Oppressive Government vs None The Bridge at Andau - Literature Essay Samples

Government is the basis of all modern civilization. If living under oppressive governmental rule was our only given option, would we be better off living in daily fear and distress, or would it be more beneficial to have no government at all? In James A. Micheners historical novel The Bridge at Andau, it becomes apparent that an oppressive government is not better than having no government at all, because of the inhumane acts committed by the AVO, the overwhelming number of Hungarians revolting against the government, and the fact that the citizens ended up uniting and working together to survive even once they were out of the hands of communism. In the beginning of the novel, terrible acts of violence committed by the AVO, or the oppressive government in Hungary, are described. Michener writes, â€Å"The tanks machine gun ripped out a volley, and several young workers fell in the street† (Michener 9), or in other words, an AVO tank killed harmless, unarmed workers in the streets of Hungary who could only defend themselves with stones and their own hands. This cruel act helps prove that an oppressive government is not better than no government because obviously in this case, an oppressive government caused many innocent lives to be destroyed. Additionally, Michener describes an act of violence carried out by the AVO later in the novel, explaining that the AVO would pry information out of captured Hungarians attempting to escape by means of â€Å"beatings, nail pullings, smashing rifle butts onto insteps and other tortures† (Michener 109), which further proves the idea that having no government is more desirable than an oppressive, violent one because no one would wish these tortures on their worst enemy, and to think that it is their own government, the peoples’ â€Å"protectors† committing these cruel acts is unthinkable. It would be better to have no government at all than to have an oppressive government and be vulnerable to meaningless acts of violence such as those committed by the AVO. Moreover, the overwhelming number of Hungarians that were eager to rebel against the government further proves that having no government is preferred to living under an oppressive one. Michener states that â€Å"nearly two hundred thousand refugees reached Austria† (Michener 232) which is an outstanding number of people considering the humble population of Hungary at the time. The fact that so many people felt that they had no other choice than to flee their own country furthers the idea that an oppressive government is less desirable than having no government. Another example of the large population of Hungarians that were against the government is explained by Michener, who stated, â€Å"most Hungarians abhorred communism,† and later gave more specifics, stating that â€Å"ninety-five percent of Hungarians hated their brand of communism† (Michener 268), or in other words, even though not everyone ended up fleeing Hungary, a vast majority of the country loathed the government strongly. Because almost the entire population of Hungary despised their oppressive government, it can be argued that a country would be better off having no government in comparison to an oppressive one, as being constantly oppressed by a government could lead to a nationwide revolt, such as the one that occurred Hungary. The fact that the Hungarians were still able to peacefully cooperate and unite amongst each other after they had escaped Hungary proves that having no government is better than an oppressive one, because the Hungarians would be able to function without a government. When the AVO destroyed the bridge at Andau, prohibiting Hungarians from escaping, three college students â€Å"repaired the dynamited bridgeand saved more than two thousand people that night alone† (Michener 229). This extraordinary act demonstrates that Hungary would be able to exist without the AVO because they had united together to help one another escape. Later, after hundreds of thousands of Hungarians had fled their country, â€Å"farm wives reported to soup kitchens at midnight and worked until dawn† (Michener 243), demonstrating that the Hungarians would be able to again unite to help one other, allowing them to function even without the guidance of a government. In The Bridge at Andau, the majority of Hungarians preferred near-anarchy to being oppressed under the AVO, suggesting that being oppressed under a government is worse than having no government. The cruel acts of violence committed by the AVO, the vast majority in Hungary that despised communism, and the unity that Hungarians demonstrated after fleeing their country proves that the absence of government is preferable to government oppression. Works Cited: Michener, James A. The Bridge at Andau. New York: Random House, 1957. Rose, Gideon. Is an Oppressive Government Better than Anarchy?Council on Foreign Relations. Council on Foreign Relations, 9 July 2013. Web. 7 Oct. 2015.

Law School Admissions Yale Law Admissions Blog

I am a fan of Yale Laws admissions blog, 203. An Admissions Blog, but I have to take issue with a recent post, New Questions, specifically the authors response to the question, Is it still okay to have an admissions consultant give me guidance on my application? The author, Asha, states clearly that applicants who use consultants wont be automatically penalized or rejected, but implies strongly in her answer that use of an admissions consultant somehow distorts the level playing field upon which she wants to evaluate applicants although she has no such issues with applicants taking LSAT courses, which can cost much more than a law school admissions consultant and exist to improve applicant performance on the LSAT. That distorted playing field canard really reflects Ashas abysmal ignorance of the field. Admissions consultants help disadvantaged applicants level the playing field: Sites like Accepted provide a lot of free advice for all. If an applicant has a writer, an attorney, or perhaps a Yale alum as an acquaintance, friend, or relative, that applicant has an advantage over the applicant from a blue-collar family studying at a state college with limited pre-law advising. Using an experienced, knowledgeable consultant can help that student, the immigrant, the first-generation college graduate, or the non-traditional applicant overcome disadvantage. And for far less than the $5K high-end figure that Asha cites. Heres another line that merely amounts to spreading mis-information about a growing and increasingly influential field in law school admissions: Im interested in evaluating the ideas and writing of the applicant, not those of an admissions consultant. Ethical admissions consultants dont write personal statements for applicants and dont package applicants as Asha alleges elsewhere. We, like the undergrad advisers that are mysteriously viewed positively in her post, provide guidance to applicants in telling their story in their own voice. We play the role of mentors, coaches, and critics. All writers need editors. Thats why published authors all have editors. Its amazing to think that only non-professionals are too good to benefit from that fresh, critical eye. Finally she states Moreover, your PS is not necessarily the most important part of your application. It may not be the most important element, at least until an admissions representative claims that law school admissions is holistic. But lets face it when the band of accepted GPAs and LSATs is as narrow as it is at YLS and the accepted percentage is as small as it is at YLS, what are application readers going to base a decision on? Thin air? Yes, the admissions office will consider your activities, and leadership roles, and the difficulty of your courses, and your work experience. And definitely the LSAT. But they arent going to waste time reading a personal statement if it doesnt play a role in the evaluation process. I invite Asha and other law school admissions offices to follow the example of their b-school colleagues and work with the law school admissions consultancies that are striving to help ALL applicants not just one schools current students, ones friends, or ones family present themselves at their best. We are trying to aid applicants in giving you the information you need to make informed decisions based on the applicants story whatever role it plays in your decision-making process and whatever the applicants background.