Answer: cultural diversity has its positive impact only if there is democracy, i.e. free movement of goods, ideas, people. If there is this freedom, then Europe is an extremely creative, free and progressive place. Europeans experienced times of nationalism, wars, revolutions so Europe in itself is not a guarantee of creativity, freedom and progressive thinking, but if there is a population able to establish really "European lifestyle" than diversity can have unique consequences.
Explanation: usually there is a tendency to supress differentness, but Europe experiences the worst consequences of such tendency so there is some sort of notion that diversity is creative and productive and that it is worth of taking care of. Impact ? Populations speaking different languages. educated, flexible, able to work with advanced technologies, psychologically open, accostumed to "different" things, able to travel to distant places and learn.
Answer:
a. The containment policy to keep back the North Koreans.
Explanation:
The dismissal of General Douglas MacArthur was ordered by President Harry S. Truman in 1951 given the intentions of the first to use nuclear weapons during the Korean War. At the beginning of 1951, the Chinese already recaptured Seoul. The situation was desperate. But an excellent maneuver by Ridgway against the Chinese, not only allowed the recovery of Seoul but also expelled the Chinese, very worn out by the bombings from South Korea. After this, Truman was finally able to initiate peace negotiations, which were abruptly annihilated by Douglas MacArthur after issuing a statement in which he threatened the Chinese and urged them to surrender. Truman took it by plain and smooth insubordination.
Finally, on April 10, 1951, Truman relieved him of all commands, being officially confirmed on 12. Truman replaced him with the intrepid Matthew Ridgway, who would become Chief of Staff. The US military had to return from North Korea. He gave his last speech to the United States Congress, which would become famous.
Protect and provide
The concept of government as provider comes next: government as provider of goods and services that individuals cannot provide individually for themselves. Government in this conception is the solution to collective action problems, the medium through which citizens create public goods that benefit everyone, but that are also subject to free-rider problems without some collective compulsion.
The basic economic infrastructure of human connectivity falls into this category: the means of physical travel, such as roads, bridges and ports of all kinds, and increasingly the means of virtual travel, such as broadband. All of this infrastructure can be, and typically initially is, provided by private entrepreneurs who see an opportunity to build a road, say, and charge users a toll, but the capital necessary is so great and the public benefit so obvious that ultimately the government takes over.
A more expansive concept of government as provider is the social welfare state: government can cushion the inability of citizens to provide for themselves, particularly in the vulnerable conditions of youth, old age, sickness, disability and unemployment due to economic forces beyond their control. As the welfare state has evolved, its critics have come to see it more as a protector from the harsh results of capitalism, or perhaps as a means of protecting the wealthy from the political rage of the dispossessed. At its best, however, it is providing an infrastructure of care to enable citizens to flourish socially and economically in the same way that an infrastructure of competition does. It provides a social security that enables citizens to create their own economic security.
The future of government builds on these foundations of protecting and providing. Government will continue to protect citizens from violence and from the worst vicissitudes of life. Government will continue to provide public goods, at a level necessary to ensure a globally competitive economy and a well-functioning society. But wherever possible, government should invest in citizen capabilities to enable them to provide for themselves in rapidly and continually changing circumstances.
Not surprisingly, this vision of government as investor comes from a deeply entrepreneurial culture. Technology reporter Gregory Ferenstein has polled leading silicon Valley entrepreneurs and concludedthat they “want the government to be an investor in citizens, rather than as a protector from capitalism. They want the government to heavily fund education, encourage more active citizenship, pursue binding international trade alliances and open borders to all immigrants.” In the words of Alphabet Chairman Eric Schmidt: “The combination of innovation, empowerment and creativity will be our solution.”
This celebration of human capacity is a welcome antidote to widespread pessimism about the capacity of government to meet current national and global economic, security, demographic and environmental challenges. Put into practice, however, government as investor will mean more than simply funding schools and opening borders. If government is to assume that in the main citizens can solve themselves more efficiently and effectively than government can provide for them, it will have to invest not only in the cultivation of citizen capabilities, but also in the provision of the resources and infrastructure to allow citizens to succeed at scale
being tired but unable to sleep :|
