be including TAs in their statistics or not factoring in the large introductory classes. You’ll run into people you know wherever you go, so you’re less likely to feel lonely. Often small colleges will allow you to design your own major that isn’t specifically offered by the school or modify majors to fit your needs. There’s usually a close-knit community feel, almost like you’re a part of a big nerdy family. You may find that there are more leadership opportunities in a smaller community. Cons Small colleges tend to have fewer research facilities and resources than large colleges. This mainly applies to the hard sciences where expensive, high-tech equipment is required for advanced research. In the humanities, the lack of cutting-edge facilities may not impact research as much. If you don't find the research materials you need in the library at a small college, many libraries are in partnership with a network of other college libraries that may have what you're looking for. It will just involve waiting a bit longer for things to be sent to you. The social scene can be less diverse and might feel claustrophobic. You won’t see big sporting events at the level of large colleges. There is usually less variety in housing choices.To give you sense of the contrast, NYU, a school with over 20,000 undergraduates, has 21 different residence halls that include old hotels and a converted monastery. This is a huge range of accomodations compared to the four residence halls you'll find at a place like Manhattanville College, which has less than 2,000 undergraduates. There may be fewer major choices (although you can usually design your own or modify your major without too much trouble). You might have less extracurricular opportunities, but you can always start your own club if you can’t find what you’re looking for! Those were some abstract pluses and minuses of small colleges. Next, we’ll take a look at how real students at schools with enrollments of 5,000 or less actually feel about the small college environment. Small Colleges: What Do Students Actually Think? The Fiske Guide to Colleges is a guidebook that provides information about the best colleges in the country based on statistics and student testimony.I picked out a few small colleges from the book and looked at quotes from students that gave details about different characteristics of the schools that related to their size.Here’s how students feel about the benefits and drawbacks of small colleges, based on my brief sampling: Manhattanville College- Purchase, NY Enrollment: 1,977 One student says, â€Å"I like how our president is involved in everything and gets to know everyone†.Students describe career services as â€Å"phenomenal†.They also say professors are â€Å"knowledgeable and passionate about their fields and about sharing that knowledge with students† and â€Å"it just feels like all the students belong to one big family†.However, size can be â€Å"an asset and an annoyance...the familial atmosphere can get claustrophobic at times†. Manhattanville allows students to design their own majors, and "those studying psychology, biology, or chemistry can conduct research with faculty." Pomona College- Claremont, CA Enrollment: 1,579 Pomona â€Å"prides itself on its diverse community†, so you don’t necessarily need to go to a huge school to access diversity.However, during midterms and finals campus can be a â€Å"social ghost town†.The Summer Undergraduate Research Program gives funds to students to conduct summer research mentored by a faculty member. Research opportunities still abound at small colleges, especially if they are highly regarded. Professors often hold study sessions at their houses, and73% of classes have less than 20 students.Only professors teach classes, so â€Å"students do not have to wait until they are upperclassmen to enjoy the benefits of working with and learning from brilliant professors†. Pomona also has the advantage of being part of a 5 college system called the â€Å"Claremont Colleges†, whose collective enrollment exceeds 5,000 students.This means that there’s a small college atmosphere, but through interactions with the other schools in the system it can feel more like a medium-sized school depending on who you are. Carleton College-Northfield, MN Enrollment: 2,035 Sixty-four percent of classes have less than 20 students.Students say, â€Å"Our profs are incredible. The instruction we receive is available not just in the classroom but during office hours, phone calls, Skype sessions, and many other modes of communication†.Students are â€Å"concerned about building a community feeling on campus† and â€Å"everyone is a bit nerdy and everyone is free to be whomever they want†. Carleton's on-campus social life is vibrant, and "most students stay on campus over the weekends because there is always so much happening." Many small colleges do have quite a bit going on in their social scenes, just with less variation in location and in smaller groups than at large universities. Students say that Carleton's surrounding town of Northfield is "quaint, but there's not much to do". Carleton College: Dat foliage Should YOU Go to a Small College? After taking all this information into account, you may still not be entirely sure whether you should go to a small college.A small college might or might not work for your college goals and personality, or some small colleges might work and some might not.To decide whether a small college is best for you, you’ll need to do a bit of reflection about your ideal learning environment and social scene. Do you thrive better in situations where you are given more academic guidance and direct access to teachers?Small colleges will offer you smaller class sizes on average and more opportunities to interact with professors on a personal level.You will also have access to advisors who will help you devise a plan for your academic career.Resources like these are helpful for students who are less sure of their path in college and may need extra guidance. What are your academic goals?If you’re looking into doing some sort of research, you should check and make sure small colleges have the resources you’ll need.As mentioned above, sometimes small colleges are lacking in the same advanced research facilities you’ll find at large schools. However, they usually offer many opportunities to work closely with professors. If you’re one for blazing your own trail major-wise, a small college may be a great option for you because you will most likely be able to design your own major rather than adhering to program constraints.There’s usually less bureaucratic red tape involved in switching majors and classes at small colleges than at large colleges because advisors and professors can afford to give more specialized attention to the needs of individual students.If everyone in the process knows you and you’re not just handing in paperwork to be processed, things don’t need to be as rigidly organized. Do you prefer familiar situations and interactions over new, unfamiliar ones?The social transition from high school to college can be smoother if you attend a small college.Even if you just make a couple of friends initially, you’re likely to see them around frequently. You'll be able to make strong social connections with other students more easily since almost everyone has some activity, class, or living situation in common at a small college.If you’re more of an introverted type who’s not going to college for the big parties, then the small college social scene may appeal to you as well (not that small colleges don’t have parties, they’re just a little less on the crazy side than big colleges!). Searching for Small Colleges So you’ve decided you’re interested in small colleges - how do you find one that you’ll like?I would recommend using College Navigator initially because you can easily search for schools by size (choose a maximum enrollment of 5,000 if you’re looking for small schools) as well as other characteristics like surrounding area and admissions rate.Just click on â€Å"more search options† at the bottom of the search panel to get access to the undergraduate student enrollment search feature. Your results will give you a list of schools you might be interested in, and f you click on any of them, you’ll get extensive data about all aspects of the school. You can also add schools to your â€Å"favorites† and compare the statistics side by side to see if one fits better with your tuition or admissions requirements.After this initial search, you should try out some other college search sites to get more details about campus life and other factors that might affect your college experience. I’d recommend signing up for a profile on Cappex. If you fill out information for all of your preferences, including student enrollment, it will find appropriate college matches for you.You can also search outright for any colleges that you found on College Navigator that looked interesting to you.You’ll find a lot more data on Cappex about life at the schools including student reviews and other information about the area and the social scene.Every school is different, so make sure size is just a starting point and not a deciding factor. Summary Small colleges are usually defined by a strong sense of community, individual academic attention, and flexible, hands-on learning experiences.Students at small colleges tend to take a lot of pride in their schools and cherish the comfortable, familiar atmosphere.You may consider attending a small college if strong relationships with your teachers and classmates are important to you and you feel you will benefit from more individually tailored academic guidance.If you prefer a more toned-down social scene and like being able to see the same small group of friends more frequently, the small college life will also probably appeal to you. That being said, be sure to treat each college individually and not judge it just by its enrollment size.Small colleges might appeal to you in a general sense, but that doesn’t mean you can choose just any small college and be happy.Devote some time to figuring out your wants and needs in tandem with your research so you can find your ideal school. What's Next? Still struggling with how to go about choosing a college that's right for you? Read my step-by-step guide on how to choose the best schools for your personality and academic goals. Planning on applying to a bunch of different schools with a variety of application requirements? Learn how to build the most versatile college application. If you're worried about how your standardized test scores may affect your chances of college admission, read about when these scores might not matter for you in the admissions process. Want to improve your SAT score by 240 points or your ACT score by 4 points?We've written a guide for each test about the top 5 strategies you must be using to have a shot at improving your score. Download it for free now:

Case Briefing and Problem Solving

doesn’t owe an ethical duty to remove the product from the market unless the company doesn’t warn its customers of the danger they can meet upon misuse of the product. If the company takes all the measures to warn their customers of the danger of the product once it’s misused, customers have knowledge of the risk and voluntarily assume it. For example, the use of any antibiotics with the alcohol can lead to many harmful processes and activities. Nevertheless, pharmaceutical companies don’t remove these products from the market because of that. It’s a customer’s responsibility to use the product properly. Case problems 8–1 Business Ethics. Jason Trevor owns a commercial bakery in Blakely, Georgia, that produces a variety of goods sold in grocery stores. Trevor is required by law to perform internal tests on food produced at his plant to check for contamination. Three times in 2008, the tests of food products that contained peanut butter were positive for salmonella contamination. Trevor was not required to report the results to U. S. Food and Drug Administration officials, however, so he did not. Instead, Trevor instructed his employees to simply repeat the tests until the outcome was negative. Therefore, the products that had originally tested positive for salmonella were eventually shipped out to retailers. Five people who ate Trevor’s baked goods in 2008 became seriously ill, and one person died from salmonella. Even though Trevor’s conduct was legal, was it unethical for him to sell goods that had once tested positive for salmonella? If Trevor had followed the six basic guidelines for making ethical business decisions, would he still have sold the contaminated goods? Why or why not? The issue in this case problem is whether Trevor’s actions were unethical. In my opinion it was unethical for Jason Trevor to sell goods that had once tested positive for salmonella. Salmonella is a bacterium that can cause many illnesses. Two basic ethical approaches can be applied to this case. Firstly, Trevor should’ve thought about his customers from the religious position. He could’ve foreseen that products positive tested on salmonella would harm people inevitably. Secondly, he had to consider the outcome of this sale. He didn’t think about the consequences that can follow. He acted negligent by letting his employees ship the products to the retailers. If Trevor followed the six basic guidelines for making ethical business decisions he would not have sold the contaminated goods to the public. Having five people seriously ill and one person died because of the contaminated products harms the name of the brand associated with this incident. Thus, company loses its customers and, as a result, part of the revenues. I think Trevor also should feel guilty about what happened to those people meaning that on the Conscience step, which is the 4th guideline, he would’ve reconsidered his actions and probably changed his mind. I guess he would’ve not been happy to be interviewed about the actions he was about to take. And the next step, which is Promises to his customers, would’ve made him doubt his decisions because of the trust of the customers that he held in his hands. And I am sure Trevor’s hero would not have acted the way that can harm people. Thus, Trevor would not have sold the contaminated goods had he followed the basic guidelines for making ethical business decisions. Brody v. Transitional Hospitals Corporation United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 280 F. 3d 997 (9th Cir. 2002). http://caselaw. findlaw. com/us-9th-circuit/1019105. html FACTS Jules Brody and Joyce T. Crawford filed a class action complaint against Transitional Hospitals Corporation (THC) and its officers on August 28, 1997 accusing THC of unlawful insider trading after THC bought 800,000 shares of its stock between February 26 and February 28 without first disclosing that Vencor and other parties had expressed interest in THC. In addition, Brody and Crawford claimed that THC, in its March 19 and April 24 press releases, materially misled them about THC’s intention to sell the company. The district court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the claims. The plaintiffs appealed to the US Court of Appeal, Ninth Circuit. ISSUE Are Brody and Crawford the proper plaintiffs to sue THC for damages for violation of the statute and rule? regarding the insider trading? DECISION No. US Court of Appeal, Ninth circuit, affirmed the district court’s decision to dismiss Brody and Crawford’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. REASON The Court noted that plaintiffs did not meet a contemporaneous trading requirement, a judicially-created standing requirement, which specified in Section 14(e) and Rule 14e-3 that the plaintiffs must have traded in a company’s stock at about the same time as the alleged insider. In addition, the Court decided that the plaintiffs’ complaint must specify the reason or reasons why the statements made by THC in its press releases were misleading. Brody and Crawford argued that in order for statement not to be misleading, â€Å"once disclosure is made, there is a duty to make it complete and accurate†, for which the Court found no support in the case law. The case law? only prohibits misleading and untrue statements, not statements that are incomplete. FOOTNOTES: ? Sections 10(b), 14(e), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U. S. C.  §Ã‚ § 78j (b), 78n (e), and 78t (a), and Rules 10b-5 and 14e 3, 17 C. F. R.  §Ã‚ § 240. 10b-5 and 240. 14e-3, promulgated thereunder by the Securities Exchange Commission (â€Å"SEC†) ? Rule 10b-5 and Section 14(e) Full case: BRODY v. TRANSITIONAL HOSPITALS CORPORATION Jules BRODY; Joyce T. Crawford, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TRANSITIONAL HOSPITALS CORPORATION; Wendy L. Simpson; Richard L. Conte, Defendants-Appellees. No.? 99-15672. Argued and Submitted July 11, 2001. — February 07, 2002 Before: HALL, WARDLAW and BERZON, Circuit Judges. Jeffrey S. Abraham, New York, NY, for the plaintiffs-appellants. Mark R. McDonald, Morrison Foerster, Los Angeles, CA, for the defendants-appellees. In this case we address several securities fraud issues, centering on whether a plaintiff must have traded at about the same time as the insider it allege violated securities laws. ? Jules Brody and Joyce T. Crawford brought suit against Transitional Hospital Corporation (â€Å"THC† or â€Å"the company†) and its officers claiming violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (â€Å"Exchange Act†) and state law because the defendants both traded in reliance on inside information and released misleading public information. ? The district court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Brody and Crawford now appeal the district court’s order on several grounds. BACKGROUND In determining whether the complaint states a claim upon which relief could be granted, we assume the facts alleged in the complaint to be true. ?Ronconi v. Larkin, 253 F. 3d 423, 427 (9th Cir. 2001). ? The facts alleged in the complaint are as f ollows: THC was a Nevada corporation that delivered long-term acute care services through hospitals and satellite facilities across the United States. ? In August 1996, the company announced its plan to buy back from time to time on the open market up to $25 million in company stock. Two months later, THC expanded the repurchase plan to $75 million. On February 24, 1997, Vencor, Inc. submitted to THC’s board of directors a written offer to acquire the company for $11. 50 per share. ? THC did not disclose this offer publicly. ? Between February 26 and February 28, THC purchased 800,000 shares of its own stock at an average price of $9. 25 per share. ? This $7. 4 million buy-back was in addition to another $21. 1 million that THC had spent purchasing its stock in the three month period that ended on February 28, 1997. The plaintiffs do not allege that the total repurchase exceeded $75 million. THC issued a press release on March 19, 1997, detailing the progress and extent of it s stock repurchase program. ? The press release did not mention Vencor or any other party’s interest in acquiring THC. The plaintiffs argue that because of this omission, the March press release was misleading. On April 1, 1997, Vencor increased its offer to purchase THC to $13 per share. ? In the next few weeks, THC also received offers from two other competing bidders. ? On April 24, after receiving all hree offers, THC issued another press release, stating that the company had â€Å"received expressions of interest from certain parties who have indicated an interest in acquiring† it. ? The same document also stated that THC had hired â€Å"financial advisers to advise the company in connection with a possible sale. † ? The plaintiffs argue that this press release was also misleading; because it did not state that substantial due diligence had already taken place, that THC had received competing offers exceeding $13 per share, or that a THC board meeting would take place two days later to consider these offers. At the board meeting, the THC board voted to negotiate a merger agreement with Select Medical Corporation (â€Å"Select†). ? On May 4, THC publicly announced that it and Select had entered into a definitive merger agreement and that Select would purchase THC at $14. 55 per share. ? Vencor thereupon threatened a hostile takeover. ? To fend off that maneuver, THC ultimately agreed, on June 12, to a takeover by Vencor rather than Select, at $16 per share. Brody and Crawford sold shares at times that sandwich the April 24 press release. ? Two days before that press release was issued, Crawford sold 500 shares at $8. 75 per share. ? Brody sold 3,000 shares of THC stock at $10. 50 per share on April 24, just after the press release was made public. ? The plaintiffs argue that had they not been misled by THC, they would have held onto their shares, and benefitted from their subsequent increase in value. Brody and Crawford filed a class action complaint against THC and its officers on August 28, 1997. ? In addition to alleging violations of Nevada state law, Brody and Crawford alleged violations of Sections 10(b), 14(e), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U. S. C.  §Ã‚ §? 78j(b), 78n(e), and 78t(a), and Rules 10b-5 and 14e 3, 17 C. F. R.  §Ã‚ §? 240. 10b-5 and 240. 14e-3, promulgated thereunder by the Securities Exchange Commission (â€Å"SEC†). ? These claims focus on two aspects of THC’s course of action: Brody and Crawford accuse the company of illegal insider trading because THC repurchased 800,000 shares of its stock between February 26 and February 28 without first disclosing that Vencor and other parties had expressed interest in THC. In addition, Brody and Crawford claim that THC, in its March 19 and April 24 press releases, materially misled them about THC’s progress toward its eventual merger. The district court dismissed all of Brody and Crawford’s claims. ? In so doing, the district court held that Brody and Crawford are not proper parties to assert any insider trading claims, as Brody and Crawford did not trade contemporaneously with THC. In addition, the district court decided that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under Rule 10b-5 or any other law based on materially misleading information, as the press releases were not misleading under the applicable standards. The plaintiffs appeal these aspects of the district court’s dismissal. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure Rule 12(b)(6). ?Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F. 3d 734, 737 (9th Cir. 2001). DISCUSSION A.? Insider Trading As they pertain to insider trading, Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, Section 14(e) and Rule 14e-3 make it illegal in some circumstances for those possessing inside information about a company to trade in that company’s securities unless they first disclose the information. See, e. g. , United States v. Smith, 155 F. 3d 1051, 1063-64 (9th Cir. 998). ? This type of prohibition is known as an â€Å"abstain or disclose† rule, because it requires insiders either to abstain from trading or to disclose the inside information that they possess. The district court dismissed the insider trading claims, holding that the named plaintiffs could not assert them because they did not trade contemporaneously with THC. On appeal, Brody and Crawford argue that nothing in the applicable securities laws requires investors to have traded contemporaneously with insiders in order to maintain a suit for insider trading. In addition, they argue that even if such a requirement exists, they in fact did trade contemporaneously with THC. 1.? Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 Neither section 10(b)1 nor Rule 10b-52 contain an express right of action for private parties. ? The Supreme Court has h eld, however, that proper plaintiffs may sue for damages for violation of the statute and rule. ? See Superintendent of Ins. v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co. , 404 U. S. 6, 13 n. 9, 92 S. Ct. 165, 30 L. Ed. 2d 128 (1971). Because neither the statute nor the rule contains an express right of action, they also do not delineate who is a proper plaintiff. ? In the absence of explicit Congressional guidance, courts have developed various â€Å"standing† limitations, primarily on policy bases. 3 For example, in Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U. S. 723, 95 S. Ct. 1917, 44 L. Ed. 2d 539 (1975), the Supreme Court held that to bring an insider trading claim under Rule 10b-5, a plaintiff must have traded in the same stock or other securities as the insider trader. The contemporaneous trading requirement, at issue in this case, is another judicially-created standing requirement, specifying that to bring an insider trading claim, the plaintiff must have traded in a company’ s stock at about the same time as the alleged insider. ?In Neubronner v. Milken, 6 F. 3d 666, 669 (9th Cir. 1993), the Ninth Circuit adopted a contemporaneous trading requirement for Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 actions. ? See also In re Worlds of Wonder Sec. Litig. , 35 F. 3d 1407, 1427 (9th Cir. 1994). Neubronner explained that two reasons animate this rule: First, â€Å"noncontemporaneous traders do not require the protection of the ‘disclose or abstain’ rule because they do not suffer the disadvantage of trading with someone who has superior access to information. † ? 6 F. 3d at 669-70 (quoting Wilson v. Comtech Telecommunications Corp. , 648 F. 2d 88, 94 95 (2d Cir. 1981)). ? Second, the contemporaneous trading requirement puts reasonable limits on Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5’s reach; without such a limitation, an insider defendant could be liable to a very large number of parties. Id. at 670. Brody and Crawford offer two reasons why the contemporane ous trading rule adopted in Neubronner should not here apply. ? First, they argue that the rule does not make sense, as a matter of statutory interpretation. ? In other words, they request that we declare that Neubronner’s interpretation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 was incorrect. ? Although the decision in Neubronner is not beyond debate, we do not consider the question further, as a Ninth Circuit panel may not overrule a prior Ninth Circuit decision. ?Hart v. Massanari, 266 F. 3d 1155, 1171 (9th Cir. 2001). Brody and Crawford attempt to avoid this precedential barrier by claiming that Neubronner’s implementation of the contemporaneous rule was dictum, and therefore not binding on us. ? It was not. ?Neubronner explicitly described its ruling regarding the contemporaneous trading requirement as a â€Å"holding. † ? 6 F. 3d at 670. ? In addition, the determination was a necessary predicate for the case’s ultimate conclusion that contemporaneous trading must be pleaded with particularity. ? Id. at 673. Brody and Crawford’s second submission in avoidance of Neubronner is that United States v. O’Hagan, 521 U. S. 642, 117 S. Ct. 2199, 138 L. Ed. 2d 724 (1997), overruled Neubronner. ? That assertion is simply wrong. ? O’Hagan, which was a criminal case, addressed neither the contemporaneous trading requirement in private actions nor any other standing rule. ? Instead, by approving of an expansive concept of who qualifies as an insider under Section 10(b), the Supreme Court in O’Hagan clarified that more defendants may be liable under Section 10(b) than some courts have previously thought. ? Id. at 650, 117 S. Ct. 2199. ? In so doing, the Supreme Court did not alter pre-existing notions concerning whom insiders harm when they trade based on privileged information. Brody and Crawford next argue that even if the Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 contemporaneous trading requirements remain, the court should define contemporaneous trades as trades that take place within six months of one another. ? Under this definition, Brody and Crawford would have standing, as they sold their stock just under two months after they allege THC bought the large block of stock in February. [3]? In Neubronner, this court did not decide the length of the contemporaneous trading period for insider trading violations under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, 6 F. d at 670, nor has this court decided the question since. ? Because the two-month time period presented by the facts of this case exceeds any possible delineation of a contemporaneous trading period, it is not necessary in this case either to define the exact contours of the period. ? We simply note that a contemporaneous trading period of two months would gut the contemporaneous trading rule’s premise-that there is a need to filter out plaintiffs who could not possibly have traded with the insider, given the manner in which public trades are transacted. 2.? Section 14(e) and Rule 14e-3 Brody and Crawford also argue that the district court erred in dismissing their claims under Section 14(e)4 and Rule 14e-35 by holding that insider trading actions brought under Section 14(e) and Rule 14e-3 must also conform to a contemporaneous trading requirement. ? In making this argument, the plaintiffs urge that we hold for them on two matters of first impression: (1) whether a private right of action exists under Rule 14e-3; and (2) if a private right of action does exist, whether it contains a contemporaneous standing requirement. We can assume, without deciding, that a private right of action exists under Rule 14e-3, for we see no reason why the same contemporaneous trading rule that applies under Rule 10b-5 would not apply in such an action. ?As noted, this court has definitively adopted a contemporaneous trading requirement under Rule 10b-5. ? Although Rule 14e-3 differs in some respects from Rule 10b-5, (and was adopted in order to plug some ho les the SEC perceived in Rule 10b-5),6 its core, like the core of Rule 10b-5, is an â€Å"abstain or disclose† requirement. And, as is true of the â€Å"abstain or disclose† requirement of Rule 10b-5, the similar requirement of Rule 14e-3 is designed to prevent the disadvantage that inheres in trading with an insider with superior access to information. ?45 Fed. Reg. 60411-12 (1980). ? So we would have to have some excellent reason to adopt a different standing rule under Rule 14e 3 from the one we use under Rule 10b-5. ? We are convinced that there is no basis for drawing such a distinction. The best candidate appellants have advanced as a basis for differentiating the standing requirement under the two Rules is Plaine v. McCabe, 797 F. d 713 (9th Cir. 1986). ?Plaine held that a plaintiff suing under Section 14(e) need not have traded at all, let alone contemporaneously. ? Id. at 718. The fulcrum of Plaine was a distinction suggested by Piper v. Chris-Craft Indus. , I nc. , 430 U. S. 1, 38-39, 97 S. Ct. 926, 51 L. Ed. 2d 124 (1977), between the types of shareholder protections contained in Sections 10(b) and 14(e): Piper noted that while Section 10(b) was enacted to protect only individuals who actually traded in stocks, Section 14(e) can be understood as protecting not only those who buy or sell stocks but also shareholders who decide not to trade. 430 U. S. at 38-39, 97 S. Ct. 926. ? Because Rule 14e-3 was promulgated under Section 14(e), the argument that a plaintiff who alleges insider trading under Section 14(e) or Rule 14e-3 need not worry about the contemporaneous trading requirement-because he need not have traded at all-has some initial plausibility. On a closer examination, however, Plaine does not speak to the issue at hand. Rather, Plaine focused only on non-insider trading claims brought under Section 14(e), and did not consider the standing requirements for an insider trading claim brought under Rule 14e-3. Section 14(e) broadly pro hibits â€Å"fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative acts or practices, in connection with any tender offer;† it does not contain any specific reference to insider trading. ? Rule 14e-3, on the other hand, focuses on one type of behavior, insider trading, whose prohibition is thought to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative acts. ? See O’Hagan, 521 U. S. at 672-73, 117 S. Ct. 2199. ? In accordance with its specific, prophylactic focus, Rule 14e-3 applies to a different set of behaviors than does Section 14(e): Section 14(e) centers on the actual tender offer, whereas Rule 14e-3 regulates illegal insider trading that takes place while a tender offer is under consideration. ? As appellants’ brief states, â€Å"[a]ll the elements of a Section 14(e)/Rule 14e-3 insider trading violation are supplied by the language of Rule 14e-3. A comparison of the facts in Plaine with the facts in this case illustrates the difference between the Section 14(e) claim conside red in Plaine and the Rule 14e-3 claim considered here. ? Plaine held shares in a company subject to a tender offer. ? She complained that false information in proxy materials had induced other shareholders to tender their shares. ? Because so many other shareholders tendered their shares, the merger went through at a price Plaine viewed as inadequate. Although Plaine did not tender her shares, the court ruled that she alleged injury occurring as a result of fraudulent activity in connection with a tender offer and had standing to assert her claim. ?797 F. 2d at 717. ? Plaine did not, however, allege insider trading, and therefore could not have made out a claim under Rule 14e-3. Brody and Crawford, on the other hand, did allege insider trading but did not allege that THC manipulated the tender offer process through the use of false information or by any other means. ? As such, the facts in the current case present a very different situation than that presented in Plaine. The circum stances do, however, bear a much closer resemblance to those in Neubronner, a Rule 10b-5 case centering around accusations of insider trading in violation of an abstain-or-disclose requirement. ? See Neubronner, 6 F. 3d at 667. Despite the similarities of the issues here and in Neubronner and between Rules 10b-5 and 14e-3, as applied to insider trading allegations, Brody and Crawford emphasize the differences between the Rules. ? Unlike Rule 10b-5, Rule 14e-3 does not require proof that a person traded on information obtained in violation of a duty owed to the source of the inside information. Instead, Rule 14e-3(a) creates a duty for a person with inside information to abstain or disclose â€Å"without regard to whether the trader owes a pre-existing fiduciary duty to respect the confidentiality of the information. † ? O’Hagan, 521 U. S. at 669, 117 S. Ct. 2199 (quoting United States v. Chestman, 947 F. 2d 551, 557 (2d Cir. 1991) (en banc)). ? Although Rule 14e-3 thus expands the notion of who is an insider, it does not follow that the Rule also expands the class of shareholders who may complain when an insider trades without disclosing insider information. As a result, the fact that Rule 10b-5 and Rule 14e-3 are not identical does not lead to the conclusion that one has a contemporaneous trading requirement and the other does not. More importantly, perhaps, in this case, the allegation is that THC traded in its own stock on the basis of inside information. ? Such allegations would state a â€Å"†¦Ã¢â‚¬Ëœtraditional’ or ‘classical’ theory of insider trading liability [under] Rule 10b-5 based on ‘a relationship of trust and confidence between the shareholders of a corporation and those insiders who have obtained information by reason of their position with that corporation. †¦Ã¢â‚¬  ? O’Hagan, 521 U. S. at 651-652, 117 S. Ct. 2199 (quoting Chiarella, 445 U. S. at 228, 100 S. Ct. 1108). ? As such, this case is one that could be-and indeed, was-brought under both Rule 10b-5 and Rule 14e-3, and as to which any differences between the two rules regarding the necessary relationship between the insider and the source of information is not relevant. Brody and Crawford note another reason that, they argue, suggests an expansive reading of Rule 14e-3 is appropriate. In O’Hagan, the Supreme Court ruled that the SEC is permitted to promulgate rules under Section 14(e), such as Rule 14e-3, that prohibit acts not themselves fraudulent under the common law if the rules are reasonably designed to prevent acts that are. ?521 U. S. at 671-73, 117 S. Ct. 2199. ? This authority derives from the prophylactic rule-making power granted to the SEC by Section 14(e), a power that has no parallel in Section 10(b). ?Id. That the SEC had more power to protect investors when it promulgated Rule 14e-3 than it did when it promulgated Rule 10b-5 does not mean, however, that the SEC exercised that power so as to protect noncontemporaneous traders under Rule 14e-3. ? And, in fact, what evidence there is demonstrates that the SEC did not intend to protect investors who could not have possibly traded with the insiders. In O’Hagan, the Supreme Court quoted at length from and afforded deference to the SEC’s explanation of why it promulgated Rule 14e-3. Part of the Federal Register excerpt quoted in O’Hagan stated: The Commission has previously expressed and continues to have serious concerns about trading by persons in possession of material, nonpublic information relating to a tender offer. ? This practice results in unfair disparities in market information and market disruption. ? Security holders who purchase from or sell to such persons are effectively denied the benefits of disclosure and the substantive protections of the [legislation that includes Section 14(e)]. 21 U. S. at 674, 117 S. Ct. 2199 (quoting 45 Fed. Reg. 60412 (1980)). This quotation evinces a particular concern for those who â€Å"purchase from or sell to† insiders, and suggests that these shareholders, and not others who trade later, are the intended beneficiaries of Rule 14e-3. ? The contemporaneous trading requirement, designed to limit the class of potential plaintiffs to only those who could have possibly traded with the insider, is therefore precisely congruent with the SEC’s expressed purpose in promulgating Rule 14e-3. In sum, Rule 10b-5 and Rule 14e-3 contain similar insider trading prohibitions, triggered by similar concerns. ? While Rule 14e-3 focuses on the tender offer context, the background history and language of Rule 14e-3 indicate that the Rule does not alter the premise that a shareholder must have traded with an insider or have traded at about the same time as an insider to be harmed by the insider’s trading. ? We conclude that there is no principled distinction between Rules 10b-5 and 14e-3 as regards the need for a contemporaneous trading allegation. We therefore extend the contemporaneous trading requirement to insider trading actions brought under Section 14(e) and Rule 14e-3 actions. ? Because Brody and Crawford traded nearly two months after they allege THC traded, they did not trade contemporaneously with THC. The district court was correct in dismissing their Rule 14e-3 insider trading claims. B.? Misrepresentation We next consider a different set of concerns addressed by the securities laws: Rule 10b-5 and Section 14(e)’s explicit prohibition against the making of untrue or misleading statements. The plaintiffs do not maintain that either press release issued by THC was untrue. ? They do argue, though, that THC violated the prohibitions against making misleading statements when it issued the two press releases here at issue. ? In order to survive a motion to dismiss under the heightened pleading standards of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (â€Å"PSLRA†), the plaintiffs’ complaint must spe cify the reason or reasons why the statements made by THC were misleading. ?15 U. S. C.  §? 78u-4(b) (1); see also Ronconi, 253 F. 3d at 429. As an initial matter, Brody and Crawford correctly assert that a statement that is literally true can be misleading and thus actionable under the securities laws. ? See In re GlenFed Sec. Litig. , 42 F. 3d 1541, 1551 (9th Cir. 1994). ? But they err when they argue that in order for a statement not to be misleading, â€Å"once a disclosure is made, there is a duty to make it complete and accurate. † This proposition has no support in the case law. ?Rule 10b-5 and Section 14(e) in terms prohibit only misleading and untrue statements, not statements that are incomplete. Similarly, the primary case upon which Brody and Crawford rely for their innovative completeness rule supports only a rule requiring that parties not mislead. ? Virginia Bankshares, Inc. v. Sandberg, 501 U. S. 1083, 1098 n. 7, 111 S. Ct. 2749, 115 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1991). ? Often, a statement will not mislead even if it is incomplete or does not include all relevant facts. 8 ? Further, a completeness rule such as Brody and Crawford suggest could implicate nearly all public statements potentially affecting securities sales or tender offers. No matter how detailed and accurate disclosure statements are, there are likely to be additional details that could have been disclosed but were not. ? To be actionable under the securities laws, an omission must be misleading; in other words it must affirmatively create an impression of a state of affairs that differs in a material way from the one that actually exists. ? See McCormick v. The Fund American Cos. , 26 F. 3d 869, 880 (9th Cir. 1994). We conclude that neither Rule 10b-5 nor Section 14(e) contains a freestanding completeness requirement; the requirement is that any public statements companies make that could affect security sales or tender offers not be misleading or untrue. ? Thus, in order to survive a motion to dismiss under the heightened pleading standards of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (â€Å"PSLRA†), the plaintiffs’ complaint must specify the reason or reasons why the statements made by THC were misleading or untrue, not simply why the statements were incomplete. 15 U. S. C.  §? 78u-4(b) (1); see also Ronconi, 253 F. 3d at 429. ?Brody and Crawford’s allegations do not comport with this requirement. ? They allege, first, that the press release issued on March 19 was misleading because it provided information about THC’s stock repurchase program but did not contain information regarding THC’s possible takeover. ? Although Brody and Crawford specify what inf ormation THC omitted, they do not indicate why the statement THC made was misleading. ? If the press elease had affirmatively intimated that no merger was imminent, it may well have been misleading. ? The actual press release, however, neither stated nor implied anything regarding a merger. ?Brody and Crawford also claim that THC’s second press release, issued on April 24, was misleading. ? Again, the plaintiffs do not argue that the press release was untrue. ? Instead, they argue that it was misleading because it stated generally that THC had received â€Å"expressions of interest† from potential acquirers, when in fact it had received actual proposals from three different parties. Importantly, the complaint does not provide an explanation as to why this general statement was misleading, nor is it self-evident that it was. A proposal is certainly an â€Å"expression of interest. † ? Moreover, the press release did not simply state that there had been vague â₠¬Å"expressions of interest;† it went on to state that the â€Å"expressions† were â€Å"from certain parties who have indicated an interest in acquiring either the entire company or in acquiring the company, with the company’s shareholders retaining their pro rata interests in Behavioral Healthcare Corporation [a THC subsidiary]. ? This specificity concerning the nature of the parties’ proposals certainly suggests that something more than preliminary inquiries had taken place. Further, the press release additionally stated that the â€Å"Board of Directors has engaged financial advisors to advise the company in connection with a possible sale. † ? This additional information again suggested proposals that were concrete enough to be taken seriously. ? And the reference to multiple parties contained in the press release suggests an ongoing auction for THC was taking place with at least two participants. In short, the press release did not give the impression that THC had not received actual proposals from three parties or otherwise mislead readers about the stage of the negotiations. ? Instead, although the press release did not provide all the information that THC possessed about its possible sale, the information THC did provide-and the reasonable inferences one could draw from that information-were entirely consistent with the more detailed explanation of the merger process that Brody and Crawford argue the press release should have included. Put another way, Brody, if he read the press release, would have been on notice, before he sold his shares, of the distinct possibility that the value of the shares would increase in the near future because of a takeover contest. 9 [11] Because Brody and Crawford have not alleged facts indicating that THC’s April 24 press release was misleading, the district court properly dismissed that aspect of the plaintiffs’ complaint. CON CLUSION Brody and Crawford have not met the contemporaneous trading requirements necessary to have standing in the insider trading claims they assert. Additionally, they have failed properly to allege misrepresentation against THC. As a result, we affirm the district court’s decision to dismiss Brody and Crawford’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. AFFIRMED FOOTNOTES 1. ?Section 10, in relevant part, states: It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce or of the mails, or of any facility of any national securities exchange-?..... b)? To use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security registered on a national securities exchange or any security not so registered, or any securities-based swap agreement (as defined in section 206B of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act), any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contraventio n of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors. 2. Rule 10b-5 states: It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange,(a)? To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,(b)? To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or(c)? To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security. 3. ?These â€Å"standing† limitations are not, of course of the constitutional variety, grounded in Article III of the Constitution, but simply delineate the scope of the implied cause of action. 4. ?Section 14(e) states: It shall be unlawful for any person to make any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to tate any material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading, or to engage in any fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative acts or practices, in connection with any tender offer or request or invitation for tenders, or any solicitation of security holders in opposition to or in favor of any such offer, request, or invitation. ? The Commission shall, for the purposes of this subsection, by rules and regulat ions define, and prescribe means reasonably designed to prevent, such acts and practices as are fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative. . ?Rule 14e-3(a) states:(a)? If any person has taken a substantial step or steps to commence, or has commenced, a tender offer (the â€Å"offering person†), it shall constitute a fraudulent, deceptive or manipulative act or practice within the meaning of section 14(e) of the Act for any other person who is in possession of material information relating to such tender offer which information he knows or has reason to know is nonpublic and which he knows or has reason to know has been acquired directly or indirectly from:(1)? The offering person,(2)? The issuer of the securities sought or to be sought by such tender offer, or(3)? Any officer, director, partner or employee or any other person acting on behalf of the offering person or such issuer, to purchase or sell or cause to be purchased or sold any of such securities or any securities convertible into or exchangeable for any such securities or any option or right to obtain or to dispose of any of the foregoing securities, unless within a reasonable time prior to any purchase or sale such information and its source are publicly disclosed by press release or otherwise. 6. ?Chiarella v. United States, 445 U. S. 222, 100 S. Ct. 1108, 63 L. Ed. d 348 (1980), considered, but did not decide, the viability of a misappropriation theory of liability under Rule 10b-5. ?445 U. S. at 235-37, 100 S. Ct. 1108. ?(A misappropriation theory extends liability to some parties who trade in a company’s securities on the basis of confidential information but who have no special relationship with the company’s shareholders. ) Following Chiarella, the SEC promulgate d Rule 14e-3, which clearly creates liability for insiders who trade in connection with a tender offer and do not disclose the inside information, regardless of their relationship to the shareholders or the source of the information. Then in 1997, the Supreme Court decided O’Hagan, answering the question left open by Chiarella and deciding that Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 do create liability under a misappropriation theory. ?521 U. S. at 650, 117 S. Ct. 2199. ? The upshot is that Rules 10b-5 and 14e-3 largely overlap with regard to the scope of insider trader liability, although they differ in some respects not here pertinent. ? See p. 1004, infra. 7. As we discuss below, in O’Hagan the Supreme Court approved Rule 14e-3 as a prophylactic rule designed to prevent core violations of Section 14(e). ? See p. 1004, infra. 8. ?For example, if a company reports that its sales have risen from one year to the next, that statement is not misleading even though it does not inclu de a detailed breakdown of the company’s region by region or month by month sales. 9. ?We note that Crawford sold his shares before the April 24 press release, so he could not have been influenced in his trading by the release. BERZON, Circuit Judge.

Is John Stuart Mill's ulitilarianism a sound basis for his liberal Essay

Is John Stuart Mill's ulitilarianism a sound basis for his liberal feminism - Essay Example Therefore, society’s maximisation of utility consists in the achievement of the highest possible concentration of pleasure while minimising the amount of pain deriving from any action or law. Liberal feminism as propounded by Mill appears to conflict with some of the ideas advocated by utilitarianism; however, once thoroughly considered it does harmonise with his theory of utilitarianism. The theory of utilitarianism contains a theory of equality as it advocates that transfers of utility or happiness can and should only occur to the extent that marginal (that is, each additional increment of) utility for those who gain equals that of those who lose pleasure from the transfer. In conjunction with Liberal Feminism it means that no male should gain pleasure at the expense of a greater loss of pleasure by a woman. It treats everyone equally and without bias, male or female; but contained in equal treatment is the fact that it regards no one individually, and measures utility only quantitatively. Its principle of equal consideration of interests dictates that qualitative concerns (such as reasons why an action might be pleasing to a person) are not to be involved in this aspect of the utilitarian principle (Harsanyi, 1975, cited in Sen, 1979). According to this, egalitarianism is a fundamental principle of the theory of utilitarianism, and it advocates liberal feminism on ly as far as liberal feminism is itself an egalitarian principle. Theories of rights and justice are less overtly advocated by the principle, as it regards no one as special but explicitly demands only that happiness be maximised. In practice, however, rights of humans often do come into play because of a fundamental similarity among them that is usually assumed when dealing with large groups. Therefore, it is often believed that in general people will accrue a similar amount of pleasure from a given action, so each person therefore (in absence of or blindness

Introduction to Business Law Master Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Introduction to Business Law Master - Essay Example Therefore, to avoid problems, it is necessary that international corporations, or business forms which intend to expand internationally, have an understanding of the sources of international law and the function of the relevant international organizations. International law, according to the Cambridge professor of international relations and law, Malcolm Shaw (2003), is derived from four sources. These sources are international conventions and treaties, customary law and commonly accepted practices, conventional law as defined and implemented by nation-states and judicial interpretations and decisions, as would establish a rule of precedent (pp. 44-46). As Shaw (2003) further explains, international law can basically be understood as comparable to national laws but implemented over the international community, as opposed to the national one (p. 48). Identifying the sources of international law is the first step towards understanding how the mentioned can influence international business. As regards the first source, which is international or bilateral treaties and conventions, it has a direct impact on international business if the treaties in question are relevant to trade and investment. For example, some nations have laws which specify the areas of investment and business which foreigners can engage in.

Jews Milkweed Essay Example for Free

Jews Milkweed Essay During Hitler`s region, he and the Nazi region changed many lives of innocent people. Milkweed, a historical fiction by Jerry Spinelli, shows how the Holocaust impacted a multitude of people. Orphaned at an early age Misha, the protagonist, adopts the identity of an orphan gypsy a persona created by his friend Uri. Misha adapts that identity would eventually become Misha Milgrom- the Jew. Misha assumes the role as the Milgrom family â€Å"breadwinner†. After thousands of Jews including the Milgroms, are relocated to the ghetto of Warsaw, Misha learns to identify himself with the Jewish struggle, and to be a part of a family. Because of Hitler`s oppression region, Jews like Misha, the street gang of orphans, and the Milgrom family learn to rely on relationships to help boost their chances of survival if not survival of life then survival of humanity and hope. Hitler`s is able to oppress the Jewish population by taking away their individual power, humility, and hope. One of the ways he takes away power is by using propaganda is to convince the non-Jews that Jews are to blame the wrongs in society. Misha sees this happen when he goes to the carousel and finds a horse missing. It has been from the place on the ride. The crowd surrounding the carousel immediately place blame for the missing horse. â€Å"‘Find the dirty Jew! ’ the voices called over and over, and I think one I heard was mine. † (pg. 66). Spinelli is showing how readly people will follow the crowd and join in the demeaning of a person to save their own lives. Even Misha finds himself buying into the propaganda. He has jumped on the bandwagon. After Misha realizes he too is joining in, he sees that someone has been found to blame. â€Å"They found a Jew. Or should I say they found a Jew. Jews are interchangeable. One was as good as another. † (pg. 66). It is clear that Jews have lost their individuality and become the scapegoat. They are now the â€Å"filthy son of Abraham† a worthless group of useless people, thriving people. People who are to be blamed for all the ills of society. Another example, of oppression is when Misha, Uri, and the boys are being rounded up by the jackboots to go to the ghetto. The boys are surprised when shouting voices as they scramble to escape. In an effort to get away, the boys all go in different directions. One of the boys jumped from the loft. He was shot in midair and flopped to the ground like a ragdoll. † (pg. 79). the boys are oppressed; under complete control of the Nazis. They fear being shot too. The Nazis believe that shooting the boy that try to escape is a small price to pay to get all the others under control. As people lose their powers, they need to help one another as it means of survival. Misha is dependent on Uri for basic survival during Hitler`s take over at Poland. Misha is naive, immature, young homeless boy. He is hopeless without the guidance of Uri. Uri has kept Mishap with food, shelter, companionship, and clothing. He treats him like a younger brother. Uri teaches him about the true purpose of the jackboots and news rules in society. â€Å"For some reason, I felt freer to be stupid and silly when he was there than when he was not. † (pg. 80). Mishap is more comfortable with Uri than without him and does not feel safe to be himself without Uri around. He trusts Uri to protect him when he crosses the line. He knows that if he is to act foolish walking the streets alone he would undoubtedly be killed. To help Misha survive the atrocity of the war, Uri has to take drastic measures. By the end of the war, Misha has learned from Uri how to become a protector and provider. At this point of the novel, the reader has begun to see little of Uri. When he does show Uri he is needed and has to do what no friend should have to do to help Misha avoid the train. â€Å"The Jackboot flung me against a wall. I saw his hand go to his holster. I saw the gun come out and point between my eyes. Die piglet! The voice. I looked up. The red hair. The face. Uri! I cried, and the gun went off. (pg. 168). Uri may have shot off Misha`s ear off, but he gave him an opportunity to run toward freedom and away from the ovens. Misha is helping the Milgroms in a desperate time of need. During the Holocaust many families, including the Milgroms, learn to survive the hardships by relying on relationships to help boost their chances of survival. One way the Milgroms use relationships to survive is by using it to sta y positive. There is so much death and destruction in the ghetto that people need hope if they wish to keep going and survive. Misha leans this when Mr. Milgrom tells him and Janina that Hanukkah is a holiday to celebrate the Jewish heritage. â€Å"And so Hanukkah is eight days when we remember that time, and we remember to be happy and proud to be Jews and that we will always survive. This is our time. We celebrate ourselves. We must be happy now. We must never forget how to be happy. Never forget. † (pg. 157). Spinelli is showing to be proud of yourself. It doesn`t matter what race or religion you are. Just be happy and never forget to be happy. If you have a good attitude, you can make other people around you happy. If you feel happy about yourself nothing will bring you down. Being positive about yourself will help people survive in the hardest of times. After Misha learns about deportations from a friend, Uri, Misha warns the Milgrom family in order for them to survive. Mr. Milgrom realizes that he will need to let go of Janina in order for her to survive. â€Å"He stared into my eyes. He gripped my forearm. Take her hand. Keep her with you. Make her go take off your armbands off and run. Run until daylight. Then hide. Run at night. He squeezed my arm so hard I would have thought he was trying to hurt me if I hadn’t known better. Do not bring back food tonight. Do not return. Run. Run. † (pg. 180). It is clear that the Holocaust is tearing up families and people, but this shows the Milgrom`s family has trust in everyone in the family. This shows that Mr. Milgrom trusts Misha to take Janina away from Warsaw. Mr. Milgrom wants Janina to be safe, to be happy, and to be free. He doesn’t want Janina to die like her mother. Misha understands this is hard for Mr. Milgrom to let go of Janina, but it needs to be done in order for her to survive. The oppressive nature of living in a German occupied Poland created conflict for the Jews. In order to survive or at least have some hope of survival, Jews such as the Milgroms, Misha, and the orphans had to form relationship that boosted their chances to live. Misha needed Uri, the Milgroms needed Misha, and the street gang needed each one another. Because life is hard and people are cruel and intolerant, relationships are essential to bring hope and light into the darkness life may throw in your way. Life in the ghetto during the Holocaust is dark as it gets.

The Catcher In The Rye :: Salinger, Literary Analysis

Although The Catcher in the Rye caused considerable controversy when it was first published in 1951, the book—the account of three disoriented days in the life of a troubled sixteen-year-old boy—was an instant hit. Within two weeks after its release, it was listed number one on The New York Times best-seller list, and it stayed there for thirty weeks. It remained immensely popular for many years, especially among teenagers and young adults, largely because of its fresh, brash style and anti-establishment attitudes—typical attributes of many people emerging from the physical and psychological turmoil of adolescence. It also was the bane of many parents, who objected to the main character's obscene language, erratic behavior, and antisocial attitudes. Responding to the irate protests, numerous school and public libraries and bookstores removed the book from their shelves. Holden simply was not a good role model for the youth of the 1950s, in the view of many conservative adults. Said J. D. Salinger himself, in a rare published comment, "I'm aware that many of my friends will be saddened and shocked, or shock-saddened, over some of the chapters in The Catcher in the Rye. Some of my best friends are children. In fact, all my best friends are children. It's almost unbearable for me to realize that my book will be kept on a shelf out of their reach." The clamor over the book undoubtedly contributed to its popularity among the young: It became the forbidden fruit in the garden of literature. For some reason—perhaps because of the swirling controversies over his written works—Sa linger retreated from the New York literary scene in the 1960s to a bucolic