Article Review and Comment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Review and Comment - Article Example This is letting Republicans take him to task for failing to engage in realistic cost-cutting measures. Republicans are accusing Obama of irresponsible spending. Meanwhile, Democrats are arguing that macro-economic factors like unemployment justify spending even with the deficit. Obama in particular is arguing for long-term investments into workforce and infrastructure to stay competitive. Republicans, as is common, are associating spending cuts with shrinking government. Some Republicans like Scott Walker have even turned down federal government money and associated projects. They are thus clearly rejecting New Deal-style â€Å"pump and prime†, work creation missions. The deficit will impact the 2012 budget intensely. Republicans are hoping to extend spending past March 4th so as to gain more time to debate the issue. Treasury officials predict that by April, the deficit ceiling is likely to be exceeded barring immediate action. The article notes that most initiatives focus on ly on 15% of the budget: Discretionary spending that is non-security oriented. The journal notes that this is deeply flawed: Most of the deficit comes from non-discretionary programs that are much harder to cut such as Social Security (which is a financial obligation and has a separate, non-discretionary fund) and the military which is politically impossible to cut. First, I think that partisan commitments are transparent in this article.

Comparison Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words - 1

Comparison - Essay Example There used to be one green board at the rear wall where we used to put up charts and drawings of our relevant subjects. whereas in US the classrooms I found were very much different from what I have seen in the middle east. the walls were colorful with more wall charts and drawings. The classrooms in the Us were more engaging and meant to keep the students in there more interested in studies. As compared to the schools and classrooms in US, Middle Eastern system had a stricter environment. The students in Middle Eastern schools are well behaved and disciplined as compared to the schools in US. The education system however, is very much better in the US, inspired from which improvements can be made in the education system of Middle East. From my experience, a classroom with a better engaging environment can be of great help to the students. As is seen in the classrooms of schools in US where they have maintained their classrooms according to the standard and age of the students studying in them. They have colorful walls, educational drawings and paintings all over the walls as well as for older and mature students they have all the relevant instruments and technologies within the reach of the students in their classrooms. Most of the schools and classrooms lack these advances thus making an American classroom far better to study and

Family and Medical Leave Act Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Family and Medical Leave Act - Research Paper Example It is applicable to all public employees and those in private companies with at least 50 employees. Certain FMLA provisions are favorable for employers and employees. However, the area of Human Resources (HR) has struggled with some of its aspects, especially those in regards to episodic or chronic conditions, sporadic use of leave or serious conditions of health. HR departments are facing challenges in terms of keeping track of intermittent leave; chronic abuse of such leave; morale problems arising from employees required to cover for absent colleagues; associated costs of productivity loss due employees being on leave; vague medical leave certification documentation by healthcare professionals; and the uncertainty of the leave requests’ legitimacy (Merkle, 2012). On the employers’ part, they are challenged by the realization that employees will not always notify them promptly when they require FMLA leave, more so in cases of unexpected conditions. Regulations stipulate that employees give a notice of at least 30 days in advance, but this is not practical in unforeseeable emergencies. Therefore, it becomes a considerable problem for the employer and HR department to plan for the absence of their employees. Eligible employees are the greatest beneficiaries of FMLA, so long as they can give sufficient notice with supporting evidence of the need for leave. They have enough time to address family and personal obligations while their jobs are still guaranteed. The Department of Labor (DOL) proposed a pitch in 2011, aiming to promote the clarity of behavior associated with leave-taking (BLR, 2012). According to the DOL, it is imperative for employees, employers and HR departments to develop compliance programs and regulatory priorities based on current and credible data rather than anecdotal and outdated information. An example of pending legislation is that of

Exploring the Issues behind Patient-Assisted Suicide Essay Example for Free

Exploring the Issues behind Patient-Assisted Suicide Essay Death is as much a part of human existence, of human growth and development, like birth. All humans need to undergo all these processes as they journey through life. However, death sets a limit on our time in this world, and life culminates in death. However, when we intervene with some of these natural processes, problems arise because it intrudes in life’s natural processes. This is why, suicide is not just perceived as a medical problem because it also involves legal, ethical, social, personal, and financial considerations. It is not just morally reprehensible for a physician, or any medical practitioner, to assist the patient to conduct this procedure because it negates their responsibility to preserve life, suicide also devalues the life of the patient as its fate is put entirely in the hands of a human being to intrude with the natural process of things. For this reason, the debate over euthanasia (or patient-assisted suicide) involves many professionals, as well as the patients and their families. The arguments now have to do with the dignity of the patients, the quality of their lives, their mental state, and sometimes their usefulness to society. For example, the patient who is in a vegetative state is considered dead by some but not by others, and this case presents substantial ethical and logistical problems. The Oxford Dictionary of English (2005) defines euthanasia as â€Å"the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma†. However, euthanasia means much more than a â€Å"painless death†, or the means of procuring it, or the action of inducing it. The definition specifies only the manner of death, and if this were all that was implied a murderer, careful to drug his victim, could claim that his act was an act of euthanasia. We find this ridiculous because we take it for granted that in euthanasia it is death itself, not just the manner of death. How can someone administer a medical â€Å"procedure† to the one who dies in the end? If a person requests the termination of his or her life, the action is called voluntary euthanasia (and often also assisted suicide). If the person is not mentally competent to make an informed request, the action is called non-voluntary euthanasia. Both forms should be distinguished from involuntary euthanasia, which involves a person capable of making an informed request, but who has not done so. Involuntary euthanasia is universally condemned and plays no role in current moral controversies. A final set of distinctions appeals to the active–passive distinction: passive euthanasia involves letting someone die from a disease or injury, whereas active euthanasia involves taking active steps to end a person’s life. All of these distinctions suffer from borderline cases and various forms of ambiguity. The focus of recent public and philosophical controversy has been over voluntary active euthanasia (VAE), especially physician-assisted suicide. Supporters of VAE argue that there are cases in which relief from suffering supersedes all other consequences and that respect for autonomy obligates society to respect the decisions of those who elect euthanasia. If competent patients have a legal and moral right to refuse treatment that brings about their deaths, there is a similar right to enlist the assistance of physicians or others to help patients cause their deaths by an active means. Usually, supporters of VAE primarily look to circumstances in which (1) a condition has become overwhelmingly burdensome for a patient, (2) pain management for the patient is inadequate, and (3) only a physician seems capable of bringing relief (Dworkin, Frey Bok, 1998). One well-known incident that VAE came into the headlines was when it was provided by the bizarre activities of Dr.  Jack Kevorkian in early 1990s (or â€Å"Dr Death† as the media have dubbed him) in the USA. Dr. Kevorkian, a retired pathologist, assisted over forty people to commit suicide in recent years in circumstances which were somewhat removed from regular medical practice. These people travelled to Kevorkian from all over the USA to seek his assistance in suicide. He assisted them, sometimes by attaching them, in the back of his rusting Volkswagen van, to his suicide machine, which injected them with lethal drugs when they activated it. Despite being prosecuted for assisted suicide on several occasions, Kevorkian escaped conviction and continued his personal campaign for relaxation of the law in his peculiar way. It was only when he moved from assistance in suicide to euthanasia that he was finally convicted. He filmed himself administering a lethal injection, and the film helped secure his conviction for murder (Keown 2002, p. 31). Of course, his actions provoked discussion of the thin line separating passive euthanasia, which is legal in this country, and active euthanasia. Opponents of Kevorkian’s actions state that he is practicing assisted suicide, which is illegal. Proponents of Kevorkian’s actions argue that the patient’s right to control his or her medical treatment is sufficient justification for assisted suicide. Euthanasia is Not Ethical According to Somerville (2006), there are two major reasons why people should not allow euthanasia to be legalized. One is based on principle: it is wrong for one human to intentionally kill another (except in justified self-defense, or in the defense of others). The other reason is utilitarian: the harms and risks of legalizing euthanasia, to individuals in general and to society, far outweigh any benefits. While Mak, Elwyn Finlay (2006) reasoned that â€Å"most studies of euthanasia have been quantitative, focusing primarily on attitudes of healthcare professionals, relatives, and the public†. Pain is usually identified as a major reason for requesting euthanasia; other influences included functional impairment, dependency, burden, social isolation, depression, hopelessness, and issues of control and autonomy. This is why, Mak, Elwyn Finlay (2006) thought that legalizing euthanasia is a â€Å"premature† move when research evidence from the perspectives of those who desire euthanasia is not yet proven to be necessary. They said â€Å"more qualitative patient based studies are needed to broaden our understanding of patients†. What needs to be done, they deemed, should be the â€Å"inclusion of medical humanities, experiential learning, and reflective practice into medical education should help ensure doctors have better communication skills and attitudes†. By examining ways to improve care at all levels, healthcare professionals can eliminate the side effects of poor end of life care, then euthanasia would not be needed anymore. In 1988, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a statement on its take about patient-assisted suicide when a gynecology resident agreed to conduct assisted suicide to a young woman, dying of cancer, whom he has never seen before. Horrified by her severe distress, and proceeding alone without consultation with anyone, the doctor gives her a lethal injection of morphine. The publishing of this gynecology resident’s letter caused media hype and was featured in the previous issue in JAMA, where it was titled as â€Å"It’s Over Debbie† (1988). This is how the JAMA took its position regarding the matter: 1. ) On his own admission, the resident appears to have committed a felony: premeditated murder. Direct intentional homicide is a felony in all American jurisdictions, for which the plea of merciful motive is no excuse. That the homicide was clearly intentional is confirmed by the residents act of unrepentant publication. Law aside, the physician behaved altogether in a scandalously unprofessional and unethical manner. He did not know the patient: he had never seen her before, he did not study her chart, he did not converse with her or her family. He never spoke to her physician. He took as an unambiguous command her only words to him, Lets get this over with: he did not bother finding out what precisely she meant or whether she meant it wholeheartedly. He did not consider alternative ways of bringing her relief or comfort; instead of comfort, he gave her death. This is no humane and thoughtful physician succumbing with fear and trembling to the pressures and well-considered wishes of a patient well known to him, for whom there was truly no other recourse. This is, by his own account, an impulsive yet cold technician, arrogantly masquerading as a knight of compassion and humanity. (Indeed, so cavalier is the report and so cold-blooded the behavior, it strains our credulity to think that the story is true. ) Law and professional manner both aside, the resident violated one of the first and most hallowed canons of the medical ethic: doctors must not kill. Generations of physicians and commentators on medical ethics have underscored and held fast to the distinction between ceasing useless treatments (or allowing to die) and active, willful taking of life; at least since the Oath of Hippocrates, Western medicine has regarded the killing of patients, even on request, as a profound violation of the deepest meaning of the medical vocation. The Judicial Council of the American Medical Association in 1986, in an opinion regarding treatment of dying patients, affirmed the principle that a physician â€Å"should not intentionally cause death. † Neither legal tolerance nor the best bedside manner can ever make medical killing medically ethical (Baird Rosenbaum 1989, p. 26). Indeed, the laws of most nations and the codes of medical and research ethics from the Hippocratic Oath to today’s major professional codes strictly prohibit VAE (and all forms of merciful hastened death), even if a patient has a good reason for wanting to die. Although courts have often defended the rights of patients in cases of passive euthanasia, courts have rarely allowed any form of what they judged to be VAE. Those who defend laws and medical traditions opposed to VAE often appeal to either (1) professional-role obligations that prohibit killing or (2) the social consequences that would result from changing these traditions. The first argument is straightforward: killing patients is inconsistent with the roles of nursing, care-giving, and healing. The second argument is more complex and has been at the center of many discussions. This argument is referred to as the wedge argument or the slippery slope argument, and proceeds roughly as follows: although particular acts of active termination of life are sometimes morally justified, the social consequences of sanctioning such practices of killing would run serious risks of abuse and misuse and, on balance, would cause more harm than benefit. The argument is not that these negative consequences will occur immediately, but that they will grow incrementally over time, with an ever-increasing risk of unjustified termination (Dworkin, Frey Bok, 1998). Refusal of Treatment When a patient refuses treatment, the physician is faced with a great dilemma. Doctors maintain that if the patient does not want treatment, physicians do not have a duty to start it. Once treatment is started, however, physicians have a duty to continue it if discontinuing it would lead to the patients death. They are not required to force a patient to go on a respirator if the patient refuses, but once the patient has gone on the respirator, doctors have a duty to keep him on it, even contrary to the patients wishes, if taking him off would result in his death. Suffice it here to point out one important limit: a doctor is not ethically bound to assist a refusal of treatment which is suicidal, that is, made not because the treatment is futile or excessively burdensome but in order to hasten death (Keown, 2002, p. 253). Actual suicide has been a felony in England in the past but today, suicide has been decriminalized in most part of the world. Attempting to take ones own life, however, remains criminal in some jurisdictions. In these as well as in those states where it is not a crime, the state has intervened in some cases to order life-sustaining treatment in the face of objection by a competent adult. The most widely cited case in which this was done is John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital v. Heston (1971), where a twenty-two-year-old unmarried woman refused a blood transfusion because she was a Jehovah’s Witness. She was forced to have one anyway on the theory that there is no difference between passively submitting to death and actively seeking it. The state regards both as attempts at self-destruction and may prevent them. Since this case, however, the trend of cases has been away from this reasoning and toward subordinating the states interest in the prevention of suicide to the rights of patients to forgo or have withdrawn life-sustaining treatment (Berger 1995, p. 20). However, when the patient is terminal and death is imminent, no treatment is medically indicated, and the competent patient’s rightful refusal of treatment does not conflict with the health provider’s form of beneficence. There may be an emotional problem in admitting defeat, but there should be no ethical problem. It should be noted that, although the patient may not be competent at the end, refusal of treatment may be accomplished through a living will or a surrogate, especially through a surrogate who has durable power of attorney for health matters. In the case when the patient is terminal but death is not imminent, for example when the disease or injury progresses slowly, and granted the consent of the patient or surrogate, it appears ethical to omit treatment on the ground that nothing can be accomplished in thwarting the progress of the disease. But it is not ethical to omit care, since human dignity is to be respected. To solve this dilemma, the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (1996) takes a clear stand on the issue: E-2. 20 Even if the patient is not terminally ill or permanently unconscious, it is not unethical to discontinue all means of life-sustaining medical treatment in accordance with a proper substituted judgment or best interests analysis. The treatments include artificially supplied respiration, nutrition, or hydration. In its recent opposition to physician-assisted suicide, the AMA has strongly endorsed a program to educate physicians to the appropriateness of switching from therapeutic treatment to palliative care. The group has gone from a tentative, negative position (â€Å"not unethical†) to a much stronger positive stand (AMA, 1996). On the other hand, we should also consider the reasoning behind the ethical correctness of not beginning or of stopping treatment in the case of the consenting patient who is terminally ill. First, the health care provider has no obligation to prolong dying merely for the sake of prolonging it. That is, it makes no sense to prolong life when the true result is the prolongation of the dying process. Furthermore, when treatment is only prolonging the agony of the patient, its continuation is unethical as an insult to human dignity (Cahill, 1977). In such cases, the health care provider would be ethically justified in discontinuing treatment, except when the patient insists on treatment. Even in this case, however, there can be exceptions. When there is a severe shortage of medical resources, the physician might be justified in stopping nonindicated treatment even over the protests of the patient. We say â€Å"might be justified,† since justification would depend, among other things, on a new social consensus about the duties of health care professionals and on a reasonable certainty that a shortage exists. There are also problems in discontinuing treatment when the patient’s surrogate(s) objects. It should be noted that cessation of life-sustaining treatment does not always bring about a swift and painless death, even though it may speed up the process of dying. For example, if kidney dialysis is discontinued, the person remains conscious and suffers vomiting, internal hemorrhage, and convulsions. The removal of a respirator does not lead to death immediately, and the patient suffers the pain and panic of suffocation. The obligation to care for the patient demands that every ethical effort be made to alleviate these sufferings with drugs and other methods that will not prolong life. Much recent research suggests that physicians are particularly deficient in their willingness and ability to provide adequate pain palliation for dying patients (SUPPORT, 1995). This could be one of the main concerns that drive the interest in physician-assisted suicide. Beyond this, when such pain relief is not possible for the patient, or when the harm is not the pain, but the insult to dignity, there arises the difficult problem of actively cooperating in the suicide of the patient. Religious Issues Several religions have a negative take on any form of suicide. Those who oppose active euthanasia on religious grounds, the basic concern seems to be the view that our lives are not ours but gifts from God. In this view, humans hold their lives as a trust. If this is true, then we are bound to hold not only the lives of others inviolate but also our own, since to take our life is to destroy what belongs to God. For Christians, in Exodus 34:7 and Daniel 13:53, scriptures taken from the Old Testament, the doctrine of the sanctity of life principle is upheld, except in rare instances of self defense. Judeo-Christian precepts generally condemn active euthanasia in any form, but allow some forms of passive euthanasia. The difference is that of omission and commission: While the Judeo-Christian philosophy might tolerate the allowance of death, acts that permit death, it draws the line in regard to acts that cause death. For Buddhists, they perceive it as an involvement of the intentional taking of life. This is why euthanasia is contrary to basic Buddhist ethical teachings because it violates the first of the Five Precepts. It is also contrary to the more general moral principle of ahimsa. This conclusion applies to both the active and passive forms of the practice, even when accompanied by a compassionate motivation with the end of avoiding suffering. The term ‘euthanasia’ has no direct equivalent in canonical Buddhist languages. Euthanasia as an ethical issue is not explicitly discussed in canonical or commentarial sources, and no clear cases of euthanasia are reported. However, there are canonical cases of suicide and attempted suicide which have a bearing on the issue. One concerns the monastic precept against taking life, the third of the four parajika-dharmas, which was introduced by the Buddha when a group of monks became disenchanted with life and began to kill themselves, some dying by their own hand and others with the aid of an intermediary. The Buddha intervened to prevent this, thus apparently introducing a prohibition on voluntary euthanasia. In other situations where monks in great pain contemplated suicide they are encouraged to turn their thoughts away from this and to use their experience as a means to developing insight into the nature of suffering and impermanence (anitya) (Dictionary of Buddhism, 2003). Nonreligious arguments against active euthanasia usually follow a slippery slope or wedge line of reasoning. In some ways the arguments recall the parable of the camel who pleaded with his owner to be allowed to put his nose into the tent to keep it warm against the cold desert night. Once the nose was allowed, other adjustments were requested, and the owner found himself sleeping with his camel. Is there something so persuasive about putting others to death that, if allowed, would become gross and commonplace? The Nazi â€Å"final solution,† which brought about the death of millions of Jews, gypsies, and other eastern Europeans, could be traced to compulsory euthanasia legislation that, at the time of its enactment, included only mental cases, monstrosities, and incurables who were a burden of the state. Using the Nazi experience as a guide, critics of active euthanasia do see some seductiveness to killing that humans do not seem able to handle. Perhaps Sigmund Freud (1925) was right as he wrote: What no human soul desires there is no need to prohibit; it is automatically excluded. The very emphasis of the commandment â€Å"Thou shalt not kill† makes it certain that we spring from an endless ancestry of murderers, with whom the lust for killing was in the blood, as possibly it is to this day with ourselves. The religious take on euthanasia often focus on the sanctity/inviolability of life. In Western thought, the development of the principle has owed much to the Judaeo-Christian tradition. That tradition’s doctrine of the sanctity of life holds that human life is created in the image of God and is, therefore, possessed of an intrinsic dignity which entitles it to protection from unjust attack. With or without this theological underpinning, the doctrine that human life possesses an intrinsic dignity grounds the principle that one must never intentionally kill an innocent human being. The right to life is essentially a right not to be intentionally killed (Keown, 2002, p. 40).

Herbal Medicine Essay -- essays research papers fc

Alternative medicine has been around for centuries, although it has just started to become very popular in countries such as The United States. Many people now are following the trend without knowing anything about alternative medicine. People should be aware of the benefits as well as the precautions involved in taking these natural remedies. The most common form of alternative medicine nowadays is herbal medicines. These natural remedies can be found in millions of American homes today. Herbal medicine is probably the most widely used of the alternative medicines. Herbal medicine is a part of homeopathy, which is an alternative system of healing that uses very small doses of substances to relieve specific symptoms (2). Traditional herbalists tend to use combinations of small amounts of herbs to meet the needs of the patient. Natural medicines are a part of our world. There are natural remedies to many everyday illnesses. Natural medicines have been used through out the history of the world. There are records of the Egyptians using them in 1,600 BC. There are scriptures that date back to the Yin dynasty in 1,500 BC. The Old Testament also has many references to herbal medicines. The ancient Chinese were experts at natural medicine. They were experts on using plants, animals and minerals to heal themselves(7). The Chinese’s natural medication didn’t start diffusing over to Europe until the 2nd century, but there were many similarities in the Chinese’s and the Egyptian’s natural medicines (7). There are several benefits to in using alternative medicines. First, alternative medicine does not separate symptoms of a physical nature from those of a mental-emotional nature (6). This theory from ancient China expects specific mental/emotional conditions to go along with certain disease patterns, and expects these emotional symptoms to respond to treatment as well as any physical symptoms(6). Also, in alternative medicine each and every sign and symptom is understood and interpreted in relationship to all the others. While a medical doctor might choose to send a patient with a variety of symptoms to two or three specialists, a good practitioner of traditional alternative medicine sees and understands all the symptoms together as a single pattern. Any treatment prescribed is designed to work effectively with the entire pattern and all its symptoms. Done skillfull... ...c Newt. http://www.botanical.com 10. â€Å"Henriette’s Herbal Homepage.† 1996 The National Library of Medicines. http://ibiblio.org/herbmed 11. â€Å"Herbal and Alternative Remedies.† 2000 Micromedex Thompson Healthcare. http://www.family doctor.org 12. â€Å"The Herbal Encyclopedia.† 1996 Pro Health International. http://www.wic.net/waltzark/herben 13. â€Å"Herbal Remedies-Ginseng: The Inscrutable Root.† http://www.women.com 14. â€Å"Herb Research Foundation.† 2000 Herb Research Foundation. http://www.herbs.org 15. Hoffmann, David L. â€Å"Ginkgo Biloba.† http://www.healthy.net 16. Karp, Peter D. â€Å"E. Coli Information Page.† 1999 Pangea Systems, Inc. http://ecocyc.pangeasystems.com/ecocyc/ecoli.html 17. â€Å"MacConkey Agar.† 1995 University of Texas 18. â€Å"Preparing Herbal Remedies.† 2000 Garden Guides. 19. â€Å"Tryptic Soy/Broth Agar.† 1995 University of Texas 20. Yang, Tiende.â€Å"The Nature of Ginseng.† 2000. 21. â€Å"Tryptic Soy/Broth Agar.† 1995 University of Texas

Who Was to Blame for the Cuban Missile Crissis

Who was to blame for the Cuban missile crisis? The U. S had part of this crisis as they overreacted to the fact that the U. S. S. R was importing missiles into Cuba. They made Cuba tense because they tried to invade Cuba twice. The Cubans needed and help and the U. S. S. R were there to help. If the U. S didn’t try to invade Cuba then it wouldn’t cause so much tension thus the crisis not happening. Also if they haven’t set up a base in Turkey then this wouldn’t have led the Russians to put missiles in Cuba. Over-reacted to situation and led to escalation of conflict. The U.S wanted to help Cuban exiles to overthrow the Castro government (which was hostile to USA). CIA under President Eisenhower had sought to help the anti-Castro rebels to overthrow the regime. Organised Operation Zapata that was carried out on 17th April 1961. Failed miserably. America followed this with Operation Mongoose which aimed to destabilise Cuba through acts of sabotage, economic warfare through embargo on Cuban imports, increasing Cuban’s diplomatic isolation through its expulsion from the Organisation of American States and simulating military exercises (code named Ortsac) aimed at toppling an imaginary dictator. Edwards, 2002: 127-8). America was trying to topple Castro through isolating Cuba, and in doing so, increased the hostility of the Castro regime against the USA and accentuated the fear of invasion, thereby prompting Castro to turn to Moscow for help to defend Cuba from America. (Because Castro was aware that Cuba could not possibly defend herself against America. ) (Edwards 2002: 126, 128) The U. S. S. R is also to blame as they were taking advantage of the fact that Cuba was close to the U. S. This creates tension for the U.S as this poses a threat to their security. This act made the U. S feel threatened thus taking action. Should not have gotten involved with Cuba? Feb 1960: Extended $100 million worth of credits to Cuba. (Edwards, 2002 : 125) May 1962: USSR deployed regiments and weapons to Cuba, including nuclear cruise missiles and mid-range ballistic missiles that could strike targets in USA’s interior. Had stationed 40,000 military personnel in Cuba. This was an indication of economic expansion into an area that ranked high on America’s defence priority.Sponsorship of Castro’s regime and subsequent creation of a de-facto military base in Cuba appeared to be a deliberate affront to America’s national security. Cuba’s strategic importance to America can be likened to Poland’s importance to USSR. Transporting of military aid (especially missiles) to Cuba thus escalated a crisis between 2 neighbouring countries into a Cold War issue that threatened World peace. Cuba can also be blamed, they got paranoid over the U.S invasion so they used one of the powerful countries to guarantee its safety. If they weren’t as paranoid Manipulated super-power politics to guarantee s ecurity of borders and to legitimise the new Castro regime . E. g. Turned to USSR for economic and military help, so that it would not have to play the role of a submissive little brother to America. Castro: â€Å"Moscow is our brain and our great leader. † By using USSR as a counter-weight to USA, Cuba was shrewdly manipulating super-power politics for its own advantage.Castro was aware that Cuba’s distance from Moscow meant that it would be given a large measure of independence from Moscow, as opposed to the tight leash that it would be kept on had they decided to concede to American superiority. Therefore, the escalation of conflict was to some extent orchestrated by Cuba for her own benefit, as it meant that she would not have to fight the American behemoth on her own, but had USSR’s backing. Consequences to missile Cuban crisis-) Led to a thaw in USA-USSR relations, as both parties were aware that their rivalry had almost led to an all-out nuclear war (mutu ally-assured destruction).Establishment of direct hotline from Washington White House to Kremlin to facilitate high level discussion between leaders of the 2 countries so as to help defuse tensions. (20th June 1963)Signing of the nuclear test-ban treaty (June 1963). Both countries agreed to cease atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. But underground testing was still permitted. However, take note that although the Cuban Missile Crisis ended, US hostility towards Cuban regime continued, even though Kennedy briefly explored the option of negotiating with Castro via unofficial channels.Resumption of Operation Mongoose June 1963. Acts of economic sabotage organised by CIA. Plans to assassinate Castro (Operation Condor) remained in place. Therefore, this shows clearly that it was USSR’s involvement that made the conflict between Cuba and USA escalate into the Cuban Missile Crisis in the first place, due to USSR’s provision of missiles to Cuba. Without USSR’s involv ement, it would have remained a conflict between America and Cuba. USSR, USA and Cuba all had a part to play in the utbreak of the Cuban Missile Crisis, but it was USA who first over-reacted to the threat posed by a leftist regime in Cuba, and had created a self-fulfilling prophecy by taking unjustified pre-emptive strikes such as Operation Zapata and Mongoose that scared Cuba into thinking that her national security was threatened, and thus made her turn to USSR as a strong backer in order to secure her own security. Thus USA was chiefly to blame as she tried to secure her national interest at the expense of other nations, and thus led to the escalation of tensions as nations sought to secure their self-interest by scaring the other into retreat.Had USA not over-reacted, a peaceful compromise could have been achieved earlier and the scare that was the Cuban Missile Crisis could have been averted. Moreover, USSR’s delving into the conflict was also partly in response to previ ous US stationing of Jupiter missiles in Turkey, which had essentially held USSR at gun-point, thus USSR’s decision to place missiles in Cuba was justified as it was trying to make USA understand the peril of being placed at gun-point. Therefore, I disagree with the above statement, as USA, more than USSR was to blame for the outbreak of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Division of the Department of Education Essay

The Cebu City Schools Division of the Department of Education (DepEd) is reminding public school canteens about the policy prohibiting the selling of junk food and softdrinks. According to the Education Program Supervisor Delia Kiamco, they are regularly monitoring public school canteens to ensure that they only sell nutritious food. Business and sanitary permits and other licenses are annually checked by DepEd to assure that the food sold in the canteen are clean and safe. Kiamco said that those who are managing canteens should always bear in mind that service and not profit is the main consideration in operating a school canteen. As provided for under DepEd Order 17, only nutrient-rich and fortified food shall be made available in school canteens. Processed fortified food should bear the ‘Sangkap Pinoy’ seal. Among beverages, only milk, vegetable and fruit shakes and juices are allowed. Kiamco said that in order to curb the malnutrition problem among school children, selling of soft drinks and other carbonated drinks, sugar-based synthetic or artificially flavored juices and junk food are prohibited since these are detrimental to children’s health. DepEd also prohibits the use of mono sodium glutamate or vetsin in food. Only iodized salt should be used to help eliminate the iodine deficiency disorder among school children. School canteen operators are required to post their menu indicating nutritional value on a bulletin board within the school canteen premises. Label dilemma However, Kiamco said that because almost all junk food brands in the market have the â€Å"Sangkap Pinoy† and Fortified seal some canteens justify their sale. â€Å"Sometimes, canteen operators are after money making. We are strongly implementing the food service teachers from selling softdrinks and junk food,† Kiamco said. Kiamco said that they will hold another meeting to decide what action to take on food products with Sangkap Pinoy and Fortified labels. She is asking the public to report to DepEd if there are any public school canteens that still sell prohibited food and drinks. DedEd is also having problems with those selling junk food outside school campuses. â€Å"We cannot do anything against these vendors outside the schools except to remind students not to patronize them,† said Kiamco. /Christine Emily L. Pantaleon, Correspondent