Multimedia Report Article Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Multimedia Report - Article Example I wondered how parents find joy in parenting a child who does not grow intellectually and socially; is unable to interact with parents and siblings; does not exhibit sensory and conscious awareness, communication and personality factors associated with personhood. I wondered how parents of anencephalic children find joy in parenting. I found an answer in a North Carolina News 14 video about a Charlotte family invited by an organ donor organization to ride a float in the Pasadena Rose Bowl Parade. The video was well-done, with still shots of the baby, family, and footage of parent comments, and information. During Shannon’s pregnancy, baby Skylar, a girl, was found to be anencephalic. She had a brain stem and open neural tube, said by our book to sometimes be caused by a lack of folic acid in the mother’s body (Page 36). They decided to carry her to term. They did this in order to donate her organs (her liver cells), to give meaning to Skylar’s life, to help anoth er family (the mother explained), to keep from â€Å"focusing on the dark side† (as the father said). Skylar lived for 99 minutes, after birth, surrounded by family and friends, and died in her mother’s arms. The photos clearly show love and compassion and parenting joy in this child. The mother commented, â€Å"She really changed our lives†. ... 5 video clip and article, together, about a Colorado boy with anencephaly (brain stem only, open neural tube) who has miraculously lived for his first birthday celebration. Most babies with anencephaly do not live even until birth, and even then not more than minutes, usually. His mother and grandparents clearly love him. He is cuddled and held. Mom explains that he cannot see, hear, suck, crawl, sit, and has no teeth. She expresses pain that she will soon have to bury him, yet she brags about how he smiles sometimes and how they once â€Å"got him to laugh† (Vanderputte, 2009). They celebrate every milestone, not knowing if there will be another. Mom says, â€Å"He’s a miracle. He’s changed so many people’s lives†. Because I am captivated by this theme of the joys of parenting, and how it overcomes difficulties as great as a lack of apparent personhood and consciousness, I am impressed by her courage in finding parenting joy. In this particular art icle, however, I am most intrigued by the mother’s statement that they â€Å"got him to laugh†, and the excitement in her report of his smiles, and their ability to â€Å"celebrate every milestone†. It is possible, though unlikely, that modern medicine is mistaken and that children without a brain can express emotion, consciousness and learning. If not, the mother is projecting hopes onto a child incapable of fulfilling them. Yet she does so and feels joy. If we are â€Å"programmed to respond positively to babies† (Brooks, 2010, p 3), is parenting joy simply parental projection, in this case? Two among six reasons that people reportedly take on the parenting role are to feel excitement at children’s growth and development and to feel accomplishment in helping children grow (p 4). If growth and development are lacking,

University of Phoenix and I Essay Example for Free

University of Phoenix and I Essay It is clear to me how University of Phoenix’ convenient and efficient educational program designed for working professionals, has helped me grow. I see tremendous change and development in myself. I have not only matured personally and professionally, but have also grown to believe in orderly goals and motives with respect to my existence. My life has been organized and I see greater potential for my progress. The outlook of the entire university, dedicated to the success of its students, may be viewed now in who I am as compared to who I was before joining the BS of Information Technology program. When I started the program at University of Phoenix, my professional attitude was unseasoned. I was an unsure person, someone who had not matured. My humble and uninformed self did not allow me to think much of my career. I had briefly dreamt of becoming a graphic designer. However, I had wrongly imagined that I would not go too far. My mind was set at thinking that I might have to do with unsuitable jobs. What else are high school graduates supposed to do? I did not aspire to be great or hold lofty goals for my career. My goals were in fact, not many. I only desired to keep myself employed. My knowledge base was limited. I was raw. To that end, I am absolutely honest to claim that I knew little or nothing about the things I have learned at the University of Phoenix. Knowledge has been added on to my life at a rapid pace with this great program. Before this, life could seem sluggish to me as an unaware person. At work, I did not consider myself a professional. I did not even present myself as such. I was simply working; holding a job because one has to do that in this uncertain world. I would describe my writing skills before the program as ranging from bad to good. This is one of the areas where I have experienced drastic change. Besides, I now have extremely different views about myself and my career. My verbal communication skills before the program may also be described as varying from bad to good. With less confidence, the way I presented myself was obviously poor. I did not grasp at the time that professionally, one must appear assertive and proficient to get the work done. At present, I like to view myself as a thorough professional. My critical thinking skills before the program were good. All the same, my â€Å"Critical Thinking† (PHL/251) general education course worked wonders to polish my skills. It was for this reason that I had chosen the course. I believe that my decision was absolutely correct. After all, critical thinking is crucial in both personal and professional life. My interpersonal skills were always excellent, according to my opinion. This is because I believe in people, trust them, and wish to know more about them in order to be of assistance to them. I chose the general education course called â€Å"U. S. History to 1865† (HIS/110) because I was deeply interested in understanding the mechanics of human relationships, as well as the causes and effects of human decisions. Learning about U. S. history was essential, seeing that the people I share my space with do also share the same history. Hence, I believed unconsciously that I would be able to improve myself in my relations with others if I studied human history. Once again, my decision to opt for this general education course was correct, seeing that I now deal even more effectively in my personal and professional relationships. The most important core courses with respect to my employment were â€Å"Critical Thinking: Strategies in Decision Making† (MGT/350) and â€Å"Project Planning and Implementation† (CMGT/410). I opted for these courses because I believe that professionals who know the functions of management are always more successful than the rest. Furthermore, these courses helped me to assimilate my ideas about team projects as well as leadership. I further believe that all professionals must be armed with knowledge of management, even if this knowledge is specialized in terms of Information Technology. What is more, decision makers, project planners and implementers must always bear in mind the people connected with the decisions and projects. Indeed, this idea connected with my love for people and interest in human relations. Moreover, I now connect better with the people at my workplace, and truly understand more about the mechanics of decision making and project planning as well as implementation. One of the terminal objectives of my program was, of course, for me to mature into a successful individual in my professional life. Even at my current organization – General Mills, where I presently work as a Network Engineer – development and innovation are priorities as well as major targets. Hence, both the University of Phoenix and General Mills have contributed to my current upsurge or growth. But the job without the education at University of Phoenix would definitely not be as good as it is at present. At this time, however, my job is a huge part of who I am and who I want to be. The program at University of Phoenix has really been a great source of inspiration for me. Employment may have helped me go on living. But the education here has helped me to live life fully, to enjoy my work and to be proper in all respects. It has shown me the way to live life in a way that is better, not just to live as I may have heard others living. Life does not just drag on anymore. It is full of enthusiasm and anticipation for a bright present and future. I am applying the tools that I have learned through the University of Phoenix, and there is hope to use them in better ways to achieve higher goals. I am eager to learn even more of that which would help me along. Learning should be a life-long process so that one’s intellectual powers do not rust. Before the program, it was as though I, as a resource, was underutilized. Now I feel fully functional. Just as General Mills thrives on research and development, I see myself flourishing with an increase in my knowledge base and the utilization of my mental resources to their fullest capacity. The Information Technology skills learned by me through the program at University of Phoenix are incomparable to anything I have ever been taught. I feel more grown-up now because of what this program has done for me. I have been shown much of my potential. It seems that I have learned a lot and there is excitement in me now to know more. Life does not seem like dreary employment anymore. I enjoy my personal and professional life much more now that I have been a part of the University of Phoenix. As far as my ethical outlook is concerned, I see no change between the past and the present, and I do not see it changing either. My values have not changed. My self-esteem has increased because the way I see myself has changed. Whereas I may have been covered by darkness in my mind, I now see myself in the light, capable of doing much, maintaining goals, and wanting to do all that is good. I certainly have become advanced in my professional attitude. With regards to my personal attitude, I even walk more confidently now and that has a serious affect upon my professionalism too. At work, I have to be responsible, knowing and showing that I can make it right and to the top. It is as though I have been cultivated and I know what I am doing now. My career views have changed so much that whereas I had seen myself doing basic jobs and not going too far in my professional life before I joined University of Phoenix, now I feel confident and able to be the leader at work. I feel that the axiom ‘the sky is the limit’ is working in my life now. Earlier I may have thought that it is impossible to have such an attitude unless one’s performance was really marvelous. But this program has been about trying to do one’s best and fulfilling one’s potential. It has made me open my eyes and view the world out there full of possibilities for a bright human being wanting to do more and wanting to do what is excellent. I feel capable of reaching the top of my company now. Furthermore, now that I have had a glimpse of my highest potential, I also feel self-assured and competent enough to be at the top of another organization, if not my present company. A part of this newly found confidence in me is a result of observation. Even so, the knowledge that has been imparted to me with the wonderful Information Technology program takes most of the credit for my motivation today. Resonant with my new goals is the fact that my knowledge base has grown impressively. I now know not only that which is taught at undergraduate level in my field, but I am also seen by others as a better professional. My professional sense is increasing, signaling that I must continue trying to do better. I do not see the way down now. What is more, I am now able to hold professional presentations and meetings with high level professionals at General Mills. I am also more interested in my work at present. Over the next five years, my professional and personal attitudes may become more refined. I hope to become more mature and confident. I now understand how learning more can make one grow. I do not only want to continue learning, but I also want to continue growing until I can become a self-actualized individual. I wish to develop my ability to move to higher levels in my career through greater productivity. My goal is to be my best and also to be the very best in others’ opinion. I would like to attend a graduate program. I have so greatly and positively been influenced by the undergraduate program at University of Phoenix that I hunger for more of education. I understand to an extent how much it can do for me. Before the program, I did not think much of education besides the fact that it is necessary to a certain level. But because I have been working and noticing the changes that education brings into my professional life, I long to gather more knowledge. Education is directly related to success. I love the changes higher education has brought to my life and I welcome this fantastic transformation on an ongoing basis. Thinking is the basis of our actions, and if the undergraduate program at University of Phoenix could do so much for my life and attitudes, I cannot yet imagine where a graduate program might put me with regards to my professional position. I need more guidance for the future though, to be specific about what I would really do. I see the possibilities laid open before me, but which way do I really go? Many ways seem important. Perhaps I would settle for an MBA. In any case, I would have liked the University of Phoenix to better assist me in getting to the right place at the right time in future. To get a clearer sense of my educational goal at present, I may have to go for education counseling. I would like to recommend at this point that the University of Phoenix should incorporate an extensive education counseling program for its students. Over the next five years, I wish to grow to have more business sense. This may happen through higher education and additional years of experience at work. In point of fact, I would like to improve in all spheres of my life, and in the areas of my being that are good now, I would like to keep a balance whereby I do not drift to the low side of things. With my new outlook, I feel ready to take responsibility to add value to the world, even if it is solely by way of doing my job well and showing others that honesty, hard work and learning can go a long way. I feel worthwhile now and am prepared to continue struggling through life with zeal. When life gets slothful, I know what I must do to change that and to be promoted learn. I must continue learning.

The Beveridge Report, 1942: Causes and Effects

The Beveridge Report, 1942: Causes and Effects CHAPTER 2: The publication of the Beveridge report in December 1942 is one of those moments in history which offer a unique challenge to historians. It is an event about which everybody at the time had a viewpoint. I recall my Grandfather telling me that William Bevridge was the architect of the welfare state, and the publication of his report marked a turning point in the lives of working class people across Britain. It is therefore a challenge for the historian to ignore their pre-conceived notions, and write an account of the Beveridge report based upon the information as it stands, rather than based upon perceptions. To write about what truly motivated Beveridge, what his true principles were, and what the real aims of the report were, rather than making assumptions based upon what is seen at face value. That is what I aim to do here. To understand the work, one has to understand the man, and that will be my starting point for this chapter. William Beveridge was a Liberal, indeed he became a liberal MP in 1944, but he was not a liberal in the classic tradition. Indeed, Beveridge would probably have more in common with the Liberal Democrat tradition of today than he would with the tradition of Lloyd George, and it should be remembered that he flirted with the idea of joining the Labour party at around the time he wrote his report. Various writers have wrestled with the idea of placing Beveridge somewhere on the left to right political spectrum, but in truth, any attempt to try and place him in this way would do the man and his work a disservice. Probably the best analysis is that of the Williams’ in ‘A Beveridge Reader’ and reiterated by Robert Leaper: â€Å"Beveridge was never a grand social theorist; he always favoured a practical, problem centred approach.†(1) From the evidence I have seen, it would be best to describe Beveridge as a pragmatist. He saw a problem, and looked for the best solution to solve the problem as he saw it. He showed no apparent concern for where the solution may have had its origins, only that the solution solved the problem. This is not to say that Beveridge did not have underlying principles. It has been argued by Albert Weale that two persistent themes run through his work: â€Å"The first is the belief that virtually the prime goal of public policy should be the development of an efficient economy capable of high levels of productivity. Underlying Beveridge’s conviction on this point, there appears to have been a tacitly assumed belief in the paradox of capitalist production: capitalism resulted in a highly unequal distribution of wealth, and yet it was the only system capable of producing sufficient wealth to eradicate poverty. The second persistent element in his social theory was Beveridge’s view that a highly centralized bureaucracy, staffed with public-spirited officials, would be the leading instrument of social reform.†(2) Having looked at what Beveridge was, it is also vitally important to understand what both he and his report were not. Beveridge was not a socialist and he was not a revolutionary, and neither was his report. As Eveline Burns points out: â€Å"In this context it can be seen that the Beveridge report is evolutionary, rather than revolutionary. The great contribution of the author consists in his recognition of the fact that the end of one stage of development had in fact been reached and that the time was ripe for the reorganization and new unification of the various programs in conformity with the changed social attitudes.†(3) Whilst I have broken with any idea of this being a report of revolutionary proportions, I must also break with the argument of Bartholemew, which I believe was somewhat dismissive of the report. He states: â€Å"So what did Beveridge propose? It was very simple. Everyone would make flat-rate contributions to a national insurance scheme. Those who fell ill, became unemployed or reached retirement age would, in return, receive flat-rate payments. That is it. The rest was detail.†(4) Bartholemew may technically be correct. The report did contain a lot of detail centred on this core principle. But the report also contained a vision or blueprint for the future, and in many respects, it was this part of the report which was of particular interest, as Beveridge went far beyond his initial remit. It is some of these ideas which I would like to look at now. As Burns points out: â€Å"It should be noted first of all that the report is essentially concerned with assuring freedom from want, in so far as want is due to interruptions of income or to the occurrence of costs unrelated to income to which all or the vast majority of the population are at some time or other liable.†(5) But this attack on want only formulated one part of the overall objectives, which was to attack what Beveridge described as the five giants. Beveridge stated in his second of three guiding principles: â€Å"The second principle is that organisation of social insurance should be treated as on part of a comprehensive policy of social progress. Social insurance fully developed income security; it is an attack upon want. But want is one only of the five giants on the road to reconstruction and in some ways the easiest to attack. The others are disease, ignorance squalor and idleness.†(6) Within the report, it was only the giants of want and by implication, idleness which were tackled head on. But with some imagination, it is not difficult to foresee the origins of the NHS, the development of a comprehensive education system and a local authority house building programme within its pages. Beveridge embodied within his plan, a vision for the future, which could be tackled piece by piece, beginning with want. The picture painted by Beveridge was an overall scheme which he described as follows: â€Å"The scheme embodies six fundamental principles; flat rate of contribution; unification of administrative responsibility; adequacy of benefit; comprehensiveness; and classification. Based on them and in combination with national assistance and voluntary insurance as subsidiary methods, the aim of the plan for social security is to make want under any circumstances unnecessary.†(7) Up to this point, I have tended to focus upon the social dimension of the Beveridge report, but as I have said before, we should not loose sight of the pragmatic dimension of the man. In signing of the report in 1942, Beveridge claimed it was marked by â€Å"economy in administration, adequacy in benefits and universality in scope.†(8) It is the aspect of economy in administration which is most commonly neglected when looking at the Beveridge report, and in assessing the man behind it. One of the most important motivations behind the report was the desire to rationalise the existing system which consisted of a set of unconnected bodies working under rules laid down by up to six different agencies. This system was seen by Beveridge among others as not only inefficient but also expensive in administration costs. Beveridge claimed in the report that: â€Å"Social insurance and allied services, as they exist today, are connected by a complex of disconnected administrative organs, proceeding on different principles, doing invaluable service but at no cost in money and trouble and anomalous treatment of identical problems for which there is no justification. In a system of social security, better on the whole than can be found in almost any other country, there are serious deficiencies which call for remedy. It is not open to question that , by closer co-ordination, the existing social services could be made at once more beneficial and more intelligible to those whom they serve and more economical in their administration.†(9) The same point is made in a rather more cynical manner by Bartholemew: â€Å"People who looked at the detail and actually read his words understood that the old Victorian was not proposing the bonanza which many assumed then and continue to believe. Keynes advised Beveridge on his costings and said, ‘the Chancellor of the Exchequer should thank his stars that he has got of so cheap.’ Members of the economic section of the Treasury believed that the Beveridge plan was actually cheaper than the provision which existed previously.†(10) The desire of Beveridge to create a more rational economic system as well as being a primary motive more his war on want, was also an important contributing factor in his desire to see a nationwide health system. Writing just after the publication of the report, Leo Wolman wrote: â€Å"These amount to saying that the scheme, in order to work and to avoid building up excessive expenditures and costs, must provide that the insured be kept healthy and fit for work and remain in employment lest they settle down too often and too long to living on the insurance benefits. The report attempts to translate these assumptions into practical proposals by calling upon the government to face the problems of the post-war unemployment and by laying the foundations for an unprecedented system of health and rehabilitation benefits and services.†(11) What Wolman observed in Beveridge was a belief that by introducing a health care system alongside the social care system, the health of people would be improved, leading to less stress being put on the social security fund through sickness. This desire to maintain the health of the workforce is also linked to Beveridge’s desire for greater efficiency. As Beveridge points out in his report: â€Å"It is in the interest of employers as such that the employees should have security, should be properly maintained during the inevitable intervals of unemployment or of sickness, should have the content which helps to make them efficient producers.†(12) It is worth noting that Beveridge received widespread support among the business community based upon his arguments of it leading to greater efficiency of the workforce. Samual Courtauld, chairman of the fabric firm, speaking to the Manchester Rotary Club in February 1943, declared himself: â€Å"Strongly in favour of the principles and almost all the proposals of the Beveridge report. I have not the faintest doubt that if we can survive the first severe business contraction which arises after the war, social security of this nature will be about the most profitable long-term investment the country could make. It will not undermine the moral of the nation’s workers: it will ultimately lead to a higher efficiency among them and a lowering of production costs.†(13) We have up to now focussed upon two dimensions of the aims and principles of the Beveridge report: the social and the economic. What we must now do is look at the political principles and aims of the report. I do not refer to party political aims but the underlying political aims. The aims of doing what is best for the nation as Beveridge saw it. There is good evidence that Beveridge saw a danger in men returning from war, seeking a better world and seeing nothing better than before. There is also evidence that there was a fear of possible consequences within the House of Commons. Beveridge wrote in his report: â€Å"There are yet others who will say that, however desirable it may appear to reconstruct social insurance or to make other plans for a better world of peace, all such concerns must now be put on one side, so that Britain may concentrate upon the urgent task of war. There is no need to spend the words today in emphasising the urgency or the difficulty of the task that faces the British people and their Allies. Only by surviving victoriously in the present struggle can they enable the freedom and happiness and kindliness to survive in the world. Only by obtaining from every individual citizen his maximum effort, concentrated upon the purposes of war, can they hope for early victory. This does not alter three facts: that the purpose of victory is to live into a better world than the old world; that each individual citizen is more likely to concentrate upon his war effort if he feels that his government will be ready in time with plans for that better world; that if these plans are to be ready in time, they must be made now.†(14) If the warnings of Beveridge were relatively subtle, then those expressed by Conservative MP, Quinton Hogg, in the parliamentary debate on 17th February, 1943, were very much to the point: â€Å"Some of my honourable friends seem to overlook one or two ultimate facts about social reform. The first is that if you do not give people social reform, they are going to give you social revolution. Let anyone consider the possibility of a series of dangerous industrial strikes following the present hostilities, and the effect that it would have on our industrial recovery.†(15) Whilst I am not totally convinced that this was a major factor in the reasoning of Beveridge, the lessons of what happened post 1918 would not have been lost on him. I do also believe that it strongly influenced Beveridge’s ability to sell the proposals to the Conservative part effectively. The true extent of this will be looked at in the next chapter. It has been argued by John Jacobs that â€Å"the impetus for what was to become the Beveridge report came from the TUC, who had for some time been pressing the Government for a comprehensive review of social insurance.†(16) Whilst there is no doubt that the TUC had a degree of influence, this is a far too simplistic model. It is my view that the origins of the report, and the principles within the report lie in the growing realisation that the world was changing, that there was a need both socially and economically for systems in place to be made more efficient. William Beveridge had a long history within this area of study and fully understood the deficiencies of the system. As has previously been emphasised, the report was not revolutionary in its ideas. But it was a document which exerted an immense influence upon the future of social policy in Britain. In essence, I would describe the report as the attempts by a pragmatist to rationalise an irrational system. FOOTNOTES: Social Policy and Administration Vol 25, No 1, March 1991 : Article By Leaper, R page 4 Political Studies Vol 27, Issue 2, June 1979 : Article By Weale, A page 288 American Economic Review Vol 33, No 3, September 1943 : Article By Burns, E page 519 Bartholemew, J : The Welfare State Were In (Politico, London, 2004) page 57 Prev Cite, Burns page 513 Beveridge, W: The Beveridge Report on Social and Allied Services 1942 (HMSO, London, 1942) page 1 Ibid Page 2 Thane, P : The Foundations of the Welfare State (Longman, Harlow, 1998) page 235 Prev Cite, Beveridge page 6 Prev Cite, Bartholemew page 58 Political Science Quarterly Vol 58, No 1, March 1943: Article By Wolman, L page 6-7 Prev Cite, Beveridge page 109 Manchester Guardian, February 19th, 1943 Prev Cite, Beveridge page 171 Hansard Parliamentary Debates: 17th February, 1943, Col 1818 Jacobs, J : Beveridge 1942-1992 (Whiting and Birch, London, 1992) page 140 CHAPTER 3: Time magazine printed on December 14th, 1942: â€Å"Not since the day of Munich had the British press given such play to any single story. War news was all but pushed from the pages of London’s war-curtailed dailies. Many of them devoted half their space to news of the document which, in the midst of war, looked forward to a better post-war world. The Beveridge Report, published last week was the biggest event for Britons in many years.†(1) In our present day age of cynicism towards anything political, it is difficult to imagine the idea of a government commissioned report selling 90,000 copies in its’ first week, and eventually seeing sales of 600,000. Even less, the idea of people cueing outside HMSO in London to buy a copy. Such euphoria today is usually reserved for the latest Harry Potter adventures. But in December 1942, this is exactly what happened. People wanted to but and read this document. It was headlined by ‘Time’ as ‘Rare and Refreshing Beveridge.’ This is probably an accurate representation of how people in Britain saw this report. A rare opportunity to read something new and refreshing. The Beveridge report appeared to capture a mood in a way which was not seen before, and is extremely unlikely to be seen again. What is also unlikely to be seen again is a document with such overwhelming approval. Bartholemew notes that: â€Å"In a survey at the time, nineteen out of twenty people had heard of the report and almost all were in favour of it.†(2) The Mass Observation Archives provide us with a valuable insight as to the public perception of the report at the time. Typical of the responses was that of a male skilled worker of 50, from Streatham: â€Å"I have read it and think it champion and will take a load off the minds of people. The most important proposals, well they are all very important but suppose the Retirement Pension and Unemployment increase are perhaps the greatest benefit. It should be passed as quickly as possible. I do not see how anybody can oppose it except perhaps the Insurance Companies but they don’t matter, they have feathered their nests long enough.†(3) Two things are interesting to note from this. Firstly, how enthusiasm can lead people to see things which are not there; in this case the promise of higher pensions and unemployment benefits. Secondly, the cynicism towards the insurance companies which would today, probably be directed towards the politicians. Amid the euphoria, there were comments which, although not really dissent, questioned some of the assumptions. The following is an opinion of a woman regarding family planning: â€Å"Well I’m one of the bad selfish women; I had only one child because I didn’t want any more. And now that my husband and I have parted I’m not particularly sorry. I think my young daughter looks forward to having a family of three or four. But of course she may change her mind when she marries or after she’s had one. After all, it’s such a terribly personal problem. I think that family allowances and better housing and more hope of social security would make a difference to the number of children in better off working class and lower middle class homes. But I don’t think anything on earth would make the educated classes start having large families, because they simply don’t want them.†(4) This is a rejection of the idea that family allowance payments would lead to larger families, This is an interesting observation in light of concerns at the time concerning the declining population. What should be clear from these observations of public opinion is a confirmation of what Bartholemew said. There was widespread public support for the Beveridge plan, to such an extent, the government acted sooner on the proposals than they had initially wanted. There is a general belief that the public support put pressure on the government to accept the conclusions of the report whilst the war was in progress. In light of this overwhelming public support, it is interesting to look at where opposition and criticism to the report came from. From what I have seen, I would place the opposition and criticism to the report into four different groups; government opposition (particularly the treasury), the Marxist left, the Right Wing of the Conservative Part, and Feminist opposition. I have not analysed opposition from insurance companies separately as their arguments correspond with those of the Tory right, and are fairly self explanatory. What is necessary is to look at the nature of the opposition from these four groups; what motivated their opposition, and to look at what extent these oppositions were ideological or practical. This will provide a better picture of where the country stood at this time. As I have mentioned earlier, public opinion compelled the government to act in a way which it did not really want to. There were concerns within the government regarding Beveridges’s plan, particularly from the Treasury. This position has been well explained by Pat Thane: â€Å"The treasury expressed serious doubts about the possible effects of Beveridge’s plans on the post-war fiscal situation. They feared that it would require a high level of taxation which would discourage saving and hinder post-war expansion. A fierce debate was conducted among government economic advisors between those who argued that need could be met more effectively and cheaply by benefits means-tested on the same basis as the newly introduced annual tax returns and adjusted to local cost-of-living variations, and Keynes, who admitted the logic of this view but argued that this was impossible without a reform of the system of direct taxation, which was not immediately practicable, and that contributory insurance was a useful means of making employers share the costs of welfare. Keynes was convinced that the Beveridge plan was the cheapest alternative open to us and that the feared financial difficulties could be avoided by careful Treasury management.†(5) To the historian, this Treasury opposition was by far the most important. In analysing the political climate of the day, it shows differences of thinking at the highest levels of government at a time of war, and when a coalition government was considered to be united. But even more importantly, this Treasury opposition was to continue into the period of implementation, and as we shall see later on, these arguments had profound consequences upon how the Beveridge plan was implemented. It should also be noted at this stage that opposition within Government was not restricted to the Treasury. Ironically, Bevin was initially strongly opposed to the conclusions of Beveridge, believing that it was contrary to the interests of the trade unions, which were best met by higher wages, although the TUC were strongly behind the plan. Whilst the majority of the Socialist movement including the Labour Party, the TUC and interestingly the Communist Party, were firmly behind the plan, the Marxist left were strongly against the plan on ideological terms. Their position is well summarised by a Socialist Party of Great Britain pamphlet written in 1943: â€Å"We propose to show that this apparently philanthropic gesture on the part of the Government will not be an entirely unmixed blessing for the working population, and the approval with which it has been received by different sections of political opinion arises in some cases from the complete lack of knowledge that whatever benefits, if any, may accrue to a certain number of workers, the employers will most certainly gain on balance in the long run.†(6) The essence of the Marxist left position was that capitalism was the cause of poverty and could not be reformed. It would therefore be wrong for socialists to support attempts to reform the system to make it more palatable. Groups such as the socialist party of Great Britain also viewed the report as an attempt to placate the working class, and prevent any possible social revolution at the end of the war. The position of these groups was in the overall scheme of things, of little relevance. This may not have been the case if the Communist Party, by far the largest Marxist organisation, had adopted a Marxist position rather than the reformist position of the TUC. If the opposition of the Treasury was practical, and the opposition of the left was ideological, then the opposition of the Tory right was a combination of the two. There existed then as now, a strong desire to minimise the role of government in affairs as much as possible, and so there was a natural ideological objection to the government run social insurance scheme. Conservative MP, David Willetts has reflected upon the Tory opposition, and has drawn the following conclusions: â€Å"Conservatives were wary of Beveridge for two main reasons. The Conservative Party conference of 1943 passed a motion ‘That this conference is of the opinion that the existing friendly societies should remain part of our social security system’ in response to the fear that Beveridge’s ambitious new social insurance scheme would undermine friendly society provision, a fear which proved well founded. There was also a worry that these benefits would not be as well-targeted as Beveridge hoped.†(7) As I referred to at the start, there was a certain coronation between the position of the Tory right and that of the Insurance companies, whose primary concern was that they would loose a lot of business by Beveridge’s proposals. Their position was on the whole supported by the Tory right. The position of the Tory right was certainly more influential than that of the left, by virtue of the fact that they had a voice in parliament, but we should not overestimate the strength of their opposition in overall terms. Indeed, their position had little impact upon the outcome of the report. There was probably greater support for their position within government than was apparent, but political expediency led others to take a more liberal position. The most interesting ideological position was that of the feminist movement. Their position has been effectively laid out by Sheila Blackburn: â€Å"Socialist feminists maintain that, despite women’s sterling war effort, Beveridge deliberately reduced married women, with regard to social security, to second class citizens. This, they insist, Beveridge achieved via three means. First, Beveridge specified that married working women should pay reduced national insurance contributions and, as a result, they received lower benefits. Second, socialist feminists discuss how Beveridge made arrangements for married working women. Third and most importantly, feminists criticise Beveridge for assuming that the majority of married/co-habiting women would abandon paid work to be financially supported by a male bread winner.†(8) We must be careful at this stage to avoid moving away from the question we are looking at; that is opposition at the time to Beveridge. The feminist debate upon Beveridge continues to this day, and we must avoid using current arguments and imposing them upon feminists in 1942. But there is a strong body of evidence to suggest that these arguments formed part of the feminist opposition at the time. This has been reflected by Leaper in looking at the demands of the Woman’s Freedom League. They demanded: â€Å"that men and women should in marriage not be treated as a team but as individuals each paying equal contributions and receive equal benefits; and that in every case men and women should pay the same and receive the same benefits.†(9) He has also quoted the following extract from Abbott and Bompass who published a fierce feminist critique of the report in 1943: â€Å"It is where the plan falls short of being really mutual in character, where it shuts out or exempts from all direct participation over nine million adult women, where it imposes financial burdens on men alone, instead of spreading them equitably over all, that it fails and is open to criticism.†(10) The importance of the feminist lobby should not be overstated. Whilst there was extensive feminist opposition to Beveridge, he also gained much support, as Blackburn has pointed out: â€Å"Beveridge’s views were largely in accord with those of the majority of the organised women’s movement in Britain in the 1930’s and 1940’s; and it seems futile and somewhat patronising to berate both him and them for failing to think what they ought to have thought from the vantage point of the 1990’s.†(11) I would summarise that the feminist position was important in 1942, but had little impact upon the implementation of the Beveridge proposals. The importance of the feminist position has been in the ways in which the welfare state has been altered, taking on board many of the feminist arguments. I would be my argument therefore, that the feminist argument has gained in strength and credibility over time, and is now highly influential in the shape of the welfare state. The Beveridge report was without doubt a monumental document, which gained public acclaim to an extent which we are unlikely to ever see again. One should not underestimate the role of Beveridge himself in gaining this support. In many respects, Beveridge was a very modern politician. He manipulated the media very effectively, building up substantial support for his report before it was published. As a result, the opposition was limited. As I have mentioned, the most important opposition came from the Treasury, and this opposition did impact upon the way Beveridge was implemented. But on the whole, the support was far too extensive for it to be ignored, and the spirit, if not all the detail became the foundation of the welfare state. FOOTNOTES: Time: Monday, December 14th, 1942 Bartholemew, J : The Welfare State Were In (Politico, London, 2004) page 56 Mass Observation Archive: Topic Collections on Social Welfare and the Beveridge Report, 1939-1949 Ibid Thane, P : The Foundation of the Welfare State (Logman, Harlow, 1998) page 236 Website: www.worldsocilaism.org Website: www.davidwilletts.org.uk Woman’s History Review Vol 4, No 3, 1995: Article By Sheila Blackburn page 371 Social Policy and Administration Vol 25, No 1, March 1991: Article By Leaper, R page 18 Ibid page 18 Prev Cite Blackburn page 376 BIBLIOGRAPHY: Titmuss, R : Essays on the Welfare State (Unwin University Books, London, 1963) Political Quarterly Vol 14, No 2 : Before and After Beveridge Journal of Social Policy Vol 27, No 1 : Article By Jim Tomlinson The Economic Journal Vol 53, April 1943 : Article By Owen, ADK Historical Journal Vol 35, No 3, 1992 : Article By Fielding, S Review of Economic Studies, Vol 11, No 1, 1943 : Article By Hicks, JR

Astronomy, why is the sky dark Essay -- essays research papers

â€Å"Why is the night sky dark?†(Hienrich) For thousands of years this question, also known as Olber’s paradox, has been asked. Astronomers are constantly growing closer to the answer but still no one has yet found a finite answer. As scientists relentlessly collect data hoping to find some clue as to the answer to this riddle we seem to realize that the answer may be because of something that is too mind blowing for us to comprehend. Several explanations have been considered over the years. But as of right now only about two reasons seem to answer the question at hand. Here are several explanations, some of which have been scientifically accepted and others that just simply appear to be logical. The first explanation is that there is too much dusk in the universe to see the light from distant stars. This is obviously wrong. The dust does act as a shield, making some of the light harder to see from earth. But the amount of dust that it would take to completely block out all starlight would also block out light from the sun and this is clearly not happening. A second explanation is that the Universe has a finite number of stars. Well, regardless of how finite the number of stars is, the reality is that the number of stars we do have would be enough energy to light up the entire sky. There is too much luminous matter in the Universe to allow this explanation to be correct. A third explanation is that the distribution of stars is such that some hind behind others and so the lig...

Archimedes Was a Mathematician and Inventor of Ancient

Archimedes was so brilliant that he is still considered by most historians throughout time as one of the greatest mathematicians of all time. Archimedes was a mathematician and inventor of Ancient Greece born on 287 B. C. In Syracuse on the island of Sicily. His father was an astronomer named Aphid's. It is said that Archimedes was known to be a relative of Hirer II. Hirer was the king of Syracuse during the life of Archimedes. Throughout their lives they were very close friends. However besides his father's name and occupation and his relationship withHirer nothing else is really known about any other members of Archimedes family. At one point of Archimedes life it was his inventions that delayed the capture of Syracuse by the Romans. Archimedes remained in Syracuse for most of his life except when he went to school in Alexandria. Since Greeks loved to learn and be full of knowledge they would send their sons to schools to become wise Greek citizens. Archimedes had one of the best e ducations as a boy. When he was in his teens Archimedes traveled to Alexandria and went to one of the most famous schools of thematic that had been founded by Euclid.There he studied astronomy, geometry, algebra, trigonometry, astrology, geography, surveying, mechanics, and alchemy with many other brilliant minds of his time. Various subjects he studied when he was younger were poetry, politics, astronomy, mathematics, music, art, and military tactics. His professor was named Cocoon of Samos. Cocoon was a tremendous Influence in Archimedes' life. He taught Archimedes various things about science and life. Due to the fact he studied In Alexandria It became the biggest foundation on which he built his career as a scientist and mathematician.Archimedes had many eclectic Investigations, but he was mostly known for his discovery of the relation between the surface and volume of a sphere and Its circumscribing cylinder, for his formulation of a hydrostatic principle: Archimedes' principle , and for Inventing the Archimedes' screw (a device for raising water). One of Archimedes' few Principals states: an object immersed in a fluid experiences a buoyant force that is equal in magnitude to the force of gravity on the displaced fluid.Archimedes had other inventions up his sleeve some were the hydraulic screw – for raising water from a lower to a enlarger level, catapult, ten lever, ten compound pulley Ana ten During mirror which was a machine Archimedes invented used as war weapon; these machines especially helped in the defense against the Romans when they attacked under the command of Marcella. In mechanics Archimedes also discovered fundamental theorems having to do with the center of gravity of solids and plane figures. Now even in this modern era we still use Archimedes inventions in many ways.The water screw is Just one out of many inventions we use. The water screw is used for raising water using an encased screw that opens at both ends. The screw has to be set at an angle and as it turns, water fills air pockets and is transported upwards. Out of his other inventions he achieved during his life we also use the lever. Levers are basic tools, and many of the simple tools we use today, use levers in some way. For example; scissors, pliers, hammer claws, nutcrackers, and tongs. We still even use his mathematical discoveries. Due to his inventions he made life impeller for us today.Archimedes' legend is still alive to this day. I think Archimedes was a great mathematician and inventor who inspired many others to perfect his discoveries and to carve the way to ones made in the future. Those discoveries have affected our ways of living in a good way. I believe his legend would indeed be greater if more people knew what he was trying to accomplish and what good it would do for them. Even so, his ideas were rediscovered in the middle ages and, fortunately, they are being worked on like many other discoveries that have been add.

A Modern Day Sir Thomas Moore

Concerning the government, very powerful people have a tendency to abuse their power. This affects the citizens greatly by not having a fair system of equality. The corrupted are only out for personal gain, therefore, they manage to not do their job properly. The infamous President Nixon, as just one of many great examples. Despite the corruption, there are many figures of society that do great things for the people, but not enough to make a lasting impact.The growing issues of murder, robbery, abuse of illegal absences, and violence, have infected the streets of our country. With the idea that such things exist, why have there not been more successful tactics to stop it? It seems as though the government Is much more concerned with stuffing their pockets than Improving lower class society. Regarding the government, they say that they are going to take action, but there Is rarely ever truth In that statement. Above the destitute are people that have more money than they could ever sp end away.In addition, there are people struggling to survive in less fortunate areas of America that could live months off the daily salary of the wealthy. They barely make enough money to have a place to live, or food to put on their table. Children starve, end up in foster care, which is a failed system in itself, and end up homeless. Instead of focusing on other countries, maybe it would be more practical to notice the problems in our own. During the wars, people at home suffer from the extreme separation of classes. Through the nations struggles, our very own country is feeling the poverty take over.It seems quite unfair that some people can blow thousands of dollars on a champagne bottle and at the same time, a child In a bad neighborhood Is starving. The separation of classes Is nothing knew. In fact, It has been around since man could start a fire with some sticks. After the thought process of social classes flourished in the human brain, there was no going back, and now the needy suffer. There was a time when they were slaves and now they are only slaves to money. This green paper that rules the human life could be seen as the seed of all issues.It creates greed and social classes, which are the source of what I am truly getting at. In spite of what we like to call the 21 rest century, we have barely stepped past the threshold into something great. Technology and medicine advances through the years, but it is all for nothing if we cannot get our country together. When I say together, I mean that word literally, as there is no sense of community amongst the people. We fight against each other's ideas and beliefs, as if there are no other ways to spend our precious time and energy.I am not saying that we should erase our differences all together, but Instead, understand that there are more Important things to fight for and It Is not with each other. Student Statement In the space below, write a statement in which you describe how well you think you did o n this assignment. How well did you fulfill the requirements of the rubric and the special instructions? I feel as though I wrote a fluent, organized, and well pieced together paper. It might feel a bit personal, but that is most of my writing. I am under the impression that the truth is your most powerful tool when writing.Your own personal paradigm of the truth will make your writing so much more riveting. First Submission Comments, Grade, and Instructions for Revision In my opinion, the points were not sewn together well, they were sprinkled throughout the first and second portion of the report. I think there needs to be a clear introduction to what I m about to read, then the body. I think the conclusion had a much better transition and the points were much more precise. Overall, I think that with a very opinionated topic there needs to be better transitions between the government, war, poverty and rich.Final Draft: America is more corrupt than some would like to admit. It is ov errun by greed, poverty, and a growing separation of social classes. Concerning the government, very powerful people have a tendency to abuse their power. This affects the citizens personal gain, therefore, they manage to not do their Job properly. The infamous President Nixon is Just one of many great examples. Despite the corruption, there are many figures of society that do great things for the people, but not enough to make a lasting impact.The growing issues of murder, robbery, abuse of illegal substances, and violence, have infected the streets of our country. With the idea that such things exist, why have there not been more successful tactics to stop it? It seems as though the government is much more concerned with stuffing their pockets than improving lower class society. Regarding the government, they say that they are going to take action, but there is rarely ever truth in that statement. Above the destitute are people that have more money than they could ever spend away. In addition, there are people struggling to survive in less fortunate areas of America that could live months off the daily salary of the wealthy. They barely make enough money to have a place to live, or food to put on their table. Children starve, end up in foster care, which is a failed system in itself, and end up homeless. Instead of focusing on other countries, maybe it would be more practical to notice the problems in our own. During the wars, people at home suffer from the extreme separation of classes. Through the nations trudges, our very own country is feeling the poverty take over.It seems quite unfair that some people can blow thousands of dollars on a champagne bottle and at the nothing knew. In fact, it has been around since man could start a fire with some sticks. After the thought process of social classes flourished in the human brain, there was no going back, and now the needy suffer. There was a time when they were slaves and now they are only slaves to money. Th is green paper that rules the human life could be seen as the seed of all issues. It creates greed and social classes, which is the source of what I am truly getting at.In spite of what we like to call the 21 rest century, we have barely stepped past the threshold into something great. Technology and medicine advances through the years, but it is all for nothing if we cannot get our country together. When I say together, I mean that word literally, as there is no sense of community amongst the people. We fight against each other's ideas and beliefs, as if there are no other ways to spend our precious time and energy. I am not saying that we should erase our differences all together, but instead, understand that there are more important things to fight for and it is not with each other.