Friday, November 29, 2019

Timothy Leary Essays - Counterculture Of The 1960s,

Timothy Leary "Turn on, tune in, drop out." That saying has turned into the slogan of Timothy Leary's mind-expanding movement. Although a graduate of both West-Point and Berkley, and a Harvard professor, these were not his greatest lifetime achievements. Throughout his publicized life, he became the spokesperson of the psychedelic age. His devotion to the belief that LSD and marijuana were gateways to enlightenment resulted in a new church, numerous prison sentences, and a following of both celebrities and the general public. When people think of Timothy Leary their immediate response is "Turn on, tune in, drop out," his trademark line, although the meaning of it has often been misinterpreted. Playboy Magazine had thought that his message was advocating, "getting high and dropping out of school," (Marwick 311). When asked by the magazine to explain the meaning of the phrase he responded, " ?Turn on' means to contact the ancient energies and wisdoms that are built into your nervous system. They provide unspeakable pleasure and revelation. ?Tune in' means to harness and communicate these new perspectives in a harmonious dance with the external world. ?Drop out' means to detach yourself from the tribal game." (Marwick 312). This was not the first time his methods were questioned. Leary was first publicly noticed, and criticized by then fellow Harvard professors, for his interest in LSD when he and friend, Robert Alpert, wrote an article for the Bulletin of Atomic Scientist. In the article they described a circumstance that in the event of war, the Russians might try to lace the American water supply with LSD. Then, when everybody in America is stoned, the Russians would seize power. They explained that in order to prevent the scenario from happening, everyone should take a dose of LSD so they can get used to the effects (Sterns 278). Although the article shocked the Harvard staff, it didn't cause him to get fired. Leary was dismissed from Harvard in 1962, only four years after he began teaching there. Leary had experimented with psilocybin, a mind-altering chemical, on his own and the university repeatedly asked him to stop, he refused (Brash 139). Although it angered university 2. authorities, they couldn't do anything more about the subject since it was a legal substance. While conducting one of his experiments he gave a dose of psilocybin to all of his students except for one that refused. The result of this left him unemployed. In the meantime he published "The Fifth Freedom: The Right to Get High" (Sterns 279). The loss of his job did not discourage his fascination of LSD, but gave him the chance to expand his objective. Before he lost his job in August 1960, Leary said, "[I] had the deepest religious experience of my life," after eating seven "sacred mushrooms," which have the chemical psilocybin in them, in one setting (Marwick 310). He repeated this fifty times in three weeks. Soon after he converted to Hinduism. Later, on August 30, 1963, during a lecture in Philadelphia he explained the occurrence, "A profound transcendent experience should leave in its wake a changed man and a changed life. Since my illumination of August 1960, I have devoted most of my energies to try to understand the revelatory potentialities of the human nervous system and to make these insights available to others." (Marwick 311). Leary attempted to make the insights available to others by making the religious experience that he encountered and the cause of it into a church. The League for Spiritual Discovery (notice initials) was created with the church maxim, "You have to be out of your mind to pray." The church advocated one LSD trip per week and marijuana everyday. "The sacraments marijuana and LSD should only be used by initiates and priest of our religion and used only in shrines." (Sterns 279). Followers of the church wore flowing robes and meditated "The aim of all Eastern religions, like the aim of LSD, is basically to get high: that is, to expand your consciousness and find ecstasy and revelation within," Leary explained. (Brash 139). Along with followers and friends, Ken Kesey and Allen Ginsberg, he campaigned for the church cross-country. Numerous times Leary was caught for possession of illegal drugs and put into prison. Once again, in 1970, he was put back in prison for a drug violation in California, within a month he escaped and fled to Afghanistan. He was caught by the FBI and made a deal with them to lower his sentence (Marwick 330). Once free Leary continued to spread the word of the

Monday, November 25, 2019

Essay on Median and Cent

Essay on Median and Cent Essay on Median and Cent However, experts warn the price growth in Sydney and Melbourne is unsustainable and housing unaffordability would bring slower growth later this year. In auctions on the weekend in Sydney, more than 84 per cent of homes offered were sold for a total of $151 million - leaving less than 16 per cent of homes without a buyer. This was well up on the same period last year when only 60 per cent of homes auctioned in Sydney were sold. There were also more homes offered this year, at 296 for the weekend compared with 168 on the same weekend in 2013. In Melbourne, clearance rates were a solid 75.6 per cent, boding well for a market many economists tipped to struggle this year. Melbourne’s residential property market surprised most economists during the week, with RP Data-Rismark figures showing monthly January price growth of a soaring 3.2 per cent, bringing growth for the year to January to nearly 12 per cent. Australian Property Monitors senior economist Andrew Wilson said the Reserve Bank interest rate halt last week had stoked buyer appetite. He said the lowering of interest rates by major lenders was even more significant. â€Å"The Sydney market has got no sense of stopping at the moment. There’s been no pause for reflection over the holiday break,† Dr Wilson said. â€Å"The type of growth we’re getting now, at 6 per cent a quarter, is unsustainable, but we must remember how low interest rates are now which has pushed down the repayment on the average loan.† Dr Wilson said that there was no bubble emerging as banks were stringent on the loan-to-value ratio. Housing unaffordability would moderate price value growth in the back end of the year, although a lot would depend on the

Thursday, November 21, 2019

How the Managers Personality Affects His Management Style Essay

How the Managers Personality Affects His Management Style - Essay Example Moreover, his ability to monitor the internal and external environment factors are also very important for the organisation (Robbins, Coulter 2002). A manager is generally responsible for a project or a team of people and, essentially, must be able to communicate, negotiate and influence. However, these skills can be performed in different ways. A key component of job satisfaction is the relationship between managers and their staff. This, in turn, is influenced both by the people and management styles involved (Which Management Style 2005). In their book "Management", Robbins and Coulter stressed, "Management is the process of coordinating work activities so that they are completed efficiently and effectively with and through other people." They also said that the manager is "someone who works with and through other people by coordinating their work activities in order to accomplish organisational goals (Robbins, Coulter 2002)." Generally speaking, there are four functions of the manager: planning, organizing, leading, and controlling. Planning includes defining the goals, establishing strategies, and developing plans to coordinate activities. Organising includes defining what needs to be done, who will do the job, and how it will be done. The leading function implies motivating and influencing subordinates, and resolving all the conflicts among them. Moreover, the last function of the manager is controlling or monitoring the activities to ensure that they have been accomplished as planned (qtd from Ghazaryan 2002). However, there is an additional liability for manager; that is managing the internal culture and external environment. Managers operate within the constraints imposed by the organisational culture and external environment but they are not powerless; they can still influence the organisation's performance (qtd. from Ghazaryan 2002). The behaviour of the manager should be either an immediate source of satisfaction or a future means of satisfaction for group members. Moreover, a leader's behaviour will motivate employees if it satisfies their needs. This satisfaction is contingent on effective performance of the leader, which includes coaching, guidance, support, and rewards that are necessary for effective performance (Robbins, Coulter 2002). Management styles are depends on behaviour, and behaviours are linked to the manager's own unique personality. "Management style" is a term often used to describe the "how" of management. For a while, it was believed that there were only two basic management styles: autocratic and democratic. An autocratic style is used to instruct and command. Managers who use this style impose their decisions on staff and expect or demand compliance. A democratic style allows decisions to emerge from a consensus (eg, a vote) (Which Management Style 2005). Sad to say, most management styles in many organisations are not supportive to the creation of high performance organizational cultures where ingenuity, creativity, and innovation can thrive, possibly because management is autocratic. In successful businesses or organisations, managers were described as accessible, approachable, consensual, entrepreneurial, empowering, motivating, innovative and trusting.

Wednesday, November 20, 2019

Starbucks Business Strategy Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2750 words

Starbucks Business Strategy - Case Study Example This research paper will be broadly divided into three sections which will be titled as background, analysis and conclusion. The objective of the research paper will be fulfilled in these three sections and along with that relevant conclusion will be also drawn. In the first segment, i.e. background the study seeks to highlight clear and detailed overview of pertinent information from the case and outside resources that describes the industry and the organizations and key players involved. The external sources that will be used are generally books, journal articles and authentic electronic sources. In the analysis section, the study seeks to scrutinize the course concepts and along with that identifies and discusses the main strategic issues facing the industry and organizations, such as external environment, internal situation, and strategic fit. Hence, in order to carry out this section, the study will be emphasizing on the external as well as the internal environment of the organi zation. In the last section of the study, the study would be highlighting the important points and will also describe about the ways the situation can be improved. Technically, Starbucks should fall in the beverage industry, but since they also market various other food products, they are adjudged to be a part of the restaurant industry. As the economy continues to improve, a significant wave of change is being moved through the restaurant industry. This has redefined how the companies have grown operated and managed risks. The robust technological development has been the key driver for this change and has provided companies with the opportunity to explore new business techniques. The impact of technology in the US restaurant industry has also been positive as it allowed them to be more efficient and enhance the overall productivity. The US restaurant industry has emerged as one of the major industries of

Monday, November 18, 2019

Teamwork Is the Best Way In Business Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Teamwork Is the Best Way In Business - Essay Example Even if companies implement the best human resource practices to prevent conflict within the teams they will occur and the managers and team leaders are responsible for finding ways to resolve these problems. Conflicts arise due to issues such as goal incompatibilities, resources scarcity, and interpersonal relationships. The way the work is structure is an element that affects the probability the manifestation of conflict. Workflow interdependencies are work designs that are subject to a high incidence of conflict. In such a setting there is a high degree of dependency between the work performed by different members, thus one person does not deliver on time or their quality of work is how it affects the other person. This is a breeding ground for conflict. The manager can design internal workflows in a way that the dependency among the members is reduced which will lower the incidence of conflict in a corporation. This can be achieved applying techniques such as decoupling or buffer ing. Decoupling is a technique that directly deals with confliction situation by reducing the required contact between conflicting parties. Buffering creates a work output inventory so that when these two groups that depend on each other work, the inventory serves as protection in case there is a delay of work in the system. There are several ways a manager can deal with conflict in order to find a prompt resolution to the situation. Five approaches that utilize in the industry to deal with conflict are accommodation, compromise, avoidance.

Saturday, November 16, 2019

Calvinism Was Founded By John Calvin Religion Essay

Calvinism Was Founded By John Calvin Religion Essay Calvinism was founded by a man named John Calvin (Theopedia, par. 1). John Calvin was born on July 10, 1509 in France and died on May 27, 1564 at the age of 54 (Rieske, par. 1). John Calvin was brought up Roman Catholic by his mother, Jeanne Le Franc (Rieske, par. 1). John Calvins father, Gerard, was an attorney, raised by seafaring men (Rieske, par. 1). At the age of eighteen, Johns education process was complete (Rieske, par. 2). After John Calvins education and studies were complete, John became a humanist and a reformer, instead of following Roman Catholicism (Rieske, par. 2). To know about a religion or a denomination, one should study also about the founder and the background to his or her life, so that we can know where they came from and where the process of their doctrine beliefs came from. The five main points to Calvinism are: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election (Predestination), Limited Atonement, Irrisistable Grace, and also the Perseverance of the Saints (Humphreys, par. 13). The First of the five points of Calvinism is Total Depravity (Calvinism, par. 4). Every man deserves Hell and is worthless without the presence of God in their lives (Calvinism, par. 4). Adam and Eve and everyone after them were censured by a just God because of original sin (Calvinism, par. 4). The second point is Unconditional Election or Predestination (Humphreys, par. 13). God felt sorry for mankind and sent Jesus to save some sinners, but not all (Calvinism, par. 5). These are known as the Elect and their fate was decided by God before they were born (Calvinism, par. 5). This is not a matter of choice, for the person, but a decision of God (Calvinism, par. 5). Calvinist seem to determine among themselves who is likely to be elected by a persons behavior (Calvinism, par. 6). The points of Limited Atonement and Irrisistable Grace fall with this as well (Humphreys, par. 14-18). The point of Perseverance of the Saints means that once God saves someone, they will always be saved (Humphreys, par. 19). Calvinism teaches that believers dont need priests (Calvinism, par. 8). Calvinists observe both communion and baptism (Calvinism, par. 8). Our God does not need to check the time for anything because He knows when, where, and how everything will happen (Theopedia, par. 5). God keeps himself hidden from non-believers but reveals Himself to those who already know Him, or will know Him (Theopedia, par.5). In the later history of Calvinism, people have modified John Calvins teachings to serve their own purposes and the beliefs of the Reformed Tradition of Protestant Christianity, which Calvinism was the most prominent in (Theopedia, par. 5). When Calvinism first started it suddenly became very popular all around the world (Calvinism, par. 3). John Calvin and many more of his co-pastors were originally from France but left because of their religion, so they moved to Geneva which became a trading city of about 10,000 people (Grell, par. 8). The Old Testament is mainly where Calvin got his inspirations from (Grell, par. 10). Calvinism is not comprehensible without remembering the persecution of Christians (Grell, par. 10). Som e people thought that the idea of Predestination produced anxiety from asceticism and capitalism (German, par. 11). Calvinism was a large part of the Great Awakening Movement in American History, which influenced American culture and disinterested benevolence (German, par. 4). People could give to others without sacrifice (German, par. 4). Jonathan Edwards was the main teacher of this view (German, par. 4). It also included caring for the needs of the many instead of the individual (German, par. 6). Calvinists share many beliefs with Baptists, but they hold some beliefs that we do not share (Humphreys, par. 2). God determines all things in detail, including who will, and who will not be saved (Humphreys, par. 2). Most of the founders of the Southern Baptist Convention were Calvinists, but today most Southern Baptists are not (Humphreys, par. 7). Calvinists believe that mankind is completely corrupt (Theopedia, par. 6). Calvinists also teach that Christ died for a lot of people, but not for everyone (Theopedia, par. 8). Calvinists differed from Lutheranism in that Luther taught a salvation based on faith of the individual and disputed Calvins idea of Predestination (Calvinism, par. 9). However, they do share a belief that we can depend on Gods word (Calvinism, par. 9). In his song, Wholly Yours, David Crowder sings I am full of earth/You are heavens worth/I am stained with dirt/Prone to depravity (Van Biema, par. 1). Songs like this are becoming more and more popular as Calvinism makes a comeback (Burek, par. 6). This comeback challenges Prosperity Gospel that has been so popular in recent years by renewing a focus on God first (Burek, par. 6). More than ten percent of Southern Baptist pastors call themselves Calvinists (Burek, par. 7). Calvinist pastors like John Piper and Mark Dever are at the forefront of the movement, which is especially with young professional people (Burek, par. 8). They point to John Calvin as one of the minds that created our modern culture and the culture of America in general (Burek, par. 18). American ideals of democracy, our open market economy, and equal opportunity all came from John Calvin (Burek, par. 18). The New Calvinism is an effort to put focus back on God and off of ourself (Burek, par. 28). These young people have grown up in an immoral culture and want more than a God who will just be their buddy (Van Biema, par. 5). They want a God who is God (Van Biema, par. 5). They want a God who is bigger and better than they are (Burek, par. 36). These people would rebuke the idea that the Jesus wants to be our friend approach (Burek, par. 13). On the surface, one would think that Calvinism would not be accepted in todays culture (Burek, par. 20). Much of Christianity today concerns a Prosperity Gospel that is centered around the individual (Burek, par. 20). Consider a recent Barna Group survey to determine how many Americans believe that the Bible is completely true, and in salvation by works and not grace (Burek, par. 21). Only nine percent of people surveyed, believed in salvation by grace and among eighteen to twenty-three year olds, it was less than one percent (Burek, par. 22). Many Christians say that they pick and choose from their churchs teachings what they themselves want to believe (Burek, par. 23). This by necessity seems to reveal the need for people to believe that God is God and that He is over everything (Burek, par. 28). They need to know not that man can be improved, but that God is praised (Burek, par. 28). John Calvins teachings had wide exceptance over his lifetime and the centuries to come (Bouwsma, par. 3). People from every cultural background and economic status, were drawn to Calvinism (Bouwsma, par. 3). Calvinisms attraction then, as it is now, comes from how it seemingly explains social problems existing in culture and how it encourages its followers to do good works in Christs name (Bouwsma, par. 3). Calvinism is expertly illustrated in the comic strip Calvin and Hobbes (Fact-Index, par. 4). In fact, the character Calvin is named for John Calvin, and the character Hobbes is named after Thomas Hobbes, who was a seventeenth century philosopher who had what the strips creator called a dim view of human nature (Fact-Index, par. 4). Their witty banter satirizes Calvinisms world view in a fresh and appealing way (Fact-Index, par. 3). The strip, and the teachings of pastors such as John Piper, have wide appeal to people who are searching for meaning in todays world (Burek, par. 8). I t is important that one would show grace towards those that do not agree with ones doctrinal views, but that one would teach and share that the salvation God offers is for everyone, not just Calvins chosen elect.

Wednesday, November 13, 2019

Free Brave New World Essays: Huxley and Shakespeare -- Brave New World

Huxley and Shakespeare "Do they read Shakespeare?" asked the Savage as they walked, on their way to the Bio-chemical Laboratories, past the School Library. "Certainly not," said the Head Mistress, blushing. In Aldous Huxley's â€Å"Brave New World", allusions to William Shakespeare and his works emphasize the contrast between the ""Brave New World"" and the world in Shakespeare's time and even the current time period. Enhancing the work's meaning, the allusions and character's reactions to the allusions reveal the positive and negative aspects of our society today. The main characters in "Brave New World", Lenina Crowne, Henry Foster, and Bernard Marx, live in a futuristic world where babies are mass produced in laboratories and raised to perform various functions in society. In order to assure community, stability, and identity, the basis of their world, these functions must be met and solitary amusements are discouraged. Inferring that reading Shakespeare is entertaining, people in the ""Brave New World"" have "feelies" to amuse themselves instead. To demonstrate the differenc... Free Brave New World Essays: Huxley and Shakespeare -- Brave New World Huxley and Shakespeare "Do they read Shakespeare?" asked the Savage as they walked, on their way to the Bio-chemical Laboratories, past the School Library. "Certainly not," said the Head Mistress, blushing. In Aldous Huxley's â€Å"Brave New World", allusions to William Shakespeare and his works emphasize the contrast between the ""Brave New World"" and the world in Shakespeare's time and even the current time period. Enhancing the work's meaning, the allusions and character's reactions to the allusions reveal the positive and negative aspects of our society today. The main characters in "Brave New World", Lenina Crowne, Henry Foster, and Bernard Marx, live in a futuristic world where babies are mass produced in laboratories and raised to perform various functions in society. In order to assure community, stability, and identity, the basis of their world, these functions must be met and solitary amusements are discouraged. Inferring that reading Shakespeare is entertaining, people in the ""Brave New World"" have "feelies" to amuse themselves instead. To demonstrate the differenc...

Monday, November 11, 2019

Deception Point Page 28

Should I consult Sexton? She quickly decided against it. He was in a meeting. Besides, if she told him about this e-mail, she'd have to tell him about the others. She decided her informant's offer to meet in public in broad daylight must be to make Gabrielle feel safe. After all, this person had done nothing but help her for the last two weeks. He or she was obviously a friend. Reading the e-mail one last time, Gabrielle checked the clock. She had an hour. 30 The NASA administrator was feeling less edgy now that the meteorite was successfully out of the ice. Everything is falling into place, he told himself as he headed across the dome to the work area of Michael Tolland. Nothing can stop us now. â€Å"How's it coming?† Ekstrom asked, striding up behind the television scientist. Tolland glanced up from his computer, looking tired but enthusiastic. â€Å"Editing is almost done. I'm just overlaying some of the extraction footage your people shot. Should be done momentarily.† â€Å"Good.† The President had asked Ekstrom to upload Tolland's documentary to the White House as soon as possible. Although Ekstrom had been cynical about the President's desire to use Michael Tolland on this project, seeing the rough cuts of Tolland's documentary had changed Ekstrom's mind. The television star's spirited narrative, combined with his interviews of the civilian scientists, had been brilliantly fused into a thrilling and comprehensible fifteen minutes of scientific programming. Tolland had achieved effortlessly what NASA so often failed to do-describe a scientific discovery at the level of the average American intellect without being patronizing. â€Å"When you're done editing,† Ekstrom said, â€Å"bring the finished product over to the press area. I'll have someone upload a digital copy to the White House.† â€Å"Yes, sir.† Tolland went back to work. Ekstrom moved on. When he arrived at the north wall, he was encouraged to find the habisphere's â€Å"press area† had come together nicely. A large blue carpet had been rolled out on the ice. Centered on the rug sat a long symposium table with several microphones, a NASA drape, and an enormous American flag as a backdrop. To complete the visual drama, the meteorite had been transported on a palette sled to its position of honor, directly in front of the symposium table. Ekstrom was pleased to see the mood in the press area was one of celebration. Much of his staff was now crowded around the meteorite, holding their hands out over its still-warm mass like campers around a campfire. Ekstrom decided that this was the moment. He walked over to several cardboard boxes sitting on the ice behind the press area. He'd had the boxes flown in from Greenland this morning. â€Å"Drinks are on me!† he yelled, handing out cans of beer to his cavorting staff. â€Å"Hey, boss!† someone yelled. â€Å"Thanks! It's even cold!† Ekstrom gave a rare smile. â€Å"I've been keeping it on ice.† Everyone laughed. â€Å"Wait a minute!† someone else yelled, scowling good-naturedly at his can. â€Å"This stuff's Canadian! Where's your patriotism?† â€Å"We're on a budget, here, folks. Cheapest stuff I could find.† More laughter. â€Å"Attention shoppers,† one of the NASA television crew yelled into a megaphone. â€Å"We're about to switch to media lighting. You may experience temporary blindness.† â€Å"And no kissing in the dark,† someone yelled. â€Å"This is a family program!† Ekstrom chuckled, enjoying the raillery as his crew made final adjustments to the spotlights and accent lighting. â€Å"Switching to media lighting in five, four, three, two†¦ â€Å" The dome's interior dimmed rapidly as the halogen lamps shut down. Within seconds, all the lights were off. An impenetrable darkness engulfed the dome. Someone let out a mock scream. â€Å"Who pinched my ass?† someone yelled, laughing. The blackness lasted only a moment before it was pierced by the intense glare of media spotlights. Everyone squinted. The transformation was now complete; the north quadrant of the NASA habisphere had become a television studio. The remainder of the dome now looked like a gaping barn at night. The only light in the other sections was the muted reflection of the media lights reflecting off the arched ceiling and throwing long shadows across the now deserted work stations. Ekstrom stepped back into the shadows, gratified to see his team carousing around the illuminated meteorite. He felt like a father at Christmas, watching his kids enjoy themselves around the tree. God knows they deserve it, Ekstrom thought, never suspecting what calamity lay ahead. 31 The weather was changing. Like a mournful harbinger of impending conflict, the katabatic wind let out a plaintive howl and gusted hard against the Delta Force's shelter. Delta-One finished battening down the storm coverings and went back inside to his two partners. They'd been through this before. It would soon pass. Delta-Two was staring at the live video feed from the microbot. â€Å"You better look at this,† he said. Delta-One came over. The inside of the habisphere was in total darkness except for the bright lighting on the north side of the dome near the stage. The remainder of the habisphere appeared only as a dim outline. â€Å"It's nothing,† he said. â€Å"They're just testing their television lighting for tonight.† â€Å"The lighting's not the problem.† Delta-Two pointed to the dark blob in the middle of the ice-the water-filled hole from which the meteorite had been extracted. â€Å"That's the problem.† Delta-One looked at the hole. It was still surrounded by pylons, and the surface of the water appeared calm. â€Å"I don't see anything.† â€Å"Look again.† He maneuvered the joystick, spiraling the microbot down toward the surface of the hole. As Delta-One studied the darkened pool of melted water more closely, he saw something that caused him to recoil in shock. â€Å"What the†¦?† Delta-Three came over and looked. He too looked stunned. â€Å"My God. Is that the extraction pit? Is the water supposed to be doing that?† â€Å"No,† Delta-One said. â€Å"It sure as hell isn't.† 32 Although Rachel Sexton was currently sitting inside a large metal box situated three thousand miles from Washington, D.C., she felt the same pressure as if she'd been summoned to the White House. The videophone monitor before her displayed a crystal clear image of President Zach Herney seated in the White House communications room before the presidential seal. The digital audio connection was flawless, and with the exception of an almost imperceptible delay, the man could have been in the next room. Their conversation was upbeat and direct. The President seemed pleased, though not at all surprised, by Rachel's favorable assessment of NASA's find and of his choice to use Michael Tolland's captivating persona as a spokesman. The President's mood was good-natured and jocular. â€Å"As I'm sure you will agree,† Herney said, his voice growing more serious now, â€Å"in a perfect world, the ramifications of this discovery would be purely scientific in nature.† He paused, leaning forward, his face filling the screen. â€Å"Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world, and this NASA triumph is going to be a political football the moment I announce it.† â€Å"Considering the conclusive proof and who you've recruited for endorsements, I can't imagine how the public or any of your opposition will be able to do anything other than accept this discovery as confirmed fact.† Herney gave an almost sad chuckle. â€Å"My political opponents will believe what they see, Rachel. My concerns are that they won't like what they see.†

Friday, November 8, 2019

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.

Wednesday, November 6, 2019

Saviour or Psychopath essays

Saviour or Psychopath essays Was Randall P. McMurphy a saviour or a psychopath? The character of Randall P. McMurphy in Ken Kesey's acclaimed film, 'One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest', displays characteristics that are commonly associated with being both a psychopath and a saviour. The film is set in an American mental institution in the early 1960's, which means that the attitudes of the staff, and community in general, towards mental illness were a lot different to that of the twenty- first century. McMurphy's persona seemed to be constantly changing throughout the film to fit each situation; whether he was being a madman towards his superiors or being the nice guy to his fellow inmates McMurphy always 'tried' to know what to do. Mac, as the inmates knew him developed into a man who was on the good side of evil, slightly eccentric and mischievous but underneath a warm, loveable gentleman who would break an arm and a leg to help his friends. It is for this reason that the character of Randall P. McMurphy is comparative to Jesus Christ - he empowered and cured ot hers to the dissatisfaction of his superiors. The argument for that of saviour is a very positive one with Randall showing many times that he is indeed a saviour. There was one main character in the film, Chief, whom Randall formed a special bond with. In a way, Randall actually saved Chief from a desolate life in the asylum. When Randall first arrived at the asylum, Chief was a deaf, mute Indian and none of the other inmates talked to him or cared enough about him to involve him in anything. Their relationship started with Randall cracking wise guy jokes around him but after an afternoon game of basketball, they formed a closer bond. This game really set up Randalls character as a larrikin who cared. There were another three scenes where Randalls relationship with Chief was prominent: the second vote regarding the World Series Baseball when Randall convinced Chief to...

Monday, November 4, 2019

The Role and Value of Supervision and Appraisal in Today's Essay

The Role and Value of Supervision and Appraisal in Today's Organizations and how Leadership Helps Effective Implementation of Th - Essay Example Generally there is a form of hierarchy attached to supervision, with the supervisor being of higher authority within the organisation than the individual being supervised . An appraisal is an evaluation of the performance of an employee that occurs within an organisation and usually focuses on how individual employees perform compared to expectations, where they could improve, and where they are doing well. Appraisals provide information to the employee that allows them to know how they are performing, and also how their performance is viewed by management . Most forms of appraisal involve supervision of the employee by an external party, a supervisor, over a short or an extended period of time. In some cases multiple supervisors may be involved to decrease potential bias . Supervision is important to appraisals. Generally, an appraisal is carried out by a member of the organisation who spends time with and time supervising the employee. Supervision can occur in a number of ways. The supervisor may spend time with the employee while they are performing a practical task, it may be informal or passive, such as the supervisor working in the same room as the employee and thus aware of the employees work in this way, alternatively supervision may occur by peers, or one supervisor may simultaneously supervise many employees . An example of supervision and appraisal is within the medical industry. Here a trainee is almost constantly under supervision as they learn the processes and procedures that they are part of, and their role. Supervision has been shown to help the trainees to develop the ability to care for the patient, and those that are supervised are more effective at patient care than those that are not. Coupled with supervision of trainees is regular appraisal to ensure that both the trainee and the supervisor agree on what is expected of the trainee . Effective supervision and appraisal systems can result in the increased productivity of the company overall as well as the individual employees, as well as increased workplace morale and better relationships between employees . Supervision and Appraisal in the Workplace Generally, supervision in an organisation is with the intent either passively or actively of determining the effectiveness of employees and correcting mistakes. In the health industry supervision is also used to teach and train nurses, with this taking the predominant role over the regulatory function . However, in most organisations the regulatory function of supervision and its link to appraisals remains the key focus of supervision of employees. Within a company there may be many employees that perform the same role. However, within this group of employees, there is likely to be substantial differences in experience, knowledge and performance . As a consequence, appraisals of employee’s performance are used widely in organisations, and are often considered a key part of the success of an organisation. If done co rrectly, appraisals work to reconcile the needs and desires of the employees and management, allowing the establishment of goals that contribute to personal growth of the employee and growth of the company as

Saturday, November 2, 2019

Analyze Film Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Analyze Film - Essay Example Controlling one of the busiest airspaces in the United States is a major reason that gives Nick a lot of pressure hence his stressful life. The job is very stressing as indicated by the 50% dropout of new recruits. The new recruits are unable to cope with this pressure and quit the job at its earliest stages. Later, Russell Bell joins the air controllers. Nick is challenged such that he is envious of the power and endurance portrayed by a new recruit (Pushing Tin). The entry of Russell into the airspace controlling job becomes a reason to pressure Nick since he always thought that he was the best in the crew. It is something that he can do away with by just swallowing his pride but since his inner character shows him otherwise, he ends up being very stressed by everything Russell does in life. Nick is jealous of the power to handle stressful tasks at the workplace that is portrayed by Russell. He perceives him as his competitor in everything in life. He always thought that he would be the toughest man to cope with compromising situations at the work place and at home, but someone appears into his life and proves to be even better. No matter how good somebody can be at their workplaces, there is always someone out there who is even better (Bickerstaff, 4). Nick is fed up by the strength and wit shown by Russell. He thinks of ways to hurt him and ends up liking his wife Mary. He competes with Russell in physical battles including racing cars, basketball shooting contests and worse still competing on a basis of who has the better marriage. Surprisingly, it is Nick who becomes stressed by these contests. He feels that he is losing every battle against Russell who seems not to be bothered by the contests at all. Nick takes everything that Russell does to be a contest and tries to be better than him but ends up being a loser in his view of things (Parker, 27). Nick tries in every way to make