Raymond Williams Essay Example

Raymond Williams Paper The term popular culture is one that carries much debate and hysteria into what it actually means. In developing my work I hope to touch upon the various different backgrounds that make up the theory of popular culture and attempt to understand what the term means. In order to investigate what popular culture is it is useful first to clarify what the words represent individually: Popular: liked or enjoyed or used etc. by many people; of or for the general public. Culture: developed understanding of literature, art, music, etc; type of civilisation: artificial rearing of bees, bacteria etc: bacteria grown for study- v. t. grow in artificial conditions. In addition to these standard definitions other meanings have been formed as the subject matter has advanced. Well liked by many people; inferior kinds of work; work deliberately setting out to win favour with the people; culture actually made by the people for themselves (Raymond Williams in Cultural theory and popular culture, John Storey, page 2, 1993) are all interpretations of the word popular. Culture too has alternative meaning, one of which the texts and practices of everyday life (John Storey, Cultural Studies and the Study of Popular Culture, page 2, 1993) involves the merging of two other definitions. As the definitions show the words carry different meanings depending on the context that they are used in. This is also true when the words are placed together, but a further influence has had an effect upon the term which has led to further clouding of its meaning, this being the concept of ideology. The ideas that form the basis of theory, ideology is something that not even Karl Marx was able lay down a clear definition of. We will write a custom essay sample on Raymond Williams specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Raymond Williams specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Raymond Williams specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer It shares much of the same ground with culture, yet there is one sector that separates them, politics. There are various definitions that make up ideology, with many of them implementing division between people, namely the powerful and the powerless. This divide can be constructed in many ways, one being the presentation of distorted texts or practices in society that result in the creation of a false consciousness. Furthermore it is also argued that the image of the world that texts create has to present a view, be it good or bad, the consequence of which means that the audience is being subjected to a political stance. Frenchmen Louis Althusser and Roland Barthes have also contributed heavily to this debate, with the former believing that social customs have been ambushed and resold as ideological practices, such as Christmas which provides society with a break in the hope that it will return to the workplace refreshed and looking forward to the next break, oblivious to its exploitation. Barthes meanwhile observed the effect connotations of words carry in texts and practices, whilst also looking at the hegemonic struggle (John Storey, Cultural Theory and Popular Culture, page 6, 1993) to control and create connotations by the powerful. And so it is that through a combination of culture and ideology the term popular culture has developed. It is at this point where conflict arises though over what the term really does mean, which has resulted in the creation of a number of theories. Culture that is widely consumed or liked, which can be measured through investigation of sales is one thought, but this then leads to further debate over what figure is set as popular. There is also the idea that whatever is left from high culture becomes its popular counterpart, but this then leads to conflict over what high culture is as certain texts or practices have at one point been part of both. An example of this being Shakespeares plays, which at the time of writing would have been seen as popular culture, but are now seen as high culture. The notion that it is mass culture, which then leads onto commercialisation and the Americanization theory.

Banking Regulation around the World Patterns, Determinants, and Impact essayEssay Writing Service

Banking Regulation around the World Patterns, Determinants, and Impact essayEssay Writing Service Banking Regulation around the World: Patterns, Determinants, and Impact essay Banking Regulation around the World: Patterns, Determinants, and Impact essayThe US has historically been a state based on the principles of free market and perfect competition. However, increasing economic growth and increasing interdependence among countries resulted in regional, in the first place, and then global crisis. For example, the Great Depression was the starting point for the development of the economic theory of John Maynard Keynes deriving from the fact that the market is not able to come to equilibrium independently. Later criticism of Keynes’s paper led to the rejection of some of its provisions, but the idea of the state as a third party regulating the market has remained. As Robert Lucas stated in 2009: â€Å"I guess everyone is a Keynesian in the foxhole† (Rouse, 2013).Indeed, certain points of the program of state regulation today cause special dissatisfaction on the part of supporters of free market principles. Denying, however, the need for extern al support, although costly, would be, at least, impractical because the calculated potential losses from the crisis would exceed the most expensive plan for economic recovery.  Assessing the borderlines of government interventionInitially, liberalization of the financial sector in the early 2000’s by eliminating Glass-Steagall Act and reducing the interest rate of the Fed to 1% caused a rapid growth of the US economy for the past eight years. However, market deregulation allowed many commercial banks to buy short-term profitable but risky assets at the expense of their depositors, while need to involve more people into the system prompted banks to start issuing mortgages even to less reliable households without requiring any fee or proof of income, which in the end led to massive defaults on the mortgage and financial crisis. In the situation where the discount rate already tends to zero, the US economy was actually on the verge of a liquidity trap when further reduction o f the discount rate does not affect the behavior of market agents (Li, 2007). As a result, the Federal Reserve has not coped with the tasks of control leading to the need for greater government intervention, in particular the enactment of Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.The Dodd-Frank Act suggest activity in six areas: improving accountability and increasing transparency of financial institutions, rejection of the principle of rescuing systemically important financial institutions (â€Å"too big to fail†), search for alternatives to rescuing bankrupt companies at the expense of state aid, i.e. taxpayers, consumer protection, introduction of the Volcker Rule, and regulation of the market of precious metals. In addition to reforming the financial legislation, much has been done through direct state intervention in the financial sector (Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act). The main ways to stimulate the economy at the moment are: the Fed financial programs, tests assessing the state of major banks, financial assistance to banks through TARP, Recovery Act, the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan (TALF), organizations such as AIG, Freddie Mac and Funnie Mae, preventing foreclosure of the mortgaged property, as well as the activities of the Small Business Administration (SBA).Acting together, these measures involve a significant reduction in the risk of major default. Indeed, the presence of short-term capital debt declined from 62% in 2007 to 37% in 2013, increasing the stability of financial institutions (Rouse, 2013). At the same time, banks have increased their own capital by about $450 billion, which now serve as the airbag in the event of new economic shocks, reduce dependence on credit and can be spent on investments in long-term projects. In addition, while by March 2009, banks participating in the TARP program and receiving funding had to pay out $238 billion, 99% of this amount was already repaid in Apr il 2013 (Rouse, 2013). Moreover, investments of some programs of the Fed and TARP returned to the state budget as additional revenues, which certainly shows the effectiveness of the state support. However, it is not all as rosy as it might seem at first glance.First, Dodd-Frank Act may be regarded as a return to the past due to the use of one of the principles of the Glass-Steagall Act (Banking Act of 1933), repealed in 1999, namely the Volcker Rule which delineates the activities of banks dealing with consumer credit with government guarantees and investment banks (Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act). This decision is likely to lead to further restriction of liquidity and size of the financial market. In addition, state intervention significantly limits the ability of financial institutions, especially large ones, markedly increasing their responsibility. However, such a rigid legislative regulation will complicate a quick exit from the recession and will pre vent the rapid development of the banking sector. In turn, the increase in the share of banking assets controlled by the state reduces the rate of development of financial non-banking sector and the stock market. In general, government regulation associated with rising costs, in fact, voluntarily overtakes the unnecessary long-term risks (Rouse, 2013).Moreover, analysis data from 54 countries show that there is an inverse relationship between the proportion of state involvement in banks and financial development: a large proportion of state involvement in the banking system leads to slowing of economic development, moreover, none of the limits reduces the probability of banking crisis (Li, 2007). At the same time, the most acute problem with the introduction of a new regulatory legislation is related to its procyclicality: the law hinders economic development during the recession limiting the abilities of financial institutions, and during the phase of recovery, its most rigid princ iples will be eliminated, which can lead to another liberalization of financial markets and the economy overheating.  ConclusionOn the one hand, the imposition of restrictions and strengthening of control over certain types of banking activity reduces the efficiency of the whole sector. On the other hand, the modern-day banking regulation in the US is a necessary measure in response to the weakening of market discipline, loss of caution and skepticism, which should be common to investors putting up their capital in a particular company. Regulating the banking sector, the state today operates in a versatile way: it tries to help investors, â€Å"pull† systemically important financial institutions, and stimulate small business. To a certain extent, based on the experience of the recent crisis, today it is difficult to imagine a situation of full liberalization of the financial market; and in our opinion, we should not expect weakening of state intervention in the management o f the banking system in the short term, because it is the most important tool for managing the entire economy, reflects the ownership structure of the state and its economic goals. In this case, the main task of the state is effective limiting of the growth of the financial sector at the peak stage of overall economic development, so that the smoothing of the business cycle allowed surviving the possible subsequent recession without the deep decline and without the heavy pressure on the state budget.

What are the arguments for and against focussing on skilled migration Essay

What are the arguments for and against focussing on skilled migration In answering this, specify who are the winners and losers What are the limitations of the Governments skilled immigration policy - Essay Example In 2005 for example, remittances figured $223 billion which was more than twice the rank of international aid. Public perceptions of migration and migrants play a major role in determining policy choices available to governments. The share of migrants in the global population may not be as high but its presence and visibility in terms of social, economic and political terms is felt. Migrants flow have shifted greatly in recent years with changing poles of attraction for labour migration for instance Asians find job opportunities within Asia while the Latin Americans are moving to Europe. There is a high labour participation in Europe, US and Australia. This shows that economic incentives remain high for migration to these market economies. UN confirms significant contribution of migration to population growth in Australia, US and some European countries. Immigration has been a difficult subject to government officials. This is because it raises moral choices about whom to let in the country, for how long and by what means. According to Levi (1999, p. 675) regulating entry means deporting or excluding people whose aim is to earn a living. The limitations of the government policy include one, it is impossible to influence the number of nationals entering the country it can only regulate them from accessing legal employment. Some of the nationals restricted include the Romanians and Bulgarians. The other limitation of the policy is that policy put towards asylum refugees and dependants of British system is greatly determined by considering human rights. These rights in clude rights to freedom from persecution and the right to family reunion. Consideration of these rights is beyond the governments limit though they can be modified. It is also impossible for a nation to control immigration and employment of migrants. This is because most come as visitors but overstay. Governments are therefore unable to regulate all

The french revelosion Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

The french revelosion - Essay Example The entire journey the political sphere of France underwent its course and the future path that it set forth. Out of many causes and factors that led to the initiation of the French Revolution, the political struggle, the process and journey undertaken was one of the main influence and describing factor of the revolution. The mention of the revolution would remain incomplete without the mention of the events, the policies and philosophies that were introduced in the political corridors throughout the course of the French Revolution. It was the political deprivation that had led to the resentment and feeling of alienation within the society. The case of voting by orders against voting by counts and heads was the main point of conflict. The General Assembly was existent only in name, and the last time it met, it was only in the beginning of the 17th century in 1614(Hill 2002). Since then it had not met. Like the rest of the Europe, France has had a history of being ruled by the monarchs. The dynastic rules being ruled by families was a prominent and common affair. In France it was King Louis XVI who was in power at the time of French revolution. He had succeeded his brother King Louis the XV. The dynastic and monarchic style of ruling had led to gulf building between the masses and the rulers. As a result of which, resentment crept in the ranks and the people started demanding for reforms. The reforms so demanded were of such nature that would provide them a relatively louder voice and better representation unlik e the pre revolutionary days. Once the revolution set off, the monarchy was sent packing. The king and his authority were marginalized and were cornered to a ceremonial post and function only. In times ahead, the king would see further humiliation, alienation and subsequent persecution and ultimate elimination. The following were major events and entities that came forth in the form of political innovation and activities in the course of French

Management Capacity Resume Essay Example for Free

Management Capacity Resume Essay The purpose of this letter is to express my interest in working with your company in a management capacity.   I have over 15 years experience working for a major bottling company utilizing my Sales and Operations management skills which would be an asset to your organization. My diverse background includes serving in the United States Army Reserve.   In both my military and professional career, I have demonstrated excellent leadership abilities and exceptional customer service skills.   I successfully built a solid sales team consistently mentoring and motivating staff to meet and exceed company sales quotas. In addition to the skills noted on my resume, I can also offer your company: An enthusiastic individual seeking new endeavors, accomplishing personal and professional goals. A multi-tasking individual leveraging sales and marketing skills to exceed sales quotas. Excellent analytical ability with solid verbal and written communication skills. I look forward to speaking with you further to discuss my skills and qualifications.   You can reach me at the number listed above.

Woodstock 1969 Essay -- essays research papers

The Woodstock of 1969 was a revolution in itself and responsible for redefining the point of view, respect, and attitude of the so-called "counter-cultured" youth of the late sixties. The attendants of the festival were youths from around the United States in ages ranging from 17 to 26. The overall mood of the festival was very relaxed and happy. Although there was a minimal amount of violence at Woodstock, there were financial problems, drugs, nudity, and traffic jams that seemed to go for miles down the old country roads surrounding Max Yasgur's dairy farm. Woodstock was a symbol of the rebellious society of the time. The youths that went were looking to vent out frustrations that their parents had forced upon them. For most youths, the "3 Days of Peace, Love, and Music" seemed to be just the place to balance their thoughts, relax with friends, and meet new people that hated their parents as much as they did. Two-hundred thousand people were expected to show for the Woodstock festival, and instead an overwhelming "400,000 youngsters turned up to hear big- name bands play in a field near the village of Bethel, New York state in what has become the largest rock concert of the decade". The attendents and the mood of the Woodstock festival in Bethel, New York was that of the counter-cultered young society of the late sixties. Max Yasgur's farm was transformed from a beautiful lush, green dairy farm field into a 400,000- person mudpit. Throughout the days of the festival, the attendants were "undaunted by rain, mud, wet clothes and chilly mountain breezes, thousands of youths sat on a rural hillside here for a marathon 19-hour session of folk-rock music". Drugs had also become increasingly more popular in the sixties, and Woodstock was no exception to the latest trend. Drugs were readily available and generously passed around through the crowds of youths all over the hillside. But the drugs weren't the reason that people generally attended the Woodstock festival. Most would agree with a man interviewed five miles away from his vehicle walking towards the festival in saying that " But it's more than that. I'm here for the same reason that Indians used to have tribal gatherings. Just being here with people like me makes it all worthwhile... ...ting with a lot of room, grass, trees, lakes. It was going to be a youth cultural exposition and that is where the culture of this generation expresses itself more naturally". Woodstock '69 has remained the icon of the sixties. After a "mind-blowing rendition of the national anthem, the hillside was cleared for the first time in nearly four days of the hordes of youths who came here for three days of music, companionship, and, in many cases, drugs". "Mr. Yasgur is gone, as is the farm. The meadow is green again, and very peaceful. Someone has built a small monument...commemorating the event, listing performers and dates". Today there are still people who believe in the philosophy of peace, love, and hapiness. They still have the hope that one day the government will "take the backseat" to an overcrowded music festival. A policeman after the music festival said what only can be imagined now-a-days, that those kids "have proven something to the world... that half a million kids can get together for fun and music and have nothing but fun and music."

Cuba Speech Essay

This Government, as promised, has maintained the closest surveillance of the Soviet military buildup on the island of Cuba. Within the past week, unmistakable evidence has established the fact that a series of offensive missile sites is now in preparation on that imprisoned island. The purpose of these bases can be none other than to provide a nuclear strike capability against the Western Hemisphere. Upon receiving the first preliminary hard information of this nature last Tuesday morning at 9 A.M., I directed that our surveillance be stepped up. And having now confirmed and completed our evaluation of the evidence and our decision on a course of action, this Government feels obliged to report this new crisis to you in fullest detail. The characteristics of these new missile sites indicate two distinct types of installations. Several of them include medium range ballistic missiles, capable of carrying a nuclear warhead for a distance of more than 1,000 nautical miles. Each of these missiles, in short, is capable of striking Washington, D. C., the Panama Canal, Cape Canaveral, Mexico City, or any other city in the southeastern part of the United States, in Central America, or in the Caribbean area. Click photo for high resolution Additional sites not yet completed appear to be designed for intermediate range ballistic missiles — capable of traveling more than twice as far — and thus capable of striking most of the major cities in the Western Hemisphere, ranging as far north as Hudson Bay, Canada, and as far south as Lima, Peru. In addition, jet bombers, capable of carrying nuclear weapons, are now being uncrated and assembled in Cuba, while the necessary air bases are being prepared. This urgent transformation of Cuba into an important strategic base — by the presence of these large, long-range, and clearly offensive weapons of sudden mass destruction — constitutes an explicit threat to the peace and security of all the Americas, in flagrant and deliberate defiance of the Rio Pact of 1947, the traditions of this nation and hemisphere, the joint resolution of the 87th Congress, the Charter of the United Nations, and my own public warnings to the Soviets on September 4 and 13. This action also contradicts the repeated assurances of Soviet spokesmen, both publicly and privately delivered, that the arms buildup in Cuba would retain its original defensive character, and that the Soviet Union had no need or desire to station strategic missiles. on the territory of any other nation. The size of this undertaking makes clear that it has been planned for some months. Yet, only last month, after I had made clear the distinction between any introduction of ground-to-ground missiles and the existence of defensive antiaircraft missiles, the Soviet Government publicly stated on September 11 that, and I quote, â€Å"the armaments and military equipment sent to Cuba are designed exclusively for defensive purposes,† that there is, and I quote the Soviet Government, â€Å"there is no need for the Soviet Government to shift its weapons for a retaliatory blow to any other country, for instance Cuba,† and that, and I quote their government, â€Å"the Soviet Union has so powerful rockets to carry these nuclear warheads that there is no need to search for sites for them beyond the boundaries of the Soviet Union.† That statement was false. Only last Thursday, as evidence of this rapid offensive buildup was already in my hand, Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko told me in my office that he was instructed to make it clear once again, as he said his government had already done, that Soviet assistance to Cuba, and I quote, â€Å"pursued solely the purpose of contributing to the defense capabilities of Cuba,† that, and I quote him, â€Å"training by Soviet specialists of Cuban nationals in handling defensive armaments was by no means offensive, and if it were otherwise,† Mr. Gromyko went on, â€Å"the Soviet Government would never become involved in rendering such assistance.† That statement also was false. Neither the United States of America nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation’s security to constitute maximum peril. Nuclear weapons are so destructive and ballistic missiles are so swift, that any substantially increased possibility of their use or any sudden change in their deployment may well be regarded as a definite threat to peace. For many years, both the Soviet Union and the United States, recognizing this fact, have deployed strategic nuclear weapons with great care, never upsetting the precarious status quo which insured that these weapons would not be used in the absence of some vital challenge. Our own strategic missiles have never been transferred to the territory of any other nation under a cloak of secrecy and deception; and our history — unlike that of the Soviets since the end of World War II — demonstrates that we have no desire to dominate or conquer any other nation or impose our system upon its people. Nevertheless, American citizens have become adjusted to living daily on the bull’s-eye of Soviet missiles located inside the U.S.S.R. or in submarines. In that sense, missiles in Cuba add to an already clear and present danger — although it should be noted the nations of Latin America have never previously been subjected to a potential nuclear threat. But this secret, swift, extraordinary buildup of Communist missiles — in an area well known to have a special and historical relationship to the United States and the nations of the Western Hemisphere, in violation of Soviet assurances, and in defiance of American and hemispheric policy — this sudden, clandestine decision to station strategic weapons for the first time outside of Soviet soil — is a deliberately provocative and unjustified change in the status quo which cannot be accepted by this country, if our courage and our commitments are ever to be trusted again by either friend or foe. The 1930’s taught us a clear lesson: aggressive conduct, if allowed to go unchecked and unchallenged, ultimately leads to war. This nation is opposed to war. We are also true to our word. Our unswerving objective, therefore, must be to prevent the use of these missiles against this or any other country, and to secure their withdrawal or elimination from the Western Hemisphere. Our policy has been one of patience and restraint, as befits a peaceful and powerful nation which leads a worldwide alliance. We have been determined not to be diverted from our central concerns by mere irritants and fanatics. But now further action is required, and it is under way; and these actions may only be the beginning. We will not prematurely or unnecessarily risk the costs of worldwide nuclear war in which even the fruits of victory would be ashes in our mouth; but neither will we shrink from that risk at any time it must be faced. Acting, therefore, in the defense of our own security and of the entire Western Hemisphere, and under the authority entrusted to me by the Constitution as endorsed by the Resolution of the Congress, I have directed that the following initial steps be taken immediately: First: To halt this offensive buildup a strict quarantine on all offensive military equipment under shipment to Cuba is being initiated. All ships of any kind bound for Cuba from whatever nation or port will, if found to contain cargoes of offensive weapons, be turned back. This quarantine will be extended, if needed, to other types of cargo and carriers. We are not at this time, however, denying the necessities of life as the Soviets attempted to do in their Berlin blockade of 1948. Second: I have directed the continued and increased close surveillance of Cuba and its military buildup. The foreign ministers of the OAS [Organization of American States], in their communiquà ©Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ of October 6, rejected secrecy on such matters in this hemisphere. Should these offensive military preparations continue, thus increasing the threat to the hemisphere, further action will be justified. I have directed the Armed Forces to prepare for any eventualities; and I trust that in the interest of both the Cuban people and the Soviet technicians at the sites, the hazards to all concerned of continuing this threat will be recognized. Third: It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union. Fourth: As a necessary military precaution, I have reinforced our base at Guantanamo, evacuated today the dependents of our personnel there, and ordered additional military units to be on a standby ale rt basis. Fifth: We are calling tonight for an immediate meeting of the Organ[ization] of Consultation under the Organization of American States, to consider this threat to hemispheric security and to invoke articles 6 and 8 of the Rio Treaty in support of all necessary action. The United Nations Charter allows for regional security arrangements, and the nations of this hemisphere decided long ago against the military presence of outside powers. Our other allies around the world have also been alerted. Sixth: Under the Charter of the United Nations, we are asking tonight that an emergency meeting of the Security Council be convoked without delay to take action against this latest Soviet threat to world peace. Our resolution will call for the prompt dismantling and withdrawal of all offensive weapons in Cuba, under the supervision of U.N. observers, before the quarantine can be lifted. Seventh and finally: I call upon Chairman Khrushchev to halt and eliminate this clandestine, reckless, and provocative threat to world peace and to stable relations between our two nations. I call upon him further to abandon this course of world domination, and to join in an historic effort to end the perilous arms race and to transform the history of man. He has an opportunity now to move the world back from the abyss of destruction by returning to his government’s own words that it had no need to station missiles outside its own territory, and withdrawing these weapons from Cuba by refraining from any action which will widen or deepen the present crisis, and then by participating in a search for peaceful and permanent solutions. This nation is prepared to present its case against the Soviet threat to peace, and our own proposals for a peaceful world, at any time and in any forum — in the OAS, in the United Nations, or in any other meeting that could be useful — without limiting our freedom of action. We have in the past made strenuous efforts to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. We have proposed the elimination of all arms and military bases in a fair and effective disarmament treaty. We are prepared to discuss new proposals for the removal of tensions on both sides, including the possibilities of a genuinely independent Cuba, free to determine its own destiny. We have no wish to war with the Soviet Union — for we are a peaceful people who desire to live in peace with all other peoples. But it is difficult to settle or even discuss these problems in an atmosphere of intimidation. That is why this latest Soviet threat — or any other threat which is made either independently or in response to our actions this week– must and will be met with determination. Any hostile move anywhere in the world against the safety and freedom of peoples to whom we are committed, including in particular the brave people of West Berlin, will be met by whatever action is needed. Finally, I want to say a few words to the captive people of Cuba, to whom this speech is being directly carried by special radio facilities. I speak to you as a friend, as one who knows of your deep attachment to your fatherland, as one who shares your aspirations for liberty and justice for all. And I have watched and the American people have watched with deep sorrow how your nationalist revolution was betrayed — and how your fatherland fell under foreign domination. Now your leaders are no longer Cuban leaders inspired by Cuban ideals. They are puppets and agents of an international conspiracy which has turned Cuba against your friends and neighbors in the Americas, and turned it into the first Latin American country to become a target for nuclear war — the first Latin American country to have these weapons on its soil. These new weapons are not in your interest. They contribute nothing to your peace and well-being. They can only undermine it. But this country has no wish to cause you to suffer or to impose any system upon you. We know that your lives and land are being used as pawns by those who deny your freedom. Many times in the past, the Cuban people have risen to throw out tyrants who destroyed their liberty. And I have no doubt that most Cubans today look forward to the time when they will be truly free — free from foreign domination, free to choose their own leaders, free to select their own system, free to own their own land, free to speak and write and worship without fear or degradation. And then shall Cuba be welcomed back to the society of free nations and to the associations of this hemisphere. My fellow citizens, let no one doubt that this is a difficult and dangerous effort on which we have set out. No one can foresee precisely what course it will take or what costs or casualties will be incurred. Many months of sacrifice and self-discipline lie ahead — months in which both our patience and our will will be tested, months in which many threats and denunciations will keep us aware of our dangers. But the greatest danger of all would be to do nothing. The path we have chosen for the present is full of hazards, as all paths are; but it is the one most consistent with our character and courage as a nation and our commitments around the world. The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender or submission. Our goal is not the victory of might, but the vindication of right; not peace at the expense of freedom, but both peace and freedom, here in this hemisphere, and, we hope, around the world. God willing, that goal will be achieved.