My Perception of John Keats Ode to a Nightingale Essay

My Perception of John Keats Ode to a Nightingale - Essay Example To my mind, this poem is an interlacement of themes, symbols, and mysterious images accompanied by perfect verse forms. My goal in this paper is to express my perception of the poem in terms of its themes and symbolism. Thematically, â€Å"Ode to a Nightingale† explores a few directions. First of all, there is the author’s changing reality. To be more precise, real world somehow turns into the world of fantasy. Sometimes the divide is so slight in the poem that it is hard to pinpoint which reality the speaker is in. On a closer look, however, it becomes clear that by the fourth stanza the speaker has already united with the nightingale in a fantasy world which is lush, as well as dark. In particular, having heard the song of the nightingale, the author wishes to taste fine French wine in order to experience such condition of mind that will provide him with enjoyment of the nightingale: â€Å"that I might drink, and leave the world unseen, And with thee fade away into t he forest dim† ( Keats, â€Å"Ode to a Nightingale†, lines 19-20). Still, it crosses the poet’s mind that wine is not necessary to be with the bird, so he uses his metaphorical wings of poetry to escape to the forest. Away! away! for I will fly to thee, Not charioted by Bacchus and his pards, But on the viewless wings of Poesy, Though the dull brain perplexes and retards: Already with thee! tender is the night (Keats, â€Å"Ode to a Nightingale†, lines 36, 37). Next, in this changing realities context, the author is taken close to death experience in his mysterious journey. Yet, the bird flies away and this seems to breaks the spell. Throughout the poem, one may feel the author’s changed mental state, which he says is rooted in his natural condition rather than intoxication by some drug or alcohol. Furthermore, the theme of happiness/unhappiness is evident in the poem. Specifically, we get to know that the speaker feels extremely unhappy about his l ife burden placed on him by his age and time. He even expresses his hatred at the very thought that young and handsome people of the Romantic Movement will once become old and disabled. However, the author claims that what he feels is happiness for the singing nightingale, which makes his heart ache: 'Tis not through envy of thy happy lot, But being too happy in thine happiness, That thou, light-winged Dryad of the trees, In some melodious plot Of beechen green, and shadows numberless, Singest of summer in full-throated ease. (Keats, â€Å"Ode to a Nightingale†, lines 5-10). Another theme to reflect upon is the relationship between the man and Mother Nature. The author feels admiration for a tiny bird that represents Nature – everlasting and self-renewing. In particular, the nightingale is perceived as an embodiment of nature which is able to restore its natural cycles of both life and death, and thus stays immortal. Indeed, it seems the author’s perception of N ature is rather mysterious and even magical. So he grants some magical powers to the subject of his admiration. In particular, the nightingale singing on a tree is compared to a â€Å"dryad†, which is a spirit of the forest. To add, Nature leaves the speaker’s imagination spellbound and this thought is developed further in the poem. To illustrate, O for a draught of vintage! that hath been Cool'd a long age in the deep-delved earth, Tasting of Flora and the country-green (†¦) (Keats, â€Å"Ode to a Nightingale†, line 13) Symbolically, the image of nightingale is quite

EU Instruments for Pre-Accession Assistance

EU Instruments for Pre-Accession Assistance Regional Development INTRODUCTION Cohesion Policy of the European Union aims to reduce economic and social differences between the Member States of the Union by supporting and encouraging regional development. The Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act promote decreasing differences in the regional development while regional policy provides investments for necessary restructuring in the less developed regions and support for infrastructure development, increase of employment, and stimulation of industry. To finance projects that contribute to the regional development cohesion and structural funds are used, which account for a third of the common budget of the European Union (Chalmers Dellmuth, 2014). The key objectives of regional development are regional competitiveness and employment, and european territorial cooperation (European Commission). The effort are focused on facilitating increased growth and convergence of the least developed member states and regions with the goal of increasing the regional competitiveness and thus improving cooperation with other European regions. In order to promote regional development, the European Union has secured additional financial assistance for member states through various funds. Cohesion Fund is intended for countries which need to meet the convergence criteria. The European Regional Development Fund, as one of the main financial instruments of the EUs cohesion policy, and European Social Fund, Europes main tool for promoting employment and social inclusion, are called structural funds and are aimed at strengthening economic and social cohesion in the European Union and at the reduction of differences in development between the regions. Kyriacou and Rocca-Sagales (2011) found that the Structural Funds reduced regional disparities in the period from 1995 to 2006. Beugelsdijk and Eijffinger (2005) and Ederveen (2006) also confirmed positive impact of structural funds on consumption and growth of GDP per capita, but only in countries with developed institutions. Effect of the use of structural funds to decrease regional differences is potentially reversed if transfers are above a certain limit (about 1.6% of gross domestic product). This has implications on the desirable allocation of resources in future, especially since, in the last programming period (2007-20113), transmissions to all new member states except Cyprus and Malta exceeded the given threshold. Popa (2012) points out that although there are examples of good practice of the use of EU funds, they often represent more a financial burden then they truly serve as a mean of reducing regional disparities, which is their goal. Reforms of funding in the new programming period 2014-2020 have the potential to improve the efficiency of the use of the funds, but significant effects of their use cannot be expected in the absence of structural reforms, given the constraints in monitoring the use of funds in different countries and the difficulties in establishing irregularities and potential illegal use of funds (Chalmers Dellmuth, 2014). Most authors agree that after 20 years of implementation of the EU Cohesion Policy its effectiveness remains questionable (Bachtler et al., 2015). In fact, in theory, the allocation of EU funds needs to be designed so to ensure that the poorer regions receive more funds. In practice, the allocation and the distribution of funds was under the influence of lobbying, the unwillingness of regional authorities to absorb funds, as well as of the lack of resources and incentives for the European Union to question the political motives for the selection of projects at the local level (Dellmuth Stoffel, 2012). 1. REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUNDING European Regional Policy was adopted by the European Commission in 1965, followed by the creation of the Directorate-General for Regional Policy in 1968. In 1972, Regional Policy was recognized as an essential factor in strengthening the Community (European Commission).Regional policy has focused from its very start on promoting balanced regional development. The resources from the cohesion and structural funds are to be used primarily to minimize the differences in development between regions of the European Union as well as differences in the standard of living of citizens of these regions. Among the main objectives of the regional policy in the programming period from 2000 to 2006 were the development and structural adjustment of those regions whose GDP per capita was lower than 75% of the EU average, the economic and social conversion of areas facing structural difficulties and adjustment and modernization of the national policies and educational systems, as well as training and employment. For the financing of the regional development policy the European Commission established the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), whose objective is the elimination of regional disparities and promotion of a stable and sustainable development, the European Social Fund (ESF), aimed at developing human resources and employment, financial instrument for Fisheries guidance (Financial instrument for Fisheries guidance FIFG), whose goal is a balanced water resources management and development of the competitive infrastructure, and European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), whose goal is to support the Common agricultural policy and the improvement of agricultural structures and rural development. From 2007 to 2013, the number of funds was reduced to three (ERDF, ESF and the Cohesion Fund), and the emphasis was placed on the less developed regions, to achieve greater growth and higher employment rate. The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) aims to strengthen economic and social cohesion in the European Union. European Social Fund (ESF) aims to increase employment and increase opportunities for finding a job in the European Union. The Cohesion Fund is intended for Member States whose gross national product per capita is less than 90% of the Unions and aims to support economic and social development, and helps to bring stability to the economic system of the less developed countries. Given that the three main objectives of EU regional policy are convergence, regional competitiveness and employment and European territorial cooperation, Cohesion Fund primarily supports convergence and, although it is the subject to the same rules of programming, management and monitoring as well as the structural funds and plays a similar role, the Fund has been primarily used to provide means for adjusting the national economies of the countries which had decided to introduce a common currency, and to relieve national budgets of the poorer member states. Investments in the areas of transport, environmental protection, achieving energy efficiency and use of renewable energy sources are usually financed from the Cohesion Fund. For example, through the four national programs for Croatia, 10.74 billion Euro from the European structural and investment funds has been allocated in the period from 2014 to 2020. Croatia has a total budget of 12.67 billion Euro for investments into research and innovation, employment, education and training of employees, as well as for social inclusion projects, project in the public administration and civil society, as well as infrastructure projects and projects related to the protection of the environment Protection (http: / /ec.europa.eu, 2016). The management of the Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund is based on the principles of programming, concentration, co-financing and partnership. Programming is the process of allocation of structural funds in accordance with the defined objectives and criteria over a certain period of time. Concentration involves directing funds to where they are most needed. Co-financing means that part of the investment has to be obtained from domestic sources, while partnership implies close cooperation between Member States and the European Commission. Since the implementation of the Cohesion policy requires developed institutional framework, each state chooses one of three approaches for the implementation of the Cohesion policy differential approach, which is characterized by the separating the structures for the implementation of cohesion policy from the regular government bodies (for example, The Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom), the unique approach, whereby the funds are directed through the national, or regional ministries and agencies (for example Austria, Spain, parts of Germany and most new Member States) and the combined approach, which represents a combination of the previous two approaches (for example Finland, France and Italy). The choice depends on the existing administrative arrangements and levels of funding. 2. INSTRUMENT FOR PRE-ACCESSION ASSISTANCE Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance ( IPA) is the program for the countries which are in the process of accession to the Union. Pre-accession funds are intended to facilitate the economic and social transformation, which are included in the conditions for the admission to the Union. From 2000 to 2006, countries in the process of accession to the EU had access to financial instruments called PHARE (Pologne et Hongrie Aide à ¡ Restructuration Economique), ISPA (Instrument for Structural Policies for pre-Accession), SAPARD (Special pre-accession assistance for Agriculture and Rural Development), and CARDS (Community assistance for Reconstruction, Development and Stabilisation). From 2007 to 2013 total IPA budget amounted to 11.468 billion Euro (narr.gov.rs). Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance consists of five components (narr.gov.rs): Transition Assistance and Institution Building. The first component of the IPA aims to provide support in the process of accession to the European Union, especially in meeting the criteria and standards imposed by the accession, transposition of the legislation and, in particular, the strengthening of the institutional capacity. Cross-border cooperation. The objective of this component is to promote good neighborly relations and regional cooperation between traditionally less developed regions in the countries which engage in the joint cross border projects; Regional Development. The third IPA component aims to improve economic and social cohesion through the development of the transport infrastructure, particularly the development of national transport networks and trans-European networks, protection of the environment including policies such as waste management, management of water supply and waste water, as well as the monitoring of air quality, the rehabilitation of polluted areas, achievement of energy efficiency and renewable energy sources, and the development of regional competitiveness by fostering entrepreneurship and employment. The development of human resources. This component aims to contribute to economic and social cohesion and to achieving the priorities of the European Employment Strategy in the areas of employment, education, training and social inclusion. Rural Development. This component provides support for sustainable agricultural and rural development by improving market efficiency and facilitating the adoption of the EU standards, provides support for the establishment of producer groups and investments in the processing and marketing of agricultural and fishery products, as well as the implementation of best practices in the field of environmental protection and improvement in agriculture and development of rural infrastructure. All five components of IPA can be used by the country with the status of candidate country and which has implemented decentralized system of management of EU funds (Decentralized Implementation System DIS), while the potential candidate countries and those candidate countries which have not yet accredited DIS have access to funds from the first and second components of IPA (narr.gov.rs). Management of EU funds under Decentralized Implementation System is approved after meeting criteria and conditions defined by the European Commission. The first component of the Instrument for Pre-accession assistance is related to the transition assistance and the development of institutions, and it decreases as the countrys economy develops and gets closer to the European standards, practices and the membership of the Union. The second component of the IPA is related to Cross-Border Cooperation. Third IPA Component is a predecessor of the Cohesion Fund, while the fourth and fifth IPA components are precursors of the todays structural funds. IPA funds are not used exclusively for the implementation of institutional projects, but are also used for the preparation of the country for the accession through the implementation of prescribed objectives, principles. IPA beneficiary countries are divided into two categories (ec.europa.eu): Candidate countries for EU (Turkey, Albania, Montenegro, Serbia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) are eligible for all five components of IPA; Potential candidate countries in the Western Balkans (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo under UN Security Council Resolution 1244/99) are eligible only for the first two components. Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance IPA II 2014-2020 was established by the European Parliament and the Council Regulation no. 231/2014 of 11 March 2014 and applied retroactively from January 1, 2014. IPA II is the successor of the IPA for the period 2014-2020 and has a budget of 11.7 billion. Users of IPA II are: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey (http://ec.europa.eu). IPA II Regulation determines that the European Commission and the beneficiary of IPA II are to conclude general agreements on the implementation of the aid, which defines the rules for the implementation of the Unions financial assistance under the IPA II, primarily in relation to the management of IPA II, including the rules of programming, implementation, financial management, monitoring, control and audit, reporting and protection of financial interests. One of the major changes in the structure of the IPA II, which, instead of the 5 components comprising the IPA I, is the introduction of the policy areas. Policy areas within the IPA II are (PejoviĆ¡ et al., 2014): Reforms as part of preparations for EU membership and institutional and capacity building; Socio-economic and regional development; Employment, social policy, education, promotion of gender equality and human resource development; Agriculture and rural development; Regional and territorial cooperation. The most important innovation in the IPA II is its strategic focus. Each country should prepare a specific strategic planning document for the period of 7 years, which will enable faster integration, reform and development programs, and ensures a focus on the priorities in terms of regional cooperation. IPA II aims to facilitate the reforms in the context of pre-defined sectors. These sectors include areas closely related to the enlargement strategy, as well as democracy and governance, the rule of law, growth and competitiveness. This approach promotes structural reforms that are expected to help the governments to transform the given sectors and to successfully conduct harmonization with EU standards. In this way, the European Commission wishes to ensure the efficiency of the fund, sustainability and their focus on results. IPA II focuses on measuring the effects and monitoring the realization of expected results. IPA II aims at achieve four specific objectives. The overall objective is to support the beneficiary countries in adopting and implementing the political, institutional, legal, administrative, social and economic reforms that are required from them in order to conform with the values of the European Union and to ensure gradual alignment with the rules, standards, policies and practices for achieving full membership in the EU. The specific objectives of IPA II are (PejoviĆ¡ et al., 2014): Support for political reform: strengthening democracy and the rule of law, including an independent and efficient judiciary; promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for the rights of minorities, including LGBT people, promoting gender equality, prohibition of discrimination and fostering tolerance, and freedom of the media and cultural diversity; regional cooperation and good neighborly relations; the promotion of reconciliation and confidence building measures; the fight against corruption and organized crime; strengthening public administration and good governance at all levels; capacity building measures to improve law enforcement, border management and implementation of migration policies; the development of civil society; improving social dialogue and strengthening the capacity of the social partners. Support the economic, social and territorial development with focus on smart, sustainable and inclusive growth: reaching the EU standards in the economy, including a functioning market economy and fiscal and economic governance. Economic reforms are necessary in order to face competitive pressure and market forces within the EU, and which at the same time contribute to the achievement of objectives in the field of social rights and environmental protection; promotion of employment, mobility of workers and the development of human capital; improving social and economic inclusion, in particular of minorities and vulnerable groups, including people with disabilities, refugees and displaced persons; fostering an inclusive and integrated education system and the protection and restoration of cultural heritage; development of physical capital, including infrastructure improvements and connecting with the networks of the EU and the region; strengthening research, technological development a nd innovation capacity. Strengthening the capacity of recipient countries at all levels to fulfill the obligations arising from the membership in the EU by supporting progressive alignment with the EU acquis and their adoption and implementation, including preparation for managing structural and cohesion funds as well as funds intended for agriculture and rural development. Strengthening of regional and territorial cooperation to help beneficiary countries. 3. EFFECTS OF FINANCING During the programming period 2007- 2013, over 80% of the budget of the Cohesion Fund was allocated in the 100 poorest regions, with about 170 million people or one third of the EU population. The remaining 18.5% of the money is distributed to other regions in the Union (http://www.euractiv.com, 2012). According to the European Commission, in the next programming period 2014-2020 less than 70 regions will automatically qualify for the funds that are used to finance the convergence, as they have GDP per capita below 75% of the EU average. Regions in transition those who have a GDP per capita between 75% and 90% of the EU average will get less funds, but still can count on continued support from the Structural Funds (http://www.euractiv.com, 2012 ).   Ã‚   Figure 1: Regions by the development level in the programming periods 2007-2013 and 2014-2020. Source: Chalmers Dellmuth, 2014 In the 2014-2020 programming period it is expected that 25% of structural funds will be allocated in less developed regions (red in Figure 1), 40% in regions in transition (yellow in Figure 1), and 52% in the developed regions (blue in Figure 1. ). As for the Cohesion Fund, the funds from it will continue to support the development of member countries with GDP per capita of less than 90% of the EU-27 average, but will primarily be allocated to support investments in projects related to environmental protection and the development of transport. Part of the funds from the Cohesion Fund will focus on the financing of transport networks in Europe. Given that the capacity to absorb depends on the institutional factors, both in the EU and in the Member States (Georgescu, 2010; Voinea, et al, 2010), but also on the ability of regional authorities to co-finance projects and provide administrative support (Zaman and Georgescu, 2009), the possible effects of the use of structural funds are difficult to predict. According to the research, structural funds can boost GDP growth in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe from 0.1. to 0.7% per annum (Zaman Georgescu, 2009). Analyses of the effects of the use of the funds in the programming period 2000-2006 show that there has been some reduction in the differences between countries in GDP per capita, while in some regions growth was recorded. Zaman and Georgescu (2009) found that the structural funds boost export growth, and that in some cases, like in Romania, they led to economic growth, despite relatively low absorption capacity. Positive impact was also made in Austria, Belgium and France. However, according to Becker (2012), countries with low levels of education, weak institutions and poor governance did not make equally successful use of the funds. Thus, receiving more support from the Structural Funds does not necessarily mean development. For example, Pisani-Ferry et al (2011) found that inadequate institutional framework in Greece to be a reason for the inability of its government to efficiently use the funds assigned to it. CONCLUSION Theoretically, objectives of the regional policy of the European Union necessitate the existence of the financial support for the less developed regions to achieve the desired growth. However, in practice, during the distribution and the use of the funds many problems were encountered. Access to funds for underdeveloped regions did not lead to the desired growth, primarily because of the inability of the governments to use the allocated funds due to weakness of the institutions and low capacity. In more developed regions, the effects of the funds were much more significant. Changes in the programming period 2014-2020 are expected to solve part of the problems identified in the previous periods. However, declining return on invested funds and high dependence of a large number of the regions from external funding sources continue to threaten the achievement of the basic objectives that these funds are meant to support. Although raw data show that the Structural Funds have not always been successful in fighting the problems at all levels and in all countries. However, as many people are still unemployed in the EU, and there are full member countries whose GDP is still well below the EU average, the Structural Funds are necessary. The same goes for the Cohesion Fund, as it ensures faster accession of the candidate countries. These funds were designed to reduce the inequalities in the regional developments, and although they might not have been efficient in all cases, they certainly supported the growth in some regions, provide incentives for other regions to improve their capacity to access the funds and accelerate the growth. REFERENCES   Ã‚   Bachtler, J., Begg, I., Charles, D., Polverari, L. (2015) THE LONG TERM ACHIEVEMENTS OF EU COHESION POLICY, 1989-2012. Challanges for he new cohesion policy 2014-2020. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union Becker, S.O.(2012) EU Structural Funds: Do They Generate More Growth? dostupno na: https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/public/Research/International%20Economics/1212bp_becker.pdf Beugelsdijk, M., Eijffinger, S. (2005), The Effectiveness of Structural Policy in the European Union: an Empirical Analysis for the EU-15 in 1995-2001, Journal of Common Market Studies 43: 37-51. Chalmers, A.W., Dellmuth, L.M. (2014). Whz Europes new cohesion policy is unlikely to enhance effectiveness of EU structural and investments funds. Dostupno na: http://councilforeuropeanstudies.org/critcom/why-europes-new-cohesion-policy-is-unlikely-to-enhance-the-effectiveness-of-eu-structural-and-investment-funds/ Dellmuth, L.M., Stoffel, M.F. (2012) Distrinutive Politics and intergovernmental transfers: the local allocation of European Union Structural Funds. European Union Politics, 13 (3): 413-433 ec.europa.eu, dostupno na: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/funding/ipa/ preuzeto 3.3.2016. Ederveen, S., de Groot, H. , Nahuis, R. (2006) Fertile Soil for Structural Funds? A Panel Data Analysis of the Conditional Effectiveness of European Cohesion Policy, Kyklos 59: 17-42. European Commission (2012), EU Cohesion Funding Key Statistics, http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/thefunds/funding/index_en.cfm European Commission, http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/archive/policy/object/index_en.htm Georgescu, G. (2010). Determinants of increasing EU funds absorption capacity in Romania, Oeconomica Universitatea 1 Decembrie 1918 Alba Iulia (2010) : 16. http://ec.europa.eu, 2016, dostupno na: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/factsheets/2016/european-structural-and-investment-funds-country-factsheet-croatia http://ec.europa.eu, dostupno na: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/instruments/overview/index_en.htm, preuzeto 3.3.2016. KPMG (2014). PUBLIC SECTOR EU Funds in Central and Eastern Europe Progress Report 2007-2013. dostupno na: https://www.kpmg.com/SI/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/EU-Funds-in-Central-and-Eastern-Europe.pdf Kyriacou, P.A., Rocca-Sagales, O. (2011) The Impact of EU Structural Funds on Regional Disparities within Member States. Environmental Planning C Government and Policy April 2012 vol. 30 no. 2.267-281. Liargovas, P., Petropoulos, S., Tzifakis, N., Huliaras, A. (2016) BEYOND ABSORPTION THE IMPACT OF EU STRUCTURAL FUNDS ON GREECE. Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung Greece narr.gov.rs, dostupno na: http://narr.gov.rs/index.php/O-regionalnom-razvoju/EU-politika-regionalnog-razvoja/Instrument-za-predpristupnu-pomoc-IPA, preuzeto 3.3.2016. PejoviĆ¡, A., LazoviĆ¡, M., MiriĆ¡, O., KneÃ…Â ¾eviĆ¡, I. (2014) VodiĆ¡ kroz IPA, Beograd. Pisani-Ferry, J., Marzinotto, B. , Wolff, G. B. (2011), How European Funds can Help Greece Grow, Financial Times, 28 July. Popa, A. (2012). The Impact of the Structural Funds in the Transformation Process of the New EU Member States, LEurope en Formation 2012/2 (n ° 364), p. 161-179. Voinea, L.A., Busuioc, A., Popovici, V. (2010). Reindustrializarea Romaniei: politici si strategii.Asociatia pentru Studii si Prognoze Economico-Sociale, 113. Zaman, G. and Cristea, A., (2011) EU Structural Funds Absorption in Romania: Obstacles and Issues, 2011, Romanian Journal of Economy, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 60-77. Zaman, G., Georgescu,G. (2009) Structural fund adsorption: a new challenge for Romania? Romanian Journal of Economic Forecasting 1 (2009): 136.

Natalie Goldberg’s Long Quiet Highway: Waking Up in America Essay

Natalie Goldberg’s Long Quiet Highway: Waking Up in America â€Å"I don’t think fate is a creature, or a lady, like some people say. It’s a tide of events sweeping us along. But I’m not a Fatalist, because I believe you can swim against it, and sometimes grasp the hands of the clock face and steal a few precious minutes. If you don’t you’re just cartwheeled along. Before you know it, the magic opportunity is lost, and for the rest of your life it lingers on in that part of your mind which dreams the very best dreams—taunting and tantalizing you with what might have been.† (from the film Flirting, 1990) â€Å"Every moment is enormous, and it is all we have† (Goldberg xii). Natalie Goldberg offers her readers the opportunity to recognize the delicate nature of life and the importance of slowing down one’s life. In her autobiography, Long Quiet Highway: Waking Up in America, she invites readers to journey along her path to awakening in an effort as an author to â€Å"pass on her breath† (22). By capturing her message and holding it close to one’s heart, the reader grasps the essence of Goldberg’s message. It becomes clear that awakening can take on many forms and can be reached by different roads, but it is all centered on one goal: to go within oneself and find inner peace and understanding. Through her exploration of America, teaching, spirituality, impermanence, and writing, and through her writing style and language, Goldberg sends her readers along their own long, quiet highway. The main point one might gather from Goldberg’s discussion of America is that Americans need to slow down all aspects of their lives, need to take the small components of life and make them significant. Goldberg sees an impatience in Ame... ...er to her affectionately as simply Natalie. In fact, it seems strange to refer to her as merely the author of a narrative—she has most assuredly transmitted her being through her writing, most definitely made a connection. There are few times when she outwardly addresses the reader, so when she does, she calls attention to the importance of the event she is describing. â€Å"Understand,† she implores, causing the reader to sense the urgency and the great impact of what she is describing. When she describes Rinpoche as â€Å"fluid energy† (87), she wants readers to know this was really how she experienced him. Hers was a vital discovery, one of experiencing people. Natalie reaches readers. She cannot be disconnected from her work because hers is the breath we capture. Works Cited Goldberg, Natalie. Long Quiet Highway: Waking Up in America. New York: Bantam Books, 1993.

Being a Good Parent

there are a million ways to describe being a good parent. Some of the most important are unconditional love, being able to listen and understand, and being involved in things your child does. Showing your child that you love them is just as important at telling them. A simple hug or words of encouragement can mean the world to a child. Having your child know that even if they make a mistake you'll always love them.For an example after losing a basketball game in high school I went up to my mom and she hugged me without saying a word, when she did that I felt the love she had for me. Listening and understanding your child is another important characteristic of a good parent. When your child has a problem it could be helpful for them to know that you are available to talk to and offer advice. I'm currently debating on transferring college's, I like being able to talk to my mom about my plans and my future and getting her feedback.Going to a little league game, or baking cookies for the ir class bake sale are ways of being involved in things your child does. Helping your child with things like homework, or a big science project are other ways. There’s so many aspects of being a good parent it would be hard to describe in an essay. I just described the basics, unconditional love, the ability to listen, and being involved with your children.

Andrew Wakefield and the Mmr Autism Fraud

ANDREW WAKEFIELD AND THE MMR AUTISM FRAUD In February 1998, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, a British gastroenterologist, published a research paper in which he linked autism and bowel disease to the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine – creating a public health crisis in England and raising questions about vaccine safety in North America. Additional studies have since shown that the data presented was fraudulent, and after ten years of controversy and investigation, Dr. Wakefield was discredited, his licence revoked and his research discarded.The damage, however, had been done – vaccination rates in the industrialized world are down to such an extent that it has brought back diseases that have not been seen for decades. The article in the British medical journal The Lancet claimed that the three-in-one measles, mumps and rubella vaccine (MMR) was causing inflammatory bowel syndrome and brain damage in children. The five-page paper, which was backed by a press conference, p rovoked substantial media interest. Dr.Wakefield reported on twelve cases of children with what he called â€Å"regressive autism†, who had been admitted to the Royal Free Hospital in Hampstead (London) between July 1996 and February 1997, all within 14 days of receiving the MMR vaccine. These previously healthy children, the study claimed, suddenly lost basic language and communication skills. Wakefield theorized that the three vaccines, given together, can alter a child’s immune system, allowing the measles virus in the vaccine to infiltrate the intestines; certain proteins, escaping from the intestines, could then reach and harm neurons in the brain. It's a moral issue for me,† he announced at the 1998 press conference, where he advocated breaking up the triple MMR vaccine into single measles, mumps and rubella shots, to be given at yearly intervals. â€Å"I can't support the continued use of these three vaccines, given in combination,† he said, â€Å" until this issue has been resolved. † As the doctor campaigned, vaccination rates in the UK and Ireland dropped sharply. Wakefield supporters even involved Prime Minister Tony Blair by suggesting that his youngest son was not vaccinated with MMR.Although at the time, Mr. Blair refused to discuss the issue for privacy reasons, he did say that, â€Å"For the record, Cherie and I both entirely support the advice, as we have consistently said. It is not true that we believe the MMR vaccine to be dangerous or believe that it is better to have separate injections, or believe that it is linked to autism. On the contrary, the vaccine, which is used throughout the world, helps prevent the spread of diseases that can, if contracted, cause very serious damage to children. It was later confirmed that Leo Blair had been inoculated. In November 2000, Wakefield appeared on CBS’ 60 Minutes, linking the â€Å"epidemic of autism† to the MMR vaccine. This set off a spiral of theor ies that all vaccines are suspect: either due to their content, or because children receive too many of them at the same time. The US movement attracted celebrities such as actress Jenny McCarthy, who blamed MMR for her own son’s autism. â€Å"In 1983 the shot schedule was ten. That's when autism was one in 10,000. Now there's 36, and autism is one in 150,† she argued. All arrows point to one direction. † Although the number of children diagnosed with autism has increased dramatically over the last twenty years, it is difficult to say if this is due to improved diagnostic practices or an actual increased prevalence of the disease. Several major studies, however, have ruled out a link with vaccines: †¢The October 2004 edition of Vaccine published a meta review that looked at 120 studies to assess potential side effects of the MMR vaccine. The authors concluded that a connection between MMR and autism is â€Å"unlikely†. A 2005 study compared autism rat es in Japan before and after 1993, when the triple MMR vaccine was broken into three separate vaccines that are administered at different times. It was found that autism is still on the rise. †¢In October 2005, the Cochrance Library published a review of 31 scientific studies, none of which found a link between MMR and either autism or bowel disease. Similarly, a 2007 review of independent studies performed after Wakefield’s publication in the Lancet demonstrated overwhelming evidence against the hypothesis of associating MMR with autism.In addition to the overwhelming scientific evidence contradicting Wakefield’s claims, British journalist Brian Deer discovered that in fact, the research had been funded to create evidence against the MMR vaccine. Wakefield had concealed, misreported and changed information about the children in his study. It turned out that two years before embarking on his â€Å"research†, he had been hired by a lawyer who planned to make big money from several class action lawsuits against companies manufacturing the triple MMR vaccine. â€Å"I have mentioned to you before hat the prime objective is to produce unassailable evidence in court so as to convince a court that these vaccines are dangerous,† the lawyer reminded the doctor in a confidential letter, six months before the Lancet report. The Sunday Times investigation also discovered that in June 1997, Wakefield had filed for a patent on a single measles vaccine – for the success of which he needed to discredit the triple MMR. After the fraud came to light in February 2004, the Lancet retracted the conclusion section of the report (they would eventually retract the whole article in 2010).From July 2007 to May 2010, the General Medical Council conducted the longest ever professional misconduct hearing. Eventually, they revoked Dr. Wakefield’s medical licence, citing medical, scientific and ethical misconduct. So why do parents still believ e in Wakefield’s hypothesis? Probably because anecdotes are more satisfying than scientific methodology, and the media are very good at telling the bad story and very bad at telling the real story. In the UK and Ireland, fueled by sensationalist media coverage, MMR uptake levels between 1998 and 2008 dropped from 92 percent to 73 percent. 5 percent vaccine uptake levels are required for herd immunity (i. e. , the point when diseases cannot spread in a population). In 2008, measles was declared endemic again in the UK. There were a total of 1,348 cases that year, up 36 per cent from the previous year and up a staggering 2,400 per cent from 1998, when there were just 56 cases. In 2006 a 13-year-old boy became the first person to die of measles in Britain since 1992, with a second child dying in 2008. In the United States, the herd immunity is crumbling as states make it easier for parents to opt out of the vaccinations that are usually required to enroll in school.A study publi shed in the journal Pediatrics (2010) by researchers from the University of Michigan showed that 12 percent of parents have refused at least one recommended vaccine for their children. As a result, diseases such as whooping cough and measles are making a comeback. In 2010, 9,500 cases of whooping cough were reported in California, the most in 65 years. Ten patients died, all of them infants too young to be vaccinated. And even though measles was declared eliminated in the US in 2000, 2011 saw the highest number of measles cases in 15 years. None of these cases resulted in death, but one out of three people had to be hospitalized.This then is Andrew Wakefield’s legacy – an elaborate hoax for financial gain that has set back the medical clock 100 years for millions of children whose parents refuse to accept overwhelming and sound scientific evidence and would rather expose them to the very real dangers of infectious disease. Another casualty, ironically, is autism itself . Significant time, energy and financial resources were wasted that could have been spent on research and developing new treatments. Mr. Wakefield has taken up residence in an affluent suburb of Austin, Texas. Although not allowed to practice medicine, he still lectures to an adoring audience. To our community, Andrew Wakefield is Nelson Mandela and Jesus Christ rolled up into one,† according to J. B. Handley of Generation Rescue. The WHO estimates that 380 people die of measles every day. ? SOURCES: Ahmed, Kamal. â€Å"Blair Baby ‘Has Had' MMR Jab. † The Guardian 23 December 2001. Asaithambi, Rathi. â€Å"Time to Get Tough on Vaccine Refusal. † Baltimore Sun 11 April 2012. Chivers, Tom. â€Å"MMR – Autism Scare: So, Farewell Then, Dr Andrew Wakefield. † The Telegraph 24 May 2010. Deer, Brian. â€Å"MMR: The Truth behind the Crisis. † The Sunday Times 14 November 2004. Deer, Brian. Revealed: MMR Research Scandal. † The Sunday Time s 22 February 2004. DeStefano, F. â€Å"Vaccines and Autism: Evidence Does Not Support a Causal Association. † Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics December 2007: 756-759. Dominus, Susan. â€Å"The Crash and Burn of an Autism Guru. † The New York Times 20 April 2011. Freeper, Berlin. â€Å"The Autism Vaccine Hoax. † The Wall Street Journal 8 January 2011. Mascarelli, Amanda. â€Å"Vaccine Opt-Outs Causing Breaks in ‘Herd Immunity'. † Los Angeles Times 5 August 2011. Sifferlin, Alexandria. â€Å"Measles: 2011 Was the Worst in the U. S. in 15 Years. † Time 19 April 2012.