John F. Kennedy As The First Modern President Sample College Essay

Introduction

John F. Kennedy is perceived by many as the first modern president in the history of United States of America and the whole world. Most renowned authors unanimously agree that his natural charisma and leadership qualities were overwhelming. His brave and courageous outlook made him to be admired by many during his lifetime and even after he was assassinated in 22nd November 1963. He positively affected American life and politics to present day. Although he may have developed political enemies which led to his death, John F. Kennedy left an indelible mark by setting new standards of leadership characterized by contemporary elements.

Leadership Abilities

Barnes observes that “you don’t have to look far for the evidence of the imprint Kennedy left…” Since his death, all the presidents and the presidential candidates tend to identify with him in many ways. In other words, his leadership skills were unique. He left a legacy which is still being cherished up to date. For example, “Lyndon Johnson was obsessed with living in Kennedy’s shadow”1. Another example was Jimmy Carter. He was extremely marveled when the Time magazine described him as “Kennedyesque”.

One of the reasons why John F. Kennedy was able to steer leadership well was his vision. This is a word applied mostly in leadership. To some people, vision is a very important phenomenon if leadership has to succeed. However, there are those who think that the process of crafting, developing and living by a particular vision is cumbersome and time consuming. John FK believed in leadership vision and as result, he developed one. He realized that the ability of vision to have people listen to him was paramount Barnes asserts his vision which said

Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage, and unwillingness to witness the slow undoing….

Kennedy was definitely going deep in his quest for modern leadership. He did not want to do it the old way. None of the earlier American presidents had attempted to set up a clear vision as this one. Obviously, this created a new beginning in American politics.

It is interesting that Kennedy showed his leadership prowess while still young. As Barnes recounts, Kennedy was once described as a ring leader of “muckers” by St John who was presiding at a chapel. His father was summoned by the chapel master over the state of his in-disciplined son. Young Kennedy “gathered a group of about a dozen other like-minded boys”. This group’s aim was to create chaos in campus. This threat terrified St. John. As a result, Kennedy was not expelled. This brave challenge was just preparing him for higher leadership position in future.

Barnes notes that “leaders who leave a mark are all ‘muckers’ to some extent or another”. He eventually rose to leadership in a way that none of his predecessors could imagine. Even his rivals were greatly surprised at how he managed to achieve such enormous success.

His way of running political affairs of his country was completely different. When he “decided to run for Congress in 1946, Massachusetts Democratic politics was about as spontaneous Japanese Kabuki dance”. It was a joke for a young man to run for a political seat during that time. He, however, organized local neighborhood groups to set forth his political career.

The Use of Television

John F. Kennedy was a determined leader in all respects. According to JKF presidential library and Museum archive report, “he captured the Democratic nomination in 1960 and went on to win one of the closest elections in U.S. history”. This was a terrible time in the United States history bearing in mind that the Soviet Union and the United States were under high tension of Cold War.

He won the Democratic nomination still at a tender age of forty three. His rivals, according to the report, accused him of no experience in international matters. His faith as a Catholic also stirred a lot of controversy in his quest for leadership. “He had to overcome the traditional assumption that a winning candidate must have the support of entrenched party leaders.” Due to his charismatic nature, he even won with a big margin in Protestant West Virginia. This victory was not expected from him bearing in mind that he was young aspiring leader who perhaps was not popular during that time. Although he was a staunch Catholic, his eloquence nature led him to astounding victory in the end. After picking Lyndon Johnson, a Texas Senator, to be his running partner, he informed the convention that “he would get the nation moving again and declared that the United States would have the will and the strength to resist communism around the world”. There was something very new and interesting about his campaign tactics. Nixon led the polls after the conventions. This was the first time television was used for live debates. It was Kennedy who decided to “challenge the Vice President to a series of televised debates”. It was a unique campaign tool invented by none other than Kennedy. It also set a new order that would be followed by his successors long after his death.

The JKF presidential Library and Museum report continue to shed more light on this. It is surprising that less than 15 % of American households had black and white television by 1950. The entrance of John F. Kennedy into televised campaign debates changed the entire face of television use among the Americans. The report estimates that “seventy million Americans, about 2/3 of the electorate, watched the first debate on September 26th”. This was an incredible revolution in American politics. Kennedy still maintained his charisma even with this new development in place. He spoke one on one and eloquently to cameras and most important he impressed his countrywide supporters who were watching him speak with agility and courage. The general feeling from those Americans who were watching the live debate was that Kennedy was already a victor.

John F. Kennedy performed everything in his own ways and fashion. For instance, Letitia Baldrige was the social secretary to Kennedy’s wife, Jacqueline who was also the third youngest first lady of her time. Ms Letitia was just a friend and was appointed to this powerful position in White House. Her main duty was to “assist the First Lady in planning the many state dinners and social gatherings in the White House”. Kennedy drove a message of boldness to future American leaders. His new system of appointments was to shape the future history of United States. He also made it clear that communication is vital in every aspect of life including politics.

To recap this topic, it is evident that John F. Kennedy was an assertive character who did not consider stumbling blocks as an excuse to ones dreams. He illustrated in the many of his speeches that effort in communication is vital. Future leaders like Walter Cronkite, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George Bush and Richmond followed his footsteps in their leadership skills.

Bibliography

John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum. Historical Resources; JKF in History, Biographies and Profiles. 2009. Web.

J. A. Barnes. John F. Kennedy on Leadership. The lessons and Legacy of a President American Management Association, New York, 2007

The Use Of Animals In Biomedical Research

Introduction

Biomedical research is a wide range of discipline that looks for ways to stop and cure diseases that produces sickness and death in individuals and animals. This broad area of research embraces various fields of both the life and physical sciences (Creed, et al, 2005). With the techniques of biotechnology, biomedical researchers experiment biological procedures and diseases with the essential purpose of improving useful remedies and cures. Biomedical research is a progressive method requiring thorough research by several scientists, together with biologists and chemists. The finding of the latest medicines and therapies involves careful scientific testing, improvement, and assessment.

Reason Why Animals are used in Biomedical Research

The use of animals in biomedical research is important to the improvement of new and more useful procedures for detecting and curing diseases that disturbs both humans and animals. Animals are used by scientists to study further concerning health troubles and to guarantee the safety of the latest health treatments. Biomedical researchers have to comprehend health troubles before they can improve ways to treat them. Several diseases and health troubles require methods that can merely be studied in humans. Animals are required in biomedical research for the reason that the use of humans is not practical or unethical.

Animals make superior research matter for a range of explanations. Animals are biologically alike to human beings and are prone to a lot of similar health troubles, and their life cycle is short so they can simply be researched all over their entire existence or transversely numerous generations. Additional, scientists can effortlessly manage the surroundings in the region of animals like diet, hotness, lighting, which would be hard to do with humans. Lastly, the main explanation why animals are used is because several individuals think it would be incorrect to intentionally endanger human beings to a health hazards in order to examine the course of an infection.

Animals are used in biomedical research to advance drugs and remedial measures to treat infections. Scientists may determine such drugs and measures by means of substitute study methods that do not engage animals. If the latest treatment seems capable, it is tried in animals to see just in case it appears to be harmless and helpful. If the outcomes of the animal research are excellent, then individual volunteers are invited to take part in a scientific trial. The animal experiments are carried out first to provide health researchers an improved idea of what importance and problems they are probable to observe in humans (Tollman, et al, 2001).

A diversity of animals gives very helpful models for the research of diseases troubling equally animals and humans. Though about 95 percent of study animals in North America are pests, rats, mice, and rodents reared, particularly for laboratory study. Dogs and primates report for not as much of one percent of all the animals experimented in biomedical research.

Those operating in the discipline of biomedical research have a responsibility to carry out a study in a way that is humane, suitable, and sensible. CBRA encourage observance of principles of care developed by scientific and qualified organizations, and conformity with the rules of government for the utilization of animals in biomedical research. Scientists maintain on finding ways to lessen the figures of animals required to acquire results that are valid, purify investigational methods, and substitute animals among other study methods at any time feasible.

Animal Experimentation

Scientists employ animals in biomedical research intended at refining human wellbeing and the benefit of other animals. Triumphant remedial management, as well as medications and inoculations, have been improved in the course of animal experimentation. Various scientists disagree that animal testing continues to be a vital means for the research and cure of severe diseases like cancer, and heart disease.

Though, animal rights advocates have objected to a variety of forms of animal testing, stating that measures such as vivisection pay no attention to the ability of animals to undergo pain. They as well oppose toxicity assessment carried on animals to aid decide whether cosmetics and other results are secure for human exploitation. Laws live in several nations to control the use and management of laboratory animals in scientific productions and in education (Ebrahim & Smeeth, 2005).

Benefits of Animal Experimentation

Advocates of animal testing direct to about hundreds of lifetimes of medical progress made achievable by studies on animals. Cure for heart disease give just individual case, as well as open-heart surgery, during which circulatory roles are momentarily regulated by a heart-lung device; coronary bypass to advance blood run to the heart muscle; and valve substitution of a faulty heart valve. Methods and equipment for kidney dialysis were as well advanced in the course of animal testing.

About 30 drugs for the remedy of cancer, with anticancer radiation laboratory analysis, were first carried out on pests and mice. Inoculations for diphtheria, smallpox and many other formerly fright diseases were technologically advanced in the course of animal study. Organ transfers, blood sharing, microsurgery to put back severed limbs and other measures that rescued thousands of lives yearly were made potentially by work on animals. And not humans, other than dogs, and most household and farm animals have profited on or after such studies, through the improvement of management for distemper, anthrax, and several sicknesses of animals.

Recent biotechnology is giving additional prospects for progress in the improvement of transgenic organisms, like mice that are particularly grown to take certain human genes. Transgenic organisms allow scientists to examine hereditary causes of cancer and other sicknesses. In another hopeful effort with spinal cord harm and paralysis, neurobiologists testing on pests and mice are examining ways to restore nerve tissue and reinstate movement. Animals are in addition being employed to look for cures of these days’ most serious sicknesses, counting Alzheimer’s disease and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) (Eastwood, et al, 2001).

Reasons for Opposition

Rivals dispute that animal research is heartless, dishonest, and pointless. The query, marked by an English academician by name of Jeremy Bentham, argue animals employed in researches, “it is not as if they cannot think, or are able to talk, however, they can suffer” additional lately, Peter Singer, in what he tagged the Liberation of animals, disagree that all variables that can experience pain and agony, animal and human ought to have the same concern. (London, 2002) explained that several individuals think that animals are no less multifaceted than humans in their ability to experience sensations and to undergo pain. In this observation, the imposition of uneasiness, pain, affliction, and fatality on laboratory animals, which are incompetent of offering approval to investigational measures, is entirely incorrect.

Rivals furthermore argue the scientific legitimacy of outcomes acquires from animals. A lot of examiners question whether information gotten from animals can be dependably functional to humans. The dispute is that physiological variation involving animals and humans makes them incompatible as investigational models. Animal rights campaigners mention facts of the North America Government Accountability Office (GAO) presenting about 52 percent of the latest drugs promoted from 1976 to 1985 gave rise to unfavorable reactions that were not envisaged by animal research.

Protesters of animal testing furthermore point out that investigational animals are bound to huge stress, frequently restricted in tiny cages or caught up in particular equipment intended to limit their movement. The stress produced by captivity, and by frequent usage for investigational measures, may considerably change an animal’s physiological performance, making any investigational explanation insignificant (Rothman, et al. 2000).

Researchers in labs globally presently test with a variety of options, like in vitro techniques, which employ cell and tissue experiments in place of entire animals. One of such methods, intended to restore rabbits in assessing the skin-irritating characteristics of the latest chemicals, has previously triumph endorsement from the American government, which needs wide testing earlier than chemicals can be employed in business products.

A different hopeful avenue entails improving more complicated techniques of statistically analyzing information. Such information drawing out method signifies that fewer animals are essential for analysis, or that animals are absolutely needless. Potent computer programs, designed to emulate biological purposes and reveal how a living body act in response to harmful chemicals or infectious pathogens, is nevertheless an extra option.

Conclusion

Animal rights campaigners demonstrating the farthest view maintain an absolute forbid on animal testing in support of optional methods. In spite of augmented importance in and achievement with alternatives, nevertheless, a lot of scientists believe that there is no alternative for the complex reply of an entire animal. In their view, the animal study is very important for sustained biomedical advancement. The difficulty of the animal testing contest is sure to remain an issue of argument for many more decades ahead.

References

Creed-Kanashiro, H., Ore, B., Scurrah, M., Gil, A., Penny, M. (2005). Conducting Research in Developing Countries: Experiences of the Informed Consent Process from Community Studies in Peru. J. Nutr. 135: 925-928.

Eastwood, J.B., Plange-Rhule, J., Parry, V., Tomlinson, S. (2001). Medical Collaborations Between Developed and Developing Countries. QJM 94: 637- 641.

Ebrahim, S. & Smeeth, L. (2005). Non-communicable Diseases in Low and Middle- Income Countries: a priority or a distraction. Int J Epidemiol 34: 961-966.

London, L. (2002). Ethical Oversight of Public Health Research: Can Rules and IRBs Make a Difference in Developing Countries? AJPH 92: 1079-1084.

Rothman, K.J., Michels, K.B. & Baum M, (2000).The Declaration of Helsinki should be strengthened. BMJ; 321: 442-445.

Tollman, S. M, Bastian, H., Doll, R., Hirsch, L. J, Guess, H. A (2001). What are the effects of the fifth Revision of the Declaration of Helsinki? Fair partnerships support Ethical Research Gains and losses for rights of Consumer and Research Participants Research will be impeded Some clauses will hinder the Development of New Drugs and Vaccines. BMJ 323: 1417-1423.

The Philippine-American War: The Origins And The Influence

The Philippine-American war was an armed conflict between the United States of America and the First Philippine Republic, which lasted from 1899 to 1902. Partially, this confrontation is connected with the ending of the Spanish-American War because Spain imparted the Philippines into the possession of the United States as the result of the war. Despite the fact that the war with the Philippines lasted only for three years, it has left a significant impact on American society. In this paper, the origins and the outcomes of the Philippines-American War will be discussed, with the aim to reveal the imperialistic intentions of the American government, to touch upon the themes of racism, chauvinism, and masculinity, and, additionally, to express my personal impression of the war.

The origins of the war between the United States and the Philippines are complex and rooted deeply in the America’s imperialistic ambitions. One could refer to the Philippine Revolution of 1896 as an obvious starting point of the conflict. The Philippines were struggling for the independence, while the government of the United States perceived those actions as a rebellion. The formal occasion for the war’s outbreak was the objection of the Treaty of Paris by the First Philippine Republic. This agreement between Spain and the United States had ended the Spanish-American War, and according to it the Philippines were transferred into the possession of the U.S. Although the war lasted for three years, it cost approximately 4000-6000 thousand of American soldiers’ lives and left the massive impact on both countries.

The primary motive of America’s involvement in the war was the imperialistic ambitions of the U.S. government. The population of the Philippines was perceived as unable to govern itself, in the opinion of imperialists (Hollitz 84). As Kirsch observes, “the American (re)mapping of the Philippines was expressed in a wide range of intersecting discourses – commercial, military, bureaucratic, and scientific”, which is another example of the U.S. government’s imperialistic ambitions (4). It is possible to observe that those political interests were tightly connected with other social concerns. Theodore Roosevelt explained those concerns as a feeling of anxiety about the younger American generation, which was mainly focused on the luxury, while the birth rates were diminishing (Hollitz 85).

This idea of strengthening the masculinity became the principal argument of the Philippine war discourse. Hollitz observes that imperialists believed in possession of the colony as a means of preventing the America’s population and political system from degenerating (84). Such rhetoric was used in the contemporary propaganda. The other method of building up the acceptance of the invasion was the creation of the negative perception of the Philippines by the society. The primary contribution was given by the yellow journals, which represented the information in a very negative way, depicting the Filipinos as savage and cruel people.

Another point which is extremely important to notice is that “annexing the Philippines moved U.S. strategic interests into the heart of Asia” (Marolda 5), which reveals the imperialists’ extended strategic interests in establishing the trade with the Asian countries. Moreover, there was a movement which believed that building a base in the Philippines would help to secure the trade route to China (Hollitz 84). It is evident that the imperialistic intentions of the U.S. government were developed to a vast extent.

The previously mentioned emphasis on the idea of masculinity as the driving factor of war propaganda brings out the anti-feminist rhetoric into the discussion. One of the most common argument in favor of invasion in the Philippines stated that the condition of peace makes young American effeminate. Furthermore, another negative perspective on femininity was expressed by Fernald in “The New Womanhood,” in which he declares that only the masculinity fits the position of authority, power, and command (Hollitz 85). In addition to the anti-feminine climate of the time, the evidence of racism was also presented. As Rafael observes in his article, the Philippine people were “subject to American laws but, by virtue of their racial difference, not entitled to the same rights” (3). Such chauvinism was treated as a natural way of ruling the First Philippine Republic.

The legacy of the Philippine-American War impacted the American social and political life to a large extent. First of all, the example of that war created the precedent, which would be later used as an excuse for the United States’ actions across the world. Brewer observes that “to justify interventions elsewhere, future presidents would recall McKinley’s attractive version of U.S. involvement in the Philippines” (22). That precedent influenced the history in general, because since then the American government assumed its capability to interfere in other countries’ political life. But, at least, “the human and financial costs of the war served as a cautionary warning against further adventures of insular imperialism” (Welch 156). The imperialists were preoccupied with the idea of incompatibility of peace and femininity with the nature of a man, and they used those speculations to warrant the invasion of the Philippines.

In the course of time it became clear that “the United States could have protected its national security without taking over the Philippines” (Bert 69), and, possibly, it is an essential lesson which should be learned from this situation. However, the Philippine-American War had an immense impression on me because it is not only a political event, but an example of the evolution of the masculinity concept. The upheld opinion of the manhood closely tied to war, aggression, and discrimination led to the conflict which could easily be evaded if such ideas were not dominating in the society. In my opinion, it is also an important lesson which should learned from the Philippine-American War.

Works Cited

Bert, Wayne. American Military Intervention in Unconventional War: From the Philippines to Iraq. Palgrave, 2011.

Brewer, Susan. “Selling Empire: American Propaganda and War in the Philippines.” The Asia–Pacific Journal, vol. 11, no. 40, 2013, pp. 1-27.

Hollitz, John. Thinking Through the Past: A Critical Thinking Approach to U.S. History. Vol. 2, 5th ed., Wadsworth Publishing, 2014.

Kirsch, Scott. “Insular territories: US colonial science, geopolitics, and the (re) mapping of the Philippines.” The Geographical Journal, vol. 182, no. 1, 2016, pp. 2-14.

Marolda, Edward, editor. Theodore Roosevelt, the US Navy and the Spanish-American War. Springer, 2016.

Rafael, Vicente L. “The war of translation: Colonial education, American English, and Tagalog slang in the Philippines.” The Journal of Asian Studies, vol. 74, no. 2, 2015, pp. 283-302.

Welch, Richard E., Jr. Response to Imperialism: The United States and the Philippine-American War, 1899-1902. UNC Press Books, 2016.

error: Content is protected !!