The UK Economy and International Trade Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words - 12

The UK Economy and International Trade - Essay Example This essay declares that monopolistic competition is clearly seen in industries such as banking, electronics, fashion and garments, food manufacturing, fast food retail, and almost all personal and professional service industries like hair styling and grooming. For these industries, there are many suppliers whose products are easily substituted for each other; and although differentiation is created in the mind of the buyer, the difference is not so insurmountable that another brand more conveniently accessible could not substitute for the other, first choice. In contrast, an oligopoly exists where only few competitors operate. Unlike in monopolistic competition, wherein the actions of competitors do not influence the others, in oligopoly, output decisions of individual firms have a decisive influence on the course of action the other firms decide to take. In an oligopoly, the following elements are present: A good example of an oligopoly is the market for diamonds, which is dominate d by De Beers, which corners 60% of the market, and other, relatively recently established, diamond firms in Canada, Russia and Australia. De Beers had once monopolized the diamond trade by buying out all its competitors and controlling the price. As more diamond deposits were discovered, De Beers was compelled to try a new tact, veering away from the diamond cartel, and instead embarking on brand strategy. Other oligopolies exist in the industries that produce automobile, cigarettes, cruise ships, and aluminum.  

Preliminary Screening of Bioactive Natural Products Essay Example for Free

Preliminary Screening of Bioactive Natural Products Essay The plants which are used to cure diseases are called medicinal plants. This property of plants is due to the presence of certain chemicals namely Phytochemicals which include alkaloids, Glycosides, flavanoids, volatile oils, vitamins, resins, gums etc. These chemicals terminate the growth of micro organisms by obstructing one or many metabolic activities of microbes. World Health Organisation has estimated that perhaps 80 % of the Earth’s inhabitants rely upon traditional medicine for their primary health care needs and a major part of this therapy involves the use of plant extracts or their active principles. Plants form the major resource in the preparation of drugs in many ancient systems of medicine like Ayurveda, Unani, Homoeopathy, Naturopathy, Siddha and Allopathy. Our present work mainly aims at the screening of Bioactive compounds present in wood and fruit of Terminalia pallida Brandis Terminalia pallida is a semi evergreen tree belongs to the family Combretaceae and its telugu name is called Tella-Karaka. Wood and fruit are highly medicated due to the prescence of bioactive compounds. These parts are widely used by the tribals of various districts of Andhra Pradesh to cure diarrhoea, peptic ulcers and diabetes. Fresh plant parts were collected, shade dried and ground in to coarse powder. Extraction of Bioactive compounds can be done with different type of solvents for further phytochemical analysis. Results obtained in the present study reveals the presence of Flavanoids, Indoles, Leucoanthocyanins, steroids, Phenols, Saponins, Tanins in the wood of Terminalia Pallida. Fruits consist of all the above bioactive compounds along with alkaloids. These bioactive compounds are responsible for antidiarrhoeatic, anti-ulcer and anti-diabetic properties of the plant. The present communication attempts to assess the status of phytochemical properties in wood and fruits of Terminalia Palllida , Brandis to develop the awareness among the local people. It is also useful to the advanced research in the Pharmacertical field.

Guernicas History Essay -- Art Paintings Pablo Picasso Guernica Essay

Guernica's History The word art is an encompassing one, vastly interpreted and with multiple definitions. In the case of Picasso's painting Guernica, art informs, educates and expresses. Its power lies in its ability to capture and compel an audience nearly six decades after the modern world's "other" day of infamy. To understand fully the painting that evolved out of the Spanish painter's outrage, one must know its context. "Why do you think I date everything I do? Because it is not sufficient to know an artist's works--it is also necessary to know when he did them, why, under what circumstances" (Picasso). An appreciator who knows the saga of Spain's historical fishing village is given a depth of experience that only a genius like Picasso could portray --"it may well be the most terrifying document on the horrors of war ever to be produced by an artist" (Wertenbaker 126). Most people do not even know that the ancient Basque village Guernica exits, let alone that one third of its citizens were senselessly slaughtered or wounded in little more than three hours. On April 26, 1937, German bombers attacked Guernica, an open city. The unprovoked attack began at 4:30, the busiest hour of a market day. The streets were jammed with townspeople and peasants from the countryside. Never before in modern warfare had noncombatants been slaughtered in such numbers, and by such means (Wertenbaker 1967). During the Spanish Civil War Franco's army was often assisted by Germany. The Nazi General Goering's policy was to use the Spanish Civil War as an arena for trying out the airmen and planes of his new Luftwaffe . The Condor Legion was headed by Wolfram Von Richthofen, the cousin of the near mythical Red Baron of the First World War. V... ...e bombing of the ancient Basque town would now be almost forgotten. Picasso's monumental painting reminds humankind of one of the first acts of modern "total war" waged against a defenseless population. Picasso's painting is the quintessential example of humankind's senseless inhumanity to humankind. It creates a horrific image of humankind with which the observer must reckon. Through the art of Guernica Picasso educates us not only about April 26, 1937, but also about humankind and our tradition of war. WORKS CITED Chipp, Herschel, B. Picasso's Guernica. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988. Fisch, Eberhard. Guernica. New Cranbury: Associated University Press, 1983. Gordan, Thomas and Max Morgan. Guernica: The Crucible of WWII. New York: Witts, Stein, and Day, 1975. Wertenbaker, Lael. The World of Picasso. New York: Time-Life Books, 1967.

Media and the Public :: essays research papers

  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  When radio became popular around the forties and fifties, it was the one source of entertainment and news that people could enjoy in the comfort of their own home. In â€Å"Radio Days†, radio was a central part of the lives of the movie’s characters, especially Joe. Today however, radio does not act as the â€Å"hub† of information, like it was depicted in â€Å"Radio Days†.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Joe, played by Seth Green and narrated by Woody Allen, had a miniature obsession with a radio program called â€Å"The Masked Avenger†, and other characters had similar fixations with different radio programs. Today the radio isn’t even considered, when people want entertainment. Television has replaced the format that radio used to have. No longer do people eat dinner and then gather in front of the radio to listen to a program. Radio had become a background soother. When driving in the car, one may turn it on and listen to it on a low volume, just so that there isn’t silence. Aunt Ceil, played by Renee Lippin, went on a date with a fellow who ran off in the middle of the date because they were listening to a program that involved an alien invasion, and he believed every word the DJ was saying. Even though there rarely is any programming like that on the radio anymore, today people are much more aware of what they hear on the radio. At the birth of radio, everyone believed everything they heard on the radio. People have become more critical and attentive as to what they HEAR and what they BELIEVE. In the forties and fifties radio format had mostly talk shows, news and occasionally music. Now it is almost opposite of what it was. Music has taken over radio, especially FM stations. There are news stations and a small amount of sports stations, but no more programs like â€Å"The Masked Avenger† anymore. AM stations still have some entertainment programming and NPR still has talk shows, but these stations are just no longer popular. In fact, they are a dieing breed; almost extinct. Radio holds a place in people’s lives today that is relevant, but not central as it was shown in â€Å"Radio Days†. I believe it has become better. In â€Å"Radio Days† the character actually listened to the radio. Today people only really hear the radio. With the inventions of the TV and internet, the fact that radio still holds its own in the entertainment industry is amazing. Media and the Public :: essays research papers   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  When radio became popular around the forties and fifties, it was the one source of entertainment and news that people could enjoy in the comfort of their own home. In â€Å"Radio Days†, radio was a central part of the lives of the movie’s characters, especially Joe. Today however, radio does not act as the â€Å"hub† of information, like it was depicted in â€Å"Radio Days†.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Joe, played by Seth Green and narrated by Woody Allen, had a miniature obsession with a radio program called â€Å"The Masked Avenger†, and other characters had similar fixations with different radio programs. Today the radio isn’t even considered, when people want entertainment. Television has replaced the format that radio used to have. No longer do people eat dinner and then gather in front of the radio to listen to a program. Radio had become a background soother. When driving in the car, one may turn it on and listen to it on a low volume, just so that there isn’t silence. Aunt Ceil, played by Renee Lippin, went on a date with a fellow who ran off in the middle of the date because they were listening to a program that involved an alien invasion, and he believed every word the DJ was saying. Even though there rarely is any programming like that on the radio anymore, today people are much more aware of what they hear on the radio. At the birth of radio, everyone believed everything they heard on the radio. People have become more critical and attentive as to what they HEAR and what they BELIEVE. In the forties and fifties radio format had mostly talk shows, news and occasionally music. Now it is almost opposite of what it was. Music has taken over radio, especially FM stations. There are news stations and a small amount of sports stations, but no more programs like â€Å"The Masked Avenger† anymore. AM stations still have some entertainment programming and NPR still has talk shows, but these stations are just no longer popular. In fact, they are a dieing breed; almost extinct. Radio holds a place in people’s lives today that is relevant, but not central as it was shown in â€Å"Radio Days†. I believe it has become better. In â€Å"Radio Days† the character actually listened to the radio. Today people only really hear the radio. With the inventions of the TV and internet, the fact that radio still holds its own in the entertainment industry is amazing.

How Did John F. Kennedy Act Through the Cuban Missile Crisis

The Cuban missile crisis of 1962 brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. What was at stake in the crisis, and how do you assess President Kennedy’s response to Khrushchev’s provocation? Was Kennedy prudent or rash, suitably tough or needlessly belligerent? By Jeremy Leung 299722 USA & The World 131-236 The Cuban Missile Crisis was perhaps the closest that humankind had ever become to experiencing a thermonuclear war. In October 1962, the world watched perilously, as U. S. president John F. Kennedy warned his people of the amalgamation of Soviet arms in Cuba. John F. Kennedy refused to accept â€Å"offensive† Soviet artillery in such close proximity to the U. S. , but Soviet chairman Nikita Khrushchev had already planned a stealthily build-up. Kennedy henceforth demanded Khrushchev to disassemble offensive artillery and employed a strict naval quarantine, an action that Khrushchev initially refused and deemed â€Å"illegal†. For several days, as two of the world’s superpower’s refused to meet an agreement, the world faced the daunting and horrifying prospect of a nuclear war. Eventually, Khrushchev had accepted a peaceful resolution, as he withdrew Soviet offensive arms in return for a promise that the U. S. would not invade Cuba. With the Soviet exodus from Cuba, President Kennedy’s popularity had risen sharply as journalists labelled him the â€Å"architect of a great diplomatic victory. †[1] Kennedy’s ability to remain calm under the pressure of a potential nuclear war had won praise from his colleagues and the American public, who rewarded him with re-election. In a diametrically opposed view, conservatives assert his actions were not decisive enough in securing America’s national security. This essay will seek to analyse both the praise and the criticism in evaluating John F. Kennedy’s actions through the peaceful resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis. For many Americans, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and in particular the build-up of Soviet arms within Cuba represented a time in which their national security and safety was at stake. This build-up of Soviet missiles in Cuba was deemed by the media as â€Å"an action aimed to inflicting an almost mortal wound on us†[2]. This impending threat was dealt with such severity that a committee was formed that comprised of U. S. government officials who were to advise President John F. Kennedy on important matters. As a senior member of the committee, which was known as the Executive Committee of the National Security Council (ExComm), Treasury Secretary Douglas Dillion remarked â€Å"The crisis was unique in the sense that it was the first time that there was a real, imminent, potential threat to the physical safety and well being of American citizens†. [3] This observation from Dillon portrays the fear that much of the American public felt, who taught and prepared their children through schools to â€Å"duck and cover† in the event of a nuclear war. 4] Yet, it appeared at the time that the build-up of arms within Cuba was not only a confrontation to the U. S. , but a direct threat to national security that was felt and feared by both the public and leading politicians. To substantiate this, Defence Secretary Robert McNamara recalled on the 27th October, â€Å"As I left the white house and walked through my garden to my car to return to the pentagon on the beautiful fall evening, I feared I might never live to see another Saturday night†. 5] In addition to this, Robert Kennedy wrote afterwards that the world was brought â€Å"to the abyss of nuclear destruction and the end of mankind†. [6] Both these accounts demonstrate the extreme severity in which Congress perceived the Soviet threat. On the 26th of September, U. S. Congress voted strongly in favour to â€Å"prevent in Cuba the creation or use of an externally supported military capability endangering the security of the United States† with a 386-7 majority in the House of Representatives, and an 86-1 majority in the Senate. 7] This represents an overwhelming view in both houses of the U. S. Congress that action needed to be taken upon the build-up of nuclear arms in Cuba. The reasons why McNamara and Kennedy and other U. S. politicians were so fearful of a nuclear was because according to U. S. analysts at the time, the 24 MRBM’s (Medium range-ba llistic missiles) and sixteen IRBM’s (intermediate-range ballistic missiles) that were found in Cuba had significantly increased the number of U. S. targets that the Soviet’s could lethally attack by forty percent. 8] Furthermore, having missiles within Cuba allowed the Soviets to bypass the U. S. warning radars, especially the Ballistics Missile Early Warning system, which was stationed in the North Pole. [9] By bypassing the U. S. warning radars, it certainly amplified the risk of a surprise strike upon certain American air bases and important command posts. [10] To address this risk, the U. S. army went from â€Å"Defence Condition Five† (peacetime alert) to â€Å"Defcon 3† (war alert) which further illustrated the high levels of precautions the U. S. government were taking in order to protect itself from an offensive attack from the Soviet. [11] It was quite clear from these precautions that the impending nuclear threat in Cuba threatened the lives of American civilians, troops, and government officials. In the event that the situation escalated out of control, the two world superpowers could have engaged in a third World War that, with nuclear technology had the potential to kill hundreds of millions of civilians and soldiers. 12] Fortunately, the Cuban Mission Crisis never escalated this far, as Kennedy maintained control of the situation and eventually caused the Soviet’s to retreat. Kennedy’s actions in peacefully resolving the Cuban Missile Crisis demonstrated responsibility and purposefulness, which overall had confirmed public confidence in the President. In the first ExComm meeting, evidence was presented of medium-range missiles in Cuba that had the potential to hit Washington, Dallas, St. Louis, and all Strategic Air Command bases in between. 13] Soon after, further evidence was presented to ExComm of the development of 1,000-mile medium-range ballistic missiles and 2,200 mile intermediate-range ballistic missiles. It was also predicted by the experts presenting this evidence that forty nuclear warheads had the capacity to hit targets as far as Wyoming and Montana. [14] Robert Kennedy had predicted that these arms had the power and potential to kill as many as eighty million Americans. [15] President John F. Kennedy was faced with two important options; to implement a naval blockade, or to invade Cuba beginning with an air-strike. 16] Kennedy decided upon enforcing a naval quarantine in Cuba, which was later labelled by Khrushchev as â€Å"outright banditry† and an action that would push â€Å"mankind to the abyss of a world missile nuclear war†. [17] The quarantine was a first step that involved confiscating all offensive military equipment that was being shipped to Cuba. If, in the event Khrushchev refused to remove Soviet missiles, John F. Kennedy promised â€Å"further action† would be taken. [18] As the leaders of the two superpowers stood eyeball to eyeball, and the world braced itself for a possibility for a thermonuclear war, Khrushchev had agreed to ithdrawal weapons that Kennedy had deemed offensive, while Kennedy pledged not to invade Cuba. [19] The U. S. response, in the form of a blockade was a wise choice as it applied the greatest level of force upon the Soviet Union while minimizing the risk of a thermonuclear war. Traditionalists, supported to this choice. Traditionalists refer to the individuals who advocated the traditional interpretation, and were coincidentally the individuals who wrote the most content during Cuban Missile Crisis. 20] Sorensen, a traditionalist, who was also an advisor to Kennedy, believed that Kennedy responded superbly to the crisis, as he conducted himself in a responsible and composed matter thr oughout his confrontation with Khrushchev. [21] Sorensen believed that this was perhaps the President’s finest hour, as he â€Å"never lost sight of what either war or surrender would do to the whole human race†¦ [And] he was determined to take all necessary action and no unnecessary action†. [22] Sorensen also noted the fact that Kennedy had not just national interests in mind but, civilians in other countries. Sorensen named this the â€Å"Kennedy Legacy† which he defined as â€Å"a pervasive sense of responsibility for the future of our children†¦ for those who live in the country and those who live in other lands†. [23] It appeared that through Sorensen’s recount of the events leading up to the peaceful resolution of the Cuban Missile crisis show admiration for Kennedy’s actions, as he believed Kennedy remained in control of events, despite being constantly provoked by Khrushchev. Sorensen also highlighted the Presidents poise in the confrontation, as he refused the temptation of making a reckless decision to attack Cuba and thus start a nuclear war. Like Sorensen, Robert Kennedy described every American, in the aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis, as feeling â€Å"a sense of pride in the strength, purposefulness and the courage of the President of the United States†. [24] Furthermore, McGeorge Bundy, another traditionalist member of Excomm, praised President Kennedy for â€Å"his personal management of the nuclear confrontation. †[25] Similarly to Bobby Kennedy and Sorensen, Bundy acknowledged, and commended the President’s â€Å"strength, restraint and respect for the opinions of mankind. [26] It is quite clear through these personal recounts of Bundy, Sorensen, and Kennedy, that there was a consistent view across Excomm and the traditionalists that President John F. Kennedy demonstrated decisiveness, intelligence, and compassion while seeking to mitigate the risk of war by causing Khrushchev to compromise. These traits were also seen by the American public with public opinion approval ratings increasing to eighty percent after the crisis, as journalists compared him to past heroes such as Wilson and Roosevelt. 27] Overall, President Kennedy’s actions within the Cuban Missile Crisis not only led to great respect by his colleagues and the public, but more importantly reduced Cold War tensions between Russia and the U. S. A. This was evident in the aftermath of the Cold War that saw an installation of a phone link that allowed direct communication between Russian and American leaders, along with the signing of a nuclear test ban treaty which endorsed a harmonious coexistence between the two superpowers. [28] Within the waves of praise towards the United States President for his dealings with the Soviets, there were also few individuals who voiced their concerns over certain decisions Kennedy made. Following questionable decisions by Kennedy that led to the Bay of Pigs fiasco, the U. S. policy within Cuba only consisted of diplomatic and economic means, and only until later were trade restrictions forced. Thus, for a period of two years leading up to the Cuban Missile Crisis, John F. Kennedy allowed the Soviet’s amalgamate a significant amount of arms provided they were â€Å"defensive. Using this word â€Å"defensive†, the American President was justifying and legitimizing the build-up of arms in the backyard of the U. S, as it allowed Cuba to asseverate itself as the hemisphere’s third largest military authority. [29] By Kennedy’s failure to initiate an intrusion upon Cuba’s burgeoning military at an early, yet critical point, it communicated to the S oviet’s that there was possibility for them to upset the balance of power within any country, as long as they were granted authorization by local governments. By not invading Cuba, the Soviet’s and Cubans proceeded to integrate armed forces that had the potential to cause serious damage upon Western civilization, power and influence. In addition to failing to stop the military build-up in Cuba, there was also controversy in Kennedy’s decision to implement a naval quarantine in Cuba. Kennedy’s choice to quarantine, rather than imposing a full air-strike upon Cuba had its weakness. At this critical point within the Cuban Missile Crisis, this provided the U. S. n opportunity to impose a severe defeat upon its enemy. The moment of crisis, the threat of communism, along with the risk of perhaps disruptive world peace all suggested that Kennedy could have caused a decisive answer to the problems escalating in Cuba. Kennedy’s government, instead of quarantining Cuba from naval imports, could have forcibly demanded the departure of Russians, along with their weapons within Cuba altogether. [30] This would have not only eliminated Russian threat within close proximity to the U. S, but could have also provided the Cuban people with a democratic republic that consisted of free elections under UN supervision. [31] Kennedy instead, elected for a naval blockade, which could have potentially left open a possibility for the Soviet’s to import arms via the air. In addition to this, the blockade failed to give the U. S. any assurance or certainty that the Soviets would retreat from Cuba. If, however, Kennedy elected for an invasion and demanded Khrushchev to leave, it would have eliminated all doubt of a Soviet retreat and ensured the protection of America’s national security. Overall, throughout the Cuban Missile Crisis, the world sat perilously as the two superpowers engaged in a confrontational battle that had the potential to escalate into a possible third world war with overwhelmingly destructive consequences. In two world wars, millions of people were slaughtered in battles that continued over years; however it was possible, with the advent of nuclear technology that hundreds of millions of civilians and soldiers could die within hours. 32] Khrushchev continued to use Soviet resources to accumulate a large missile base within Cuba in America’s backyard, which called for President John F. Kennedy to act and protect the national security of the U. S. In deciding on implementing a naval quarantine around Cuba, Kennedy avoided an airstrike and possible invasion, by giving his opponent time to reassess his actions. Through constant pressure from Khrushchev, Kennedy stood decisive and resolute, as he resisted the temptation of gambling with the safe ty of the world and continued to monitor the sea and intercept suspicious naval activity around Cuba. Kennedy proceeded and continued to implement the blockade, which was clearly an attempt to avoid any direct military means, by providing Khrushchev with a threat of danger, yet also allowing him with the option to retreat. Although this was seen as â€Å"weak† from conservatives, it is important that Kennedy always continued to pressure his Soviet counterpart whenever he sensed hesitation or deception. [33] Kennedy never wielded from his objective, as he forced a peaceful resolution that left his colleagues in awe of his poise and determination dealing with such a crisis. Thus, by Kennedy reacting in a suitably tough fashion, Khruschev provided the U. S. President with the ultimate accolade that if he â€Å"had been in the White House, instead of the Kremlin, [he] would have acted like Kennedy. [34] Words: 2562 Bibliography Primary Resources Blight, James & Welch, David. Cuba on the Brink: Castro, the Missile Crisis and the Soviet Collapse. New York: Pantheon Books, 1993. Bundy, McGeorge. Danger and Survival: Choices about the bomb in the first fifty years. New York: Random House, 1988 Bundy, McGeorge. â€Å"The Presidency and the Peace†, Foreign Affairs 42 (1964). Kennedy, Robert. Thirteen Days: A Memoir of the Cuban Missile Crisis. New York: W. W. Norton, 1969 Lowenthal, David. â€Å"U. S. Cuban Policy: Illusion and Reality†, National Review (1963) McNamara, Robert. Blundering into Disaster: Surviving the First Century of the Nuclear Age. London: Bloomsbury 1987 Munton, Don & Welch, David. A. The Cuban Missile Crisis. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. Sorensen, Theodore. Kennedy. New York: MacMillan, 1969. Sorensen, Theodore. The Kennedy Legacy. New York: Harper and Row, 1965 Secondary Resources Divine, Robert A. The Cuban Missile Crisis. Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1971. Garthoff, Raymond. â€Å"The Meaning of the Missiles†. Washington Quarterly 5 (1982), 78 Horelick, Arnold. The Cuban Missile Crisis: An analysis of Soviet calculations and behaviour. World Politics (1964) Medland, William. The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962: Needless or Necessary. New York: Praeger Publishers,, 1988. Scott, Len. The Cuban Missile Crisis and the Threat of Nuclear War. London: Continuum Books, 2007. ———————– [1]Robert Divine, The Cuban Missile Crisis, (Toronto: Burns and MacEachern1971), 4. 2] David Lowenthal, â€Å"US Cuban Policy: Illusion and Reality†, National Review, 29 January 1963, 63, quoted in Arnold L. Horelick, â€Å"The Cuban Missile Crisis: An Analysis of Soviet Calculations and Behaviour†, World Politics 16/3 (April 1963), 64 [3] James Blight & David Welch, â€Å"Cuba on the Brink: Castro, the Missile Crisis and the Soviet Collapse: (New York: Pantheon Books, 1993), 163 [4] Len Scott, The Cuban Missile Crisis and the Threat of Nuclear War: (London: Continuum Books, 2007), 48. [5] Robert McNamara, Blundering into Diaster: Surviving the First Century of the Nuclear Age (London: Bloomsbury, 1987), 11. 6] Robert Kennedy, Thirteen Days, The Cuban Missile Crisis (London: Pan Books, 1969), 27. [7] McGeorge Bundy, Danger and Survival: Choices about the Bomb in the first fifty years (New York: Random House, 1988), 391. [8] Raymond Garthoff, â€Å"Memo on the Military Significance of the Soviet Missiles Bases in Cuba,† October 27, 1962. Department of State declassifified document, reprinted in Garthoff, â€Å"The Meaning of the Missiles,† Washington Quarterly 5, no. 4 (Autumn 1982), 78 [9] Scott, The Cuban Missile Crisis, 48. [10] Ibid, 48 [11] Divine, The Cuban Missile Crisis, 61. 12] Don Munton and David A. Welch, The Cuban Missile Crisis (Oxford University Press: New York, 2007), 1. [13] Willi am J. Medland The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962: Needless or Necessary (Praeger Publishers: New York, 1988), 4. [14] Ibid, 5. [15] Divine, The Cuban Missile Crisis, 28. [16] Ibid, 28 [17] Medland, Needless or Necessary, 38. [18] Divine, The Cuban Missile Crisis, 61 [19] Munton and Welch The Cuban Missile Crisis, 1. [20] Divine, The Cuban Missile Crisis, 35 [21] Theodore C. Sorensen, Kennedy (New York: Harper and Row, 1965; paperback ed. New York: Bantam Books, 1966, 795. [22] Ibid, 795. [23] Theodore C. Sorensen, The Kennedy Legacy (New York: Macmillan, 1969), 274. [24] Kennedy, Thirteen days, 67. [25] McGeorge, Bundy, â€Å"The Presidency and the Peace,† Foreign Affairs 42 (April 1964): 353-365 [26] Ibid. , 359 [27] Divine, The Cuban Missile Crisis, 58. [28] Medland, Needless or Necessary, 56. [29] Lowenthal, US Cuban Policy, 61. [30] Divine, The Cuban Missile Crisis, 91. [31] Ibid, 93. [32] Munton and Welch The Cuban Missile Crisis, 1. [33] Divine, The Cuban Missile Crisis, 101. [34] Ibid, 104

Obamas Health Care Reform Speech (Full Text)

Obamas Health Care Reform Speech (Full Text) Madame Speaker, Vice President Biden, Members of Congress, and the American people:When I spoke here last winter, this nation was facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We were losing an average of 700,000 jobs per month. Credit was frozen. And our financial system was on the verge of collapse.As any American who is still looking for work or a way to pay their bills will tell you, we are by no means out of the woods. A full and vibrant recovery is many months away. And I will not let up until those Americans who seek jobs can find them; until those businesses that seek capital and credit can thrive; until all responsible homeowners can stay in their homes.That is our ultimate goal. But thanks to the bold and decisive action we have taken since January, I can stand here with confidence and say that we have pulled this economy back from the brink.I want to thank the members of this body for your efforts and your support in these last several months, and especially those who have taken the difficult votes that have put us on a path to recovery. I also want to thank the American people for their patience and resolve during this trying time for our nation.But we did not come here just to clean up crises. We came to build a future. So tonight, I return to speak to all of you about an issue that is central to that future and that is the issue of healthcare.I am not the first President to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last. It has now been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt first called for healthcare reform. And ever since, nearly every president and Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, has attempted to meet this challenge in some way. A bill for comprehensive health reform was first introduced by John Dingell Sr. in 1943. Sixty-five years later, his son continues to introduce that same bill at the beginning of each session.Our collective failure to meet this challenge – year after year, decade after decade – has led us to a breaking point. Everyone understands the extraordinary hardships that are placed on the uninsured, who live every day just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy. These are not primarily people on welfare. These are middle-class Americans. Some can’t get insurance on the job.Others are self-employed, and can’t afford it, since buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer. Many other Americans who are willing and able to pay are still denied insurance due to previous illnesses or conditions that insurance companies decide are too risky or expensive to cover.We are the only advanced democracy on Earth – the only wealthy nation – that allows such hardships for millions of its people. There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage. In just a two-year period, one in every three Americans goes without healthcare coverage at some point. And ever y day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage. In other words, it can happen to anyone.But the problem that plagues the healthcare system is not just a problem of the uninsured. Those who do have insurance have never had less security and stability than they do today. More and more Americans worry that if you move, lose your job, or change your job, you’ll lose your health insurance too. More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won’t pay the full cost of care. It happens every day.One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn’t reported gallstones that he didn’t even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it. Another woman from Texas was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne.By the time sh e had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer more than doubled in size. That is heart-breaking, it is wrong, and no one should be treated that way in the United States of America.Then there’s the problem of rising costs. We spend one-and-a-half times more per person on healthcare than any other country, but we aren’t any healthier for it. This is one of the reasons that insurance premiums have gone up three times faster than wages. It’s why so many employers   especially small businesses are forcing their employees to pay more for insurance, or are dropping their coverage entirely.It’s why so many aspiring entrepreneurs cannot afford to open a business in the first place, and why American businesses that compete internationally   like our automakers are at a huge disadvantage. And it’s why those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it about $1000 per year that pays for somebody else†™s emergency room and charitable care.Finally, our healthcare system is placing an unsustainable burden on taxpayers. When healthcare costs grow at the rate they have, it puts greater pressure on programs like Medicare and Medicaid. If we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid  than every other government program combined. Put simply, our healthcare problem is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close.These are the facts. Nobody disputes them. We know we must reform this system. The question is how.There are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single-payer system like Canada’s, where we would severely restrict the private insurance market and have the government provide coverage for everyone.On the right, there are those who argue that we should end the employer-based system and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own.I have to say that the re are arguments to be made for both approaches. But either one would represent a radical shift that would disrupt the healthcare most people currently have.Since healthcare represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn’t, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch.And that is precisely what those of you in Congress have tried to do over the past several months.During that time, we have seen Washington at its best and its worst. We have seen many in this chamber work tirelessly for the better part of this year to offer thoughtful ideas about how to achieve reform. Of the five committees asked to develop bills, four have completed their work, and the Senate Finance Committee announced today that it will move forward next week. That has never happened before.Our overall efforts have been supported by an unprecedented coalition of doctors and nurses; hospitals, seniors’ groups and even drug c ompanies   many of whom opposed reform in the  past. And there is agreement in this chamber on about 80% of what needs to be done, putting us closer to the goal of reform than we have ever been.But what we have also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have toward their own government.Instead of honest debate, we have seen scare tactics. Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise. Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points, even if it robs the country of our opportunity to solve a long-term challenge. And out of this blizzard of charges and countercharges, confusion has reigned.Well the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed. Now is the season for action. Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together, and show the American people that we can still do what we were sent here to do. Now is the time to deliv er on healthcare.The plan I’m announcing tonight would meet three basic goals: It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance to those who don’t. And it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government.It’s a plan that asks everyone to take responsibility for meeting this challenge   not just government and insurance companies, but employers and individuals. And it’s a plan that incorporates ideas from senators and Congressmen; from Democrats and Republicans and yes, from some of my opponents in both the primary and general election.Here are the details that every American needs to know about this plan: First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.What this plan will do is to make the insurance you have work better for you. Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a preexisting condition. As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it most.They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime. We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick.And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies   because there’s no reason we shouldn’t be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse.That makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives. That’s what Americans who have health insurance can expect from this plan   more security and stability.Now, if you’re one of the tens of millions of Americans who don’t currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices. If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will be able to get coverage. We will do this by creating a new insurance exchange   a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices.Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers. As one big group, these customers will have greater leverage to bargain with the insurance companies for better prices and quality coverage. Thi s is how large companies and government employees get affordable insurance. It’s how everyone in this Congress gets affordable insurance. And it’s time to give every American the same opportunity that we’ve given ourselves.For those individuals and small businesses who still cannot afford the lower-priced insurance available in the exchange, we will provide tax credits, the size of which will be based on your need. And all insurance companies that want access to this new marketplace will have to abide by the consumer protections I already mentioned.This exchange will take effect in four years, which will give us time to do it right. In the meantime, for those Americans who can’t get insurance today because they have preexisting medical conditions, we will immediately offer low-cost coverage that will protect you against financial ruin if you become seriously ill. This was a good idea when Senator John McCain proposed it in the campaign, it’s a good idea now, and we should embrace it.Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those   particularly the young and healthy who still want to take the risk and go without coverage. There may still be companies that refuse to do right by their workers.The problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money. If there are affordable options and people still don’t sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for those people’s expensive emergency room visits.If some businesses don’t provide workers health care, it forces the rest of us to pick up the tab when their workers get sick, and gives those businesses an unfair advantage over their.And unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek   especially requiring insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions just can’t be achieved.That’s why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance just as most states require you to carry auto insurance.Likewise, businesses will be required to either offer their workers healthcare, or chip in to help cover the cost of their workers. There will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who still cannot afford coverage, and 95% of all small businesses, because of their size and narrow profit margin, would be exempt from these requirements.But we cannot have large businesses and individuals who can afford coverage game the system by avoiding responsibility to themselves or their employees. Improving our healthcare system only works if everybody does their part.While there remain some significant details to be ironed out, I believe a broad consensus exists for the aspects of the plan I just outlined:consumer protections for those with insurance,an exchange that allows individuals and small businesses to purchase affordable coverage, anda requirement that people who can afford insurance get insurance.And I have no doubt that these reforms wou ld greatly benefit Americans from all walks of life, as well as the economy as a whole.Still, given all the misinformation that’s been spread over the past few months, I realize that many Americans have grown nervous about reform. So tonight I’d like to address some of the key controversies that are still out there.Some of people’s concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren’t so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage affordable for those without it. The public option is only a means to that end   and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal.And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of healthcare, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have. There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false   the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally. And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.My healthcare proposal has also been attacked by some who oppose reform as a â€Å"government takeover† of the entire healthcare system. As proof, critics point to a provision in our plan that allows the uninsured and small businesses to choose a publicly-sponsored insurance option, administered by the government just like Medicaid or Medicare.So let me set the reco rd straight. My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition. Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75% of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90% is controlled by just one company. Without competition, the price of insurance goes up and the quality goes down.And it makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly – by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest; by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage; and by jacking up rates.Insurance executives don’t do this because they are bad people. They do it because it’s profitable. As one former insurance executive testified before Congress, insurance companies are not only encouraged to find reasons to drop the seriously ill; they are rewarded for it. All of this is in service of meeting what this former executive called Wall Street’s relentless profit expectations.Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors. I just want to hold them accountable. The insurance reforms that I’ve already mentioned would do just that.But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the exchange.Let me be clear   it would only be an option for those who don’t have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5% of Americans would sign up.Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don’t like this idea. They argue that these private companies can’t fairly compete with the government. And they’d be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But th ey won’t be. I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects.But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits, administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers. It would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities.It’s worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I’ve proposed tonight. But its impact shouldn’t be exaggerated   by the left, the right, or the media. It is only one part of my plan, and should not be used as a handy excuse for the usual Washington ideological battle.This is the plan I’m proposing. It’s a plan that incorporates ideas from many of the people in this room tonight   Democrats and Republicans. And I will continue to seek common ground in the weeks ahead. If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen. My door is always open.But know this: I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it’s better politics to kill this plan than improve it. I will not stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are.If you misrepresent what’s in the plan, we will call you out. And I will not accept the status quo as a solution. Not this time. Not now.Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it most. And more will die as a result. We know these things to be true.That is why we cannot fail. Because there are too many Americans counting on us to succeed   the ones who suffer silently, and the ones who shared their stories with us at town hall meetings, in emails, and in letters.I received one of those letters a few days ago. It was from our beloved friend and colleague, Ted Kennedy. He had written it back in May, shortly after he was told that his illness was terminal. He asked that it be delivered upon his death.In it, he spoke about what a happy time his last months were, thanks to the love and support of family and friends, his wife, Vicki, and his children, who are here tonight. And he expressed confidence that this would be the year that healthcare reform   Ã¢â‚¬Å"that great unfinished business of our society,† he called it would finally pass.He repeated the truth that health care is decisive for our future prosperity, but he also reminded me that  Ã¢â‚¬Å"it concerns more than material things.† â€Å"What we face ,† he wrote, â€Å"is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country.†I’ve thought about that phrase quite a bit in recent days   the character of our country. One of the unique and wonderful things about America has always been our self-reliance, our rugged individualism, our fierce defense of freedom and our healthy skepticism of government. And figuring out the appropriate size and role of government has always been a source of rigorous and sometimes angry debate.For some of Ted Kennedy’s critics, his brand of liberalism represented an affront to American liberty. In their mind, his passion for universal health care was nothing more than a passion for big government.But those of us who knew Teddy and worked with him here people of both parties   know that what drove him was something more. His friend, Orrin Hatch, knows that. They worked together to provide children with health insurance. His friend John McCain knows that. hey worked together on a Patient’s Bill of Rights. His friend Chuck Grassley knows that. They worked together to provide healthcare to children with disabilities.On issues like these, Ted Kennedy’s passion was born not of some rigid ideology, but of his own experience. It was the experience of having two children stricken with cancer. He never forgot the sheer terror and helplessness that any parent feels when a child is badly sick; and he was able to imagine what it must be like for those without insurance; what it would be like to have to say to a wife or a child or an aging parent   there is something that could make you better, but I just can’t afford it.That large-heartedness   that concern and regard for the plight of others is not a partisan feeling. It is not a Republican or a Democratic feeling. It, too, is part of the American character. Our ability to stand in other peopl e’s shoes. A recognition that we are all in this together; that when fortune turns against one of us, others are there to lend a helping hand.A belief that in this country, hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of security and fair play; and an acknowledgement that sometimes government has to step in to help deliver on that promise. This has always been the history of our progress.In 1933, when over half of our seniors could not support themselves and millions had seen their savings wiped away, there were those who argued that Social Security would lead to socialism. But the men and women of Congress stood fast, and we are all the better for it.In 1965, when some argued that Medicare represented a government takeover of healthcare, members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, did not back down. They joined together so that all of us could enter our golden years with some basic peace of mind. You see, our predecessors understood that government cou ld not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom.But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, and the vulnerable can be exploited.What was true then remains true today. I understand how difficult this healthcare debate has been. I know that many in this country are deeply skeptical that government is looking out for them.I understand that the politically safe move would be to kick the can further down the road   to defer reform one more year, or one more election, or one more term. But that’s not what the moment calls for. That’s not what we came here to do. We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it. I still believe we can act even when it’s hard. I still believe we can replace acrimony with civility, and gridlock with progress.I still believe we can do great things, and that here and now we will meet history’s test. Because that is who we are. That is our calling. That is our character. Thank you, God Bless You, and may God Bless the United States of America.

Each vs. Both

Each vs. Both Each vs. Both Each vs. Both By Maeve Maddox A reader asks, What is the correct usage for each and both? Example: You and I both know what its like. or You and I each know what its like. Each is singular. In relation to a group, it means â€Å"all of any number, considered individually.† Examples of usage: Each child in the school has been vaccinated against smallpox. When groups of individuals join together in business partnerships,  each  member of the partnership becomes bound by basic legal  duties.   Both is plural. It refers to two of something. Examples of usage: Both men are Nobel Prize winners. Walthers lectures were  both informative and entertaining. When speaking of two people, both is usually the more appropriate choice. The only reason to use each when speaking of two people/things would be to emphasize the individuality of separate acts or to avoid ambiguity. Consider the following sentences: 1. Jack and Bill share a room. Both are responsible for cleaning half. 2. Mr. Jones gave both his daughters a dog. 3. Both of us received a letter this morning. Most listeners would understand the first sentence to mean that each boy is responsible for one half of the room. Sentence three might be understood to mean that each of the two received separate letters. Sentence two is definitely ambiguous: Did each daughter receive a dog of her own, or did both daughters receive one dog to share? The following revisions would prevent misunderstanding: 1. Jack and Bill share a room. Each is responsible for cleaning half. 2. Mr. Jones gave each of his daughters a dog. 3. Each of us received a letter this morning. In the reader’s question, the first example is correct: â€Å"You and I both know what its like.† The second example presents an impossibility of agreement: â€Å"You and I each know what its like.† The subject â€Å"You and I† is plural and requires the plural verb know. The word each, however, is singular and would require the singular verb knows. Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Misused Words category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:Possessive of Proper Names Ending in S30 Baseball Idioms10 Varieties of Syntax to Improve Your Writing