3 Burst results for "Anneliese Anderson"
"anneliese anderson" Discussed on WTOP
"Of government services. Hospitality is working. Learn more at hospitality is working dot com. Paid for the American Heart Association. It's breaking news on WTO P at 8 23 former president Trump says in a lengthy statement tonight that the FBI has been conducting a search of his Mar-a-Lago estate and asserted that agents had broken open a safe, a person familiar with the matters as the action was related to a probe of whether Trump had taken classified records from The White House and that was from his White House tenure down to his Florida residents. The action which the FBI and Justice Department did not immediately confirm marks a dramatic escalation in law enforcement scrutiny of Trump and comes as he's been laying the groundwork to make another bid for The White House. Former president Trump's estate at Mar-a-Lago rated tonight by the FBI will keep you updated right here on WTO. To your health, sponsored by D.C. health, get vaccinated D.C., go to vaccinate dot D.C. dot gov. One in four nursing positions at Maryland hospitals are vacant as this state like others sees a nursing shortage, but some hospital leaders say there are things state lawmakers can do to help. Among the reasons nurses are leaving hospitals and in some cases the industry altogether. As with many industries, we've seen an increase in retirements, even unplanned retirements. Brendan Johnson senior vice president of human resources for Adventist healthcare was on the Maryland hospital association's workforce, which is out with recommendations for lawmakers to help hospitals bring in more nurses. One call making it easier to bring in out of state nurses. With the state licensing requirements that sometimes difficult to go from state to state. The workforce also calls for more financial incentives from states for students who want to get involved in healthcare. Read more WTO dot com, like Murillo WTO P news. Researchers are looking for thousands of volunteers in the U.S. and Europe to test the first potential vaccine against Lyme disease and 20 years. Lyme disease is a growing tick-borne threat. Pfizer's anneliese Anderson tells the AP they're working on a vaccine to protect both adults and kids as young as 5. We call it beer they 15. Robert to willer is an avid hunter in hiker. He was the first in line when the study opened in central Pennsylvania. And if I find a tick on me, I don't know, okay, I'm good. I have to worry about anything. Doctor Allen Kevin's at the Altoona arthritis and osteoporosis center in Pennsylvania is looking for volunteers who spend lots of time in tick infested areas. Not a single day goes by that someone either has a concern about Lyme disease, could possibly have Lyme disease. We live in an area where Lyme disease is endemic. The Pfizer study will cover two tick seasons. I'm
Major test of first possible Lyme vaccine in 20 years begins
"Researchers are looking for thousands of volunteers in the U.S. and Europe to test the first potential vaccine against Lyme disease in 20 years Lyme disease is a growing tick-borne threat Pfizer's anneliese Anderson tells the AP they're working on a vaccine to protect both adults and kids as young as 5 We call it beer a 15 Robert to willer is an avid hunter in hiker He was the first in line when the study opened in central Pennsylvania And if I find a tick on me I don't know okay I'm good I don't have to worry about anything Doctor Allen Kevin's at the Altoona arthritis and osteoporosis center in Pennsylvania is looking for volunteers who spend lots of time in tick infested areas Not a single day goes by that someone either has a concern about Lyme disease could possibly have Lyme disease We live in an area where Lyme disease is endemic The Pfizer study will cover two tick seasons I'm Ed Donahue
"anneliese anderson" Discussed on This American President
"What it was like to be a voice in the wilderness. Freedom is the right to question and change the established way of doing things. It is a continuing revolution of the marketplace. It is the understanding that allows us to recognize shortcomings and seek solutions. It is the right to put forth an idea, scoffed at by the experts and watch it catch fire among the people. It is the right to stick to dream to follow your dream or stick to your conscience, even if you're the only one in a sea of doubters. Perhaps Reagan was recalling his own experience as the one lone voice in the early 1980s, claiming that the west could triumph and influence the Soviets in the direction of freedom. Early in his presidency, Reagan's critics scoffed when he said that he really wanted to sit down with the Soviets and reduce the number of nuclear weapons. Not only had Reagan succeeded in being the first president to sign an agreement to reduce the nuclear stockpile, but less than three years after he left office, the Soviet Union had indeed collapsed. How much did Ronald Reagan have to do with this? Well, the story of the fall of the Soviet Union is utterly complex. It was an event that affected hundreds of millions of people across multiple countries. It may be beyond anyone's ability to fully explain what happened. There were multiple sides to the story. Reagan was a major player on one side, as was Margaret Thatcher, John Paul the second, lack lorenza and others. And then there was the other side, Gorbachev, and the other leaders of the Soviet Union. It's hard to discern the impact of Reagan's policies or any American president during the Cold War. Because of the fact that the Soviet system was a closed system, it's hard to discern the impact of policies in open governments, but especially difficult in police states. Those who believe Reagan was the major player in the fall of the Soviet Union, point to his military buildup to his funding of anti communist movements worldwide. To the way he strengthened America's economy and to his strong anti Soviet rhetoric, which gave him the leverage to push the Soviets into reforming. They argue that these actions pushed Moscow to select Gorbachev, the reformer, who then opened the floodgates of change, and ultimately paved the way for the collapse of the Soviet Union. They also argue that his strong anti communist stance inspired millions behind the iron curtain to keep the faith, and ultimately to throw off their shackles. But Reagan's critics argue the opposite. They say that Reagan's build up accomplished very little, except to create a massive budget deficit. They say that the real reason the Soviet Union reformed was because of internal issues unrelated to American policy that the communist system was so flawed that it was bound to reform one way or another. There are critics that go further and argue that Reagan's hard line rhetoric in his first term pushed the Soviets to adopt a hard line as well, delaying reform and prolonging the Cold War. Others attack him for things far worse. They argue that his support of anti communist forces in the world met funding and arming groups that went far beyond the norms of warfare that committed atrocities against their enemies, especially in Latin America. There's also a middle way argument now. There are those who believe that Reagan's hard line may or may not have had an effect on the Soviets. But he was his desire for diplomacy his engagement with Gorbachev that gave the Soviet leader the space and incentive to reform. Rather than keeping up his heated rhetoric from his first term, Reagan softened in his second term, undermining the hard liners in Moscow and allowing Gorbachev to change the Soviet system. This third way argument allows those on the center left formally opposed to Reagan to argue that Reagan actually wasn't that much of a conservative, and that it was his move to the left towards diplomacy that actually helped to end the Cold War. Who's right? Well, there are a few things to mention. First, it's important to distinguish between a desire to end the Cold War and the desire to destroy the Soviet Union. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, it wasn't all that clear that America wanted the Soviet Union to fall. Reagan and Bush were both optimistic that Gorbachev could reform his country. American policymakers feared that if the Soviet Union itself collapsed that anarchy and instability could result, especially dangerous because of nuclear missiles that were spread out across the Soviet world. Reagan was content himself to believe that he had reduced tensions in the Cold War, and somehow influenced the Soviet Union to abandon its aggressive tendencies. Even if Reagan did influence Gorbachev to reform, we must note that Gorbachev hoped to reform not to destroy the Soviet Union. It seems that the direct cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union was actually Boris Yeltsin's agreement to form a new loose union with the Belarus and Ukrainian governments at the end of 1991. Second, in situations like these, you can always point to tons of factors that influence the outcome. Factors that Reagan and Gorbachev had little control over. You can point as many people do to communism's own flaws to the suffering it inflicts on those under its power. Perhaps such systems are doomed to either reform or fail. You can point to the increase in Saudi Arabian oil production, which caused the price of oil to collapse ruining the Soviet economy. Some like Paul kenger have argued that Reagan hatched a top secret plan with the Saudis that led to all of that. Although many experts dismiss that claim. You can also point to the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, which prompted Gorbachev to seek agreements with the United States to lessen tensions and fortified his commitment to change the system. One's view of how important Reagan was to the end of the Cold War, probably depends on their view of how important these other factors are. And that's a debate that will likely continue. With these issues in mind, I do think that there isn't much evidence to the claim that Reagan prolonged the Cold War with his tough talk and his military buildup. It isn't clear that had Reagan taken a more conciliatory approach in his first term, the Soviets would have reciprocated. As we saw during the negotiations with Gorbachev, the Soviets were always suspicious of American intentions. That's suspicion would likely have been even more intense in the early 1980s pre Gorbachev. And it's important to look at the track record. Nixon, Ford and Carter, all implemented some form of Dayton and met with the Soviet leaders in the hopes of reducing tensions. Despite this, the Soviet Union refused to implement any meaningful reform, continued to sponsor revolutions internationally and acted aggressively, including invading Afghanistan. It's very possible that if Reagan had adopted a softer line in his first term, that the Soviets would have sensed leeway to pursue policies to their advantage. Remember, Gorbachev did want to revitalize the Soviet Union in its competition with the United States when he took office. It also appears that Reagan's hard line didn't push Gorbachev towards a hard line of his own. Instead, it appears to have forced him into concessions. Gorbachev took office in 1985. In just three years after much tough diplomacy, Gorbachev gave up concession after concession on INF weapons and SDI. It isn't clear that he would have done the same thing without Reagan's firm stance. It's fair to say that the economic revival under Reagan only helped America's geostrategic advantage. It's hard to believe that this didn't factor into the Soviet's minds. When they engaged in a life or death competition without the U.S. Gorbachev had a sense of urgency when he came into office to reform Soviet communism, something that America's booming economy could have only reinforced. And there seems to have been a great deal of evidence that Reagan's buildup, strong rhetoric, and his advocacy of SDI, which the Soviets believed would bring in arms race into space only contributed to the Soviets desire for disarmament. Even though Reagan appeared to be sincere about sharing SDI, the Soviets, whether or not Reagan intended, seemed to have viewed it as a real threat. Evidenced by Gorbachev's repeated pleas for Reagan's or curtail its development. SDI with its goal to build an impenetrable nuclear shield. No matter how utopian or ridiculous it sounded, threatened a new arms race, something the cash strapped Soviets didn't think they could sustain. All this appeared to push the Soviets, especially Gorbachev, to call for arms reductions. And in pursuing this, the INF treaty was signed and the start talks began. This all reduced Cold War tensions. I think it's fair to say that Reagan's objective to reduce tensions and get an arms agreement was not hindered by his hard line, but was actually aided by it. His policies seemed, if anything, to have strengthened American leverage during the summits with Gorbachev. Early in his presidency, Reagan said that he wanted arms reductions. He achieved it by the end of his presidency, largely on his terms, with SDI research intact. It's fair to say that Reagan wasn't the only major player in ending the Cold War. It was Gorbachev, who history ultimately gave the final say on reforming the Soviet Union. But when you observe how Reagan used the influence that he did have, I think it's fair to say that he pursued the right overall policies given everything he knew at the time. He wanted peace and pursued it. Negotiating an unprecedented reduction in nuclear arms. But he did so on America's terms after maximizing America's position on the bargaining table. Some critics might question whether Reagan's support for the mujahideen in Afghanistan or for the contras in Nicaragua was necessary or even ethical. But in third world conflicts, one rarely has a choice between good actors and bad actors. It's often between bad and worse alternatives. In supporting sometimes unsavory regimes, Reagan believed he was fighting the greater evil of Soviet communism. And Reagan was far from the only president or the last one to support the lesser of two evils. After all, Democrat president Franklin D. Roosevelt allied with the Soviet tyrant Joseph Stalin to defeat the Nazis. Also, Reagan's tough talk gave moral clarity to America's posture during the Cold War. When he called the Soviet Union, the evil empire and for Gorbachev to tear down this wall, his advisers were scared that his comments would damage arms control efforts. Reagan's success at arms control seems to vindicate him to show that his strong principles did not hinder efforts at cooperation with Moscow. They also put America firmly on the side of those who were oppressed behind the iron curtain. I think it's easy for critics to dismiss the importance of this. But let's remember just how many people have been inspired by the words of our presidents. How FDR rallied the American people during the depression with his fireside chats, and how Kennedy inspired Berliners during his famous speech in Germany in 1963. Reagan's words mattered to millions who lived in the Soviet system who heard them through radio free Europe, or the Voice of America. Like valenza, the leader of the Polish solidarity movement. Later said, quote, when talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because he we owe him our liberty. This can't be said often enough. By people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989. Polls fought for their freedom for so many years that they hold in special esteem, those who backed them in their struggle. Support was the test of friendship. President Reagan was such a friend. His policies of aiding democratic governments in central and Eastern Europe in the dark days of the Cold War meant a lot to us. Reagan was not a perfect man. His first marriage ended in failure. He was a man that many loved, but those who knew him personally said that he was hard to get to know. His lax management style got him in trouble during the Iran contra affair. But we judge our presidents on the whole package. As the years flew by, more and more Americans on both sides of the aisle came to respect Reagan. Henry Kissinger, who had little respect for Reagan's intellectual abilities, credited him with, quote, hastening the disintegration of the communist system. Ted Kennedy liberal icon said quote he will be honored as the president who won the Cold War. And Barack Obama, who disagreed with many of Reagan's policies at home and abroad, wrote in his book the audacity of hope, when the Berlin Wall came tumbling down, I had to give the old man his due, even if I never gave him my vote. It was one of the great ironies. Reagan's critics felt that they knew who he was. They dismissed him as a simpleton, a right-wing extremist, and a puppet for arms builders. But in hindsight, they now seem to admit that he was truly dedicated to peace, and that he skillfully managed the last decade of the Cold War. His story, like Eisenhower's, warns us from judging our presidents too quickly or assuming that we truly know their intentions. Reagan faced skeptics. Some of the most brilliant men in the country, men like Henry Kissinger, and many of his contemporaries were virtually unanimous, that the Soviet Union could not be toppled. He gambled that it could be toppled. And somehow he ended up being right. Perhaps some of it was an accident. Perhaps Reagan didn't intend for SDI to be the important bargaining chip that it was. Perhaps SDI was a crazy fantasy that, as he envisioned, still had no chance of being reality. But on the big things, Reagan emerges far wiser than many of his opponents. Not all of it had to have been an accident. Reagan had a better understanding of the weakness of the Soviet system than some of the best minds in the country. He took the containment policy that Truman had started, that his predecessors had continued, and brought it to its conclusion, a successful policy that combined both rollback of and engagement with the communist world. In September of 1990, less than two years after Reagan left office, he and Nancy visited Berlin. During that visit, he walked up to the remnants of the Berlin Wall that were left standing, almost a year after the wall was toppled. As thousands of Germans cheered, Reagan said to them, quote, I just want young people to know about the millions who died for freedom. Freedom is worth dying for. We can't be happy until the whole world knows freedom the way we do. He then took a hammer and chisel and pounded away at the wall, helping to tear down its remnants. He then turned to reporters and told them it feels great. In 1994, Ronald Reagan announced to the world that he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease. From then on, Reagan and his wife Nancy, withdrew further from the public eye. As Reagan's memory faded, his wife, Nancy remained at his side. In 2004, he contracted pneumonia. He died on June 5th, 2004 at the age of 93. In 2009, 5 years after Reagan's passing, the state of California sent a bronze statue to the U.S. capitol to join other presidential figures in the rotunda. The statue was sculpted by artist chaz fagan. The 7 foot figure of Reagan stands atop a stone base. In that base is a layer of crushed fragments. Fragments that used to make up the Berlin Wall. It remains in the capital today, and is a fitting symbol of one man's personal triumph against the tyranny of communism. This American president is produced by myself Richard Lim and Michael Neal, a special thanks to Jennifer mazzella for her help in making this episode. If you like what you've been hearing, you can help us by leaving a 5 star review on Apple podcasts or wherever you listen to our show. For more information about president Reagan, check out strategies of containment by John Lewis gattis. The rebellion of Ronald Reagan by James Mann. Reagan's secret war by Martin and anneliese Anderson. The triumph of improvisation by James Graham Wilson, and crusader, by Paul kenger. I'm Richard Lim, we're back next time with more this American president..