Dmitri Shostakovich and the Soviet State Essay -- Soviet History

Dmitri Shostakovich was one of the most celebrated composers of the 20th century. He achieved fame, but with much hardship along the way. He was censored and threatened with not only his life but that of his wife and children by playing the role of a public figure in Soviet Russia. The question is was he a committed communist or a victim? The events in his life, good or bad, shaped the music that he created and led to one of the greatest symphonies of the 20th century, his Fifth Symphony. Born in Saint Petersburg, Russia on September 25, 1906, Shostakovich was the second of three children born to Dmitri Boleslavovich Shostakovich and Sofiya Vasilievna Kokoulina. His father was of Polish descent but both his parents were Siberian natives. Dmitri was a child prodigy as a pianist and composer. He began taking piano lessons from his mother at the age of nine. He displayed an incredible talent to remember what his mother had played at the previous lesson and would get caught pretending to read the music, playing the music from his last lesson instead of what was placed in front of him. In 1919, at the age of thirteen, he was allowed to enter the Petrograd Conservatory in Saint Petersburg and studied piano with Leonid Nikolayev. Because the conservatory was poorly funded, it did not have heat; the students had to wear coats, hats and gloves constantly only taking off their gloves when composing. Because of these poor living conditions Dmitri developed tuberculosis of the lymph glands in spring 1923 and had to have an operation. Nevertheless, he completed his final piano examinations at the conservatory in June with his neck still bandaged. Shostakovich, though very intelligent and talented, was seen as immature in his fin... ...alled. Works Cited †¢ Burkholder, J. Peter, Donald Jay Grout, and Claude V. Palisca. A history of western music. 8th ed. New York: W. W. Norton, 2010. Print. †¢ Fanning, David. Shostakovich studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Print. †¢ Hurwitz, David, and DmitriÄ ­ Dmitrievich Shostakovich. Shostakovich symphonies and concertos: an owner's manual. Pompton Plains, N.J.: Amadeus ;, 2006. Print. †¢ Norris, Christopher. Shostakovich, the man and his music. Boston: M. Boyars, 1982. Print. †¢ Volkov, Solomon, and Antonina W. Bouis. Shostakovich and Stalin: the extraordinary relationship between the great composer and the brutal dictator. New York: Knopf, 2004. Print. †¢ David Fanning and Laurel Fay. "Shostakovich, Dmitry." Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. 14 Apr. 2012 .

Competition between local and foreign products

One of the fastest growing countries in the East. This results from unavoidable phenomena of globalization that bring together global companies becoming one market including in Malaysia. Consumers are presented with a variety of international brands such as Apple, Mercedes-Benz, and Role watches. Therefore, it increases the degree competition between domestic and foreign product. Generally, the competition Involves three distinct aspects such as the taste and preference, quality and price range. Foreign and local brands are occupying the local market competitively.Customers' references for both brands differ in some ways and one of it is the brand personality. Asker, 1996 mentions that customers' preferences are subject to the emphasis of brand personality. For example, consumers are much more exposed to international brands as these products are Intensely advertised globally to make them more recognizable worldwide (Hassle, 2004). As compared to local labels; which only limited in s tores, foreign labels are way desirable. Other than that, customers' preferences are subject to the location and environment where the products are available.Both local and foreign merchandises have specific places as where to get heir products. For example, there are plenty of street stalls offering local foods meanwhile people will have to go to decent places for non-local ones. Customers who prefer more choices will most likely buy local ones. On the other hand, for those who are willing to spend a bit go for non-local ones because of the ambiance plus It Is more hygienic compared to street foods. Accessibility in which customers can reach those products also plays an important role in assisting consumers' decision.There is easier access to get local brands compared to foreign brands. For example, customers can just go to their nearby small groceries shops to buy local products. Foreign products such as pasta or seasonal fruits Like apples are only available In supermarkets or hy permarkets. Practically, both products have their own uniqueness and strategies to meet customers' wants and preferences. Furthermore, quality Is also one of the aspects in the competitive markets between local products and foreign products.Persona and Mediumistic have been competitors in term of safety and structure of the vehicle in an automotive industry for years. ‘Ixia' were developed in Malaysia automotive manufacturer in the name of Persona ‘s company, while ‘Mirage' developed In Japan automotive manufacturer named Mediumistic Motor company. Both cars share some similarity In terms of safety ‘s quality. It has 5 doors hatchback, point settable, antiknock system with electronic break-force distribution, brake assist, and SOFIA system.Besides that, the differences of safety features for Ixia are dual airbags, solar and security window film and the key with integrated remote control. For Mirage, it has 7 airbags which include front and side bags for drive r and passenger seats, side curtain bags over front and rear window and knee airbag for driver, usual suite of electronic safety system that consists of stability motorcar is rarely different. In this modern era, the facilities of the motorcar are getting more compact and it is fully equipped with modern design and technologies devices.The inner design of Mirage is far more behind than Ixia in the new market arena. For instance, Ixia has touch screen DVD player with Bluetooth and Navigation system, the tissue component behind the front passenger seats as in it interior while the turning signal been located on the retractable mirror as it exterior compare to Mirage which only side mirror deflector, push start button and also smart key as its special features. Similarity, both cars have leather seat and leather-wrapped steering wheel.Therefore, Persona Ixia has reached the value of quality where the price met the expectation of a product. The most noteworthy difference is the price be tween the local product and foreign product in Malaysia. Commonly, the price of foreign product is more expensive than the local product because it is imported from other places which involving shipping fee, money exchange and taxes for importing goods. For example, when we exchange Ringing to foreign money such as Singapore dollar, the Ringing value is becomes lesser and causing the item has higher price in Malaysia.According to Nikkei Official website 2014, there is an $8 shipping fee will be charge per shoes. Other than that, Malaysia also charges higher tax on foreign product than local products. A motor vehicle is one of the examples that we can speak about. Lee (2013) mention that due to the reason on combination of high duties and tax cars plus decreasing loss from outflow of ringing to foreign country, Malaysia is one of the countries that has some of the highest car prices in the world. ENG (2013) said that there is a 65% to 105% excise tax, plus 10% sales tax was charged o n motor vehicle in Malaysia.It is obviously can be seen that the price plays major role in the competition between local products and foreign products in Malaysia. It is unquestionable, there is a strong competition between local and imported product that offered in our country. Therefore, Malaysian citizen should support the Government initiative through the ‘Buy Malaysia Product Campaign'. The implementation of this campaign is to promote interest among the Malaysian consumer to purchase more local brands. In conjunction with that, it helps the local entrepreneurs to grow and compete in producing more quality and standardized product.As a result, it boosts the domestic economy as we can export Malaysian product to another country, at the same time to promote our local products in the global market. One of the examples of successful Malaysian product is KIND, which invented greatest electrical home appliances and making millions of sales from exporting to over 50 countries (K IND, 2010). Hence, consumers should not underestimate our local products but build a positive perception and buy Malaysia made products.

What is Earmark Spending in the US Congress

Earmark spending; also called pork barrel spending, is funding inserted into the annual federal budget by individual legislators in the U.S. Congress for special projects or purposes of interest to their constituents. Gaining the approval of earmark spending projects typically helps the sponsoring legislator earn the votes of his or her constituents. The Government’s Definition of Earmark Spending A 2006 report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the research arm of Congress, on earmark spending noted that there was no single accepted â€Å"definition of the term earmark accepted by all practitioners and observers of the appropriations process†¦Ã¢â‚¬  However, the CRS did conclude that two types of earmarks were common: hard earmarks, or â€Å"hardmarks,† found in the actual text of legislation, and soft earmarks, or â€Å"softmarks,† found in the reports of  congressional committees  on legislation. Appearing in enacted laws, hard earmark spending provisions are legally binding, while soft earmarks are not legally binding, they are often treated as if they were during the  legislative process. According to the CRS, the most commonly accepted definition of earmark spending is, â€Å"Provisions associated with legislation (appropriations or general legislation) that specify certain congressional spending priorities or in revenue bills that apply to a very limited number of individuals or entities. Earmarks may appear in either the legislative text or report language (committee reports accompanying reported bills and joint explanatory statement accompanying a conference report).† Often tucked as amendments into the larger annual appropriations bills of the federal budget, earmark spending projects often come under criticism as being rushed through Congress without the full debate and scrutiny devoted to the larger parent bill. Perhaps most significantly, earmark spending often results in the expenditure of large sums of taxpayer money to help a limited number of people. For example, in 2005, $223 million was earmarked by the Senate Committee on Appropriations chair Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) to build a bridge to connect an Alaskan town of 8,900 to an island with a population of 50, saving a short ferry ride. Creating an uncharacteristic uproar in the Senate, the earmark nicknamed the Bridge to Nowhere, was removed from the spending bill. Criteria to be Considered Earmark Spending To be classified as an earmark spending, at least one of the following should apply: The requested funding is not specifically authorized as necessary for the basic operations of the government in the annual budget.The funding is requested by only one chamber of Congress.The funding was not included in the Presidents Budget Request.The funding results in a substantial increase over the amounts projected in the presidents budget.The funding is for a project that will benefit a small population or a narrow special interest. Financial Impacts of Earmark Spending Unlike Sen. Stevens Bridge to Nowhere, many earmarks make it into the approved budget. In 2005 alone, over 14,000 earmark projects, costing about $27 billion were approved by Congress. The House Appropriations Committee receives about 35,000 earmark spending requests per year. In the ten-year period from 2000 through 2009, the U.S. Congress approved earmark spending projects worth about $208 billion. Attempts to Control Earmark Spending Over the past several years, several members of Congress have attempted to rein in earmark spending. In December of 2006, the Chairs of the Senate and House Appropriations Committee, Senator Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) and Representative David Obey (D-Wisconsin, 7th), with the support of incoming Speaker of the House Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-California), vowed to put into place reforms to the federal budget process designed to bring transparency and openness to earmark spending.Under the Obey-Byrd plan, legislators sponsoring each earmark project would be publicly identified. In addition, the draft copies of all bills or amendments to bills proposing earmark spending would be made available to the public -- before any votes were taken -- at every stage of the legislative process, including the  committee consideration and approval process.During 2007, earmark spending dropped to $13.2 billion, a significant decrease from the $29 billion spent in 2006. In 2007, nine of the 11 annual s pending bills were subject to a moratorium on earmark spending that was enforced by House and Senate Appropriations Committee under the chairmanship of Sen. Byrd and Rep. Obey. In 2008, however, a similar moratorium proposal failed and earmark spending jumped to $17.2 billion. Earmark Spending in 2018 According to the independent watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste, 232 earmark spending provisions were approve in the Fiscal Year 2018 federal budget, a 42.3 percent increase over the 163 in FY 2017. The cost to taxpayers of earmark spending in FY 2018 was $14.7 billion, an increase of 116.2 percent from the $6.8 billion in FY 2017. Since FY 1991, Congress has approved 110,861 earmark spending projects, costing a combined $344.5 billion. Earmark Spending Fast Facts Earmark spending or â€Å"pork barrel† spending is generally considered to be any request for funding added to the annual budget of the federal government by members of Congress to pay for projects of interest only to the residents of their state or congressional district.Lawmakers typically see gaining the approval of their pet earmark spending projects as a â€Å"feather in their political caps† helping them win the future votes of their constituents.Earmark spending is often added into lager annual general appropriations bills in the form of amendments.Earmark spending is often criticized as being rushed through Congress without adequate consideration, and for spending large amounts of taxpayer money on only a few citizens.