The New Deal policies drastically altered the scope of the federal government. Discuss how the Great Depression created a favorable political environment for the New Deal policies. How did the Great Depression and the New Deal polices alter public opinions on the role of the federal government? What are the positive and negative effects of expanding federal power?
State-Centered & Dual Federalism
Features of Federalism:
Dispersal of Federal Power
Increased Participation
Policy Diversity
Improved Efficiency
Encourages Policy Responsiveness
Encourages Policy Innovation
Manages Conflict
E.E. Schattschneider
State-Centered Federalism:
1787-1868
The states were the most important units in the American federal system.
Constitutional Legitimacy?
State Authority?
Federalism & Citizenship:
Each state was free to recognize citizenship and award the privileges of citizens.
Review the “discussion thread” attachment and reply in each discussion. Each response should be at least 100 words in length, and contribute to the discussion in progress while being substantive in nature.
DISSCUSSION 1:
DRAY COLLINGS posted:
Hello Class,
What Decision did you take at the moment when the little girl and her father returned to the hide site? Why this choice, and not the other?
The decision I made when the little girl and her father returned to the hide site was not to kill them even though the mission was compromised. It was a moral decision not to take the lives of civilians on the battlefield. I used the three lenses to develop my decision based on Rules, Virtues, and Outcomes.
Upon reflection, how did you arrive at your decision – did rules, outcomes or virtues factor more into your choice and reasoning, and how so?
The Rules that were considered were the Geneva Convention, Rules of Engagement (RoE), Field Manuel 27-10 The Law of Landwarfare, Military Necessity, Proportionality, and Command Philosophy. Command Philosophy was the only rule that did not supersede Department of Defense Policy, meaning that subordinate unit leadership policy does not supersede the DOD policy. The outcome was either do nothing and retreat or kill them and deal with the consequences back home. Virtues were about moral and ethical decisions; what is right versus what is right for the mission was weighed in.
I arrived at my decision based on a mixture of Rules, Virtues, and Outcomes. Leaders will have to make the tough choice, but with the ethical reasoning model, leaders can choose the best decision for that situation. “Exercise disciplined initiative, take prudent risks, and be accountable for your decisions and actions.” (U. S. Army Website, 2021).
What legitimate arguments can you see for the other choice, and would you choose the same way if confronted with this or a similar dilemma again?
A legitimate argument I can see for the other choice, which was to kill the father and daughter, is that the decision not to put every member of the team and additional U.S. Soldiers at risk of danger and potential death from the Iraqi Forces. The mission was already compromised and, to some, a failure. The Army measures mission success when the mission is complete. Since the mission was already compromised, the mission was already over and failed, no reason to put others at risk from enemy fire. If I were to face the same dilemma again, I would choose the moral choice of not killing innocent civilians on the battlefield again. The outcome of killing civilians has greater second and third effects back in the U.S. from media coverage. Officials would face demotion or reprimand, and the individuals involved would face prosecution and potential jail time.
References:
BNS301M5.2: Ethical Failures of Leaders and Organizations. Excelsior College. (2021).
U. S. Army Website. (2021). Ethical Connections: Ethical Reasoning – The Patrol. CAPL News. https://capl.army.mil/videos/ethical-connections-ethical-reasoning-the-patrol.
the General uproar discussion
RYAN NYLON replied:
Hello Dray and Class,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this exercise. I totally agree with you that making an informed choice was an important aspect to this case. In addition, having situational awareness on the ground as you described was instrumental in making an ethical decision. In your opinion class, how would following rules of engagement only impacted the outcome of the final decision? Besides the ethical lens, are there any other considerations that could have been taken into account that could of produced a better outcome? Your thoughts class?
BRENNAN ALEXA WASHING replied:
Dray,
Thank you for your post this week; it was very insightful. I agree with your decision not to kill the girl and her father, as it goes against Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, Rules of Engagement, Law of the Land Warfare, and Proportionality (BNS301, n.d.). I also used rules, virtues, and outcomes to make my determination, as well as M5.2 Module notes (n.d.).
I agree that unit-level policy never supersedes Department of Defense policy; however, I believe that it often can feel like it should due to pressure from your leadership. Ground commanders must make ethical and moral decisions, even if it may bring them personal shame within the organization because of “mission failure.” In my personal experience with the military, as long as you can justify your decision, you will be somewhat ok.
Do you believe a better third option would be to tie the girl up or apprehend her until mission completion?
What Decision did you take at the moment when the little girl and her father returned to the hide site? Why this choice, and not the other?
I chose to let the little girl and her father live, even though it compromised the mission and the safety of myself and my team. The reason I chose this was because of my own personal morals and those shared morals with my environment. If I were to have neutralized the little girl and her father, I personally would not have been able to morally accept that outcome.
Upon reflection, how did you arrive at your decision – did rules, outcomes or virtues factor more into your choice and reasoning, and how so?
I arrived at this decision because of multiple factors. The biggest being my own moral beliefs, but also because the little girl did not intentionally bring me harm. They did not try to shoot me, etc. Yes, the argument could be made that by them going back and telling others where we were, they were trying to harm us, but I do not view their harm immediate and warranting their lives ending at my (or my teams) hands. Also, the fact that hurting a child seems unfathomable and unjustifiable. Also, the upholding of the Geneva and the standards of my country and the world. Many people would not accept killing the little girl and her father, regardless of the mission or the fact that mine and my team’s safety would more than likely be compromised.
What legitimate arguments can you see for the other choice, and would you choose the same way if confronted with this or a similar dilemma again?
Arguments that I could see being made for the other choice are the safety of myself and the rest of our team, along with the protection of the mission. If I were to be confronted with this situation again, or a similar one, I would again go down the same path choice. The reason I say this is because of my own moral beliefs and standards for myself. I, personally, would not be able to justify taking their lives.
Sources:
Bond, J. (2007). In Katrina’s wake: Racial implications of the New Orleans disaster (Links to an external site.). Journal of Race & Policy, 7–14 (15-23 optional).
Module Notes: Ethical Failures in Leaders and Organizations
The Center for The Army Profession and Ethic. (nd). Ethical connections: Ethical reasoning – the patrol (Links to an external site.). Fort Leavenworth, KS: Center for The Army Profession and Ethic (6:44 mins).
Waller, Douglas. (1991, June 17). Secret warriors (Links to an external site.). Newsweek, 117, 20-28 (Only the Segment: “Behind Enemy Lines”).
BRYAN ALEX ASHING replied:
Armenia,
Thank you for your post. I also chose to allow the girl and her father to stay alive – even if it compromised my mission. As trained special forces Soldiers, they take an oath to support and defend the constitution – at the risk of their own life. Non-combatants do not take an oath, nor did they sign up to give their lives for their country. In our previous 4.2 Module Notes (n.d.), it was stated that Service members who kill in battle are still moral beings; however, I believe killing (except for self-defense) civilians is immoral.
You stated that you chose not to kill the girl and her father, firstly, because of moral beliefs, but what if you were ordered to do it? Would you have killed them if it were an order?
In my post, I also stated that if I were to kill the girl and her father, a legitimate argument could be mission success and increased team safety. If you were presented with this choice again, would you temporarily apprehend the girl and her father?
I decided not to kill the girl and her father. I chose not to kill the girl and her father and abort the mission because I decided to adhere to the moral principles of the soldier ethic since I believe that the two individuals have dignity and their lives have value. According to the Center for the Army Profession and Ethic (2019), army professionals like soldiers are motivated and inspired to make the right decisions and take the right action in accordance with the moral principles of the Army Ethic. Even though I broke the rules of engagement (ROE), I followed the professional ethics of a soldier and the Geneva Convention. Moreover, if the leader of the force or an order from above told me not to kill the girl, I would obey the orders. After all, military officers from the lowest to highest ranks must follow orders (Dallek, 2010).
Upon reflection, I arrived at my decision by considering three aspects: virtues, rules, and outcomes. An ethical reasoning framework can help someone make the right decision and act on it (Center for the Army Profession and Ethic, 2019). Hence, the reason I decided not to kill the girl and his father because killing them in cold blood has a series of adverse outcomes, such as the press could use the death of the girl and her father as propaganda. Another aspect that I considered regarding my action is the thought that killing two innocent individuals is unfair and would violate the professional code of ethics, which is based on the virtues I hold. In addition, I also considered other rules like Geneva Convention and proportionality in my decision regarding the situation. The reflection of soldiers to normative ethics helps to foster understanding concerning roles and responsibilities (Ulrich, 2011).
On the other hand, one of the legitimate arguments that I could see if I decided to eliminate the girl and her father is obeying only the U.S. rules of engagement and military necessity. In point of fact, none of the terms of Geneva apply to U.S. conflict with an entity in any part of the world (Kakutani, 2008). Another legitimate argument would be proportionality; if the discovery of the girl and his father of our mission put numerous lives at risk or in danger, then I would take the other choice. The proportionality-based utilitarianism approach happens when one considers the best outcome for most people, and it is acceptable to sacrifice one life to save numerous lives (Center for the Army Profession and Ethic, 2019). Ultimately, I would take the same decision if confronted with this similar dilemma again as I put my moral principles first, among other aspects.
References:
Dallek, R. (2010, June 23). General uproar: The other Truman doctrine (Links to an external site.) (Links to an external site.). New York Times.
Kakutani, M. (2008, May 14). How Abu Ghraib became the anything-goes prison (Links to an external site.) (Links to an external site.). New York Times, E8.
The Center for The Army Profession and Ethic. (2019). Ethical connections: Ethical reasoning – the patrol (Links to an external site.) (Links to an external site.). Fort Leavenworth, KS: Center for The Army Profession and Ethic (6:44 mins).
Ulrich, M, P. (2011). The general Stanley McChrystal affair: A case study in civil-military relations (Links to an external site.). Parameters, 41(1), 86-100
First, read Chapter 5 in The Essential Workplace Conflict Handbook and review your work with SMART goals from Module Two.
Next, carefully read the MEASURE Supplementary Document and, using your actual organization’s conflict (or the Garden Depot case study), Measure the problem or problems you Defined in Module Two. Use the Organization A Example Flowchart to help you organize your thinking, and then put the information from your flowchart into a Measure gap-analysis table using the Measure Gap-Analysis Table Template. Upload this table to the discussion.
Imagine you are interviewing for a job you really want and the interviewer asks you the following: “Explain a specific example in which you used critical thinking problem-solving strategies to solve a problem in the real world.”
What will be your answer to the question?
Choose one classmate’s own response to the interviewer’s question. If you are a job coach, what suggestions would you make to maximize your classmate’s answer to the interview question?
Week 7 Assignment – Case Study: Implementation Strategies
Use the Week 7 Case Study Template [DOCX] to complete this assignment.
Your proposed information system is still a contender. The executives, however, are asking whether it is too limited to prevent the shadow IT projects that continue to take place throughout the organization.
They believe that you have considered what the organization does now, but how will your system adapt to new products and processes? The following video is an example of two companies – Apple and Google – adapting new products and processes in spite of multiple challenges.
Answer each these questions in a paragraph with at least five sentences: Include the question and number your responses accordingly. Provide a citation for each answer.
1. What kind of speech was the First Amendment written to protect?
2. Does the First Amendment apply only to spoken words?
3. What does it mean that laws regulating speech must be content neutral?
4. Why are common carriers prohibited from controlling the content of the material they carry?
5. How does the Supreme Court determine whether material is obscene?
Despite the growth in the use of serious games to train and evaluate cross-cultural competence, few studies have examined the content & dialogue development methods associated with these training systems. This study presents a framework for generating content for serious games targeting culturally appropriate communication and an evaluation of a game designed with the framework showing improved performance. This framework provides a means for game developers to leverage existing Cultural Dimension Theory to target training objectives tailored to specific participant types. A study experiment with 25 participants compares the effects a training system using this framework has on participants’ in-game score versus no training. Results show significant differences in game score when controlling for Cultural Intelligence. Additionally, the results show significant differences in variance between the trained group and the control group. These findings contribute to the current understanding of content development methods with respect to Cultural Training Serious Games. These findings warrant further investigation to understand the significance to other cultural training applications.
2. Consider this proposition: “All bachelor’s degree students should be enrolled in a 2-year-long assessed (graded) game designed to improve cross-cultural competence as part of their academic training and higher education.”
You will argue that this should not be the case.
Respond with competing facts, figures, and assumptions.
350-450 words excluding references, APA format and a minimum of 3 references
Choose one of the following two assignments to complete this week. Do not do both assignments. Identify your assignment choice in the title of your submission.
Option #1: Microcultures and Cultural Dimensions
For this assignment, you are required to describe information regarding a “microculture” of your choice. Look to Chapter 3 for an in-depth description of a “microculture.”
· Then, explain what makes this group a “microculture.”
· Apply at least two of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions to this “microculture.”
· How do these cultural dimensions help us understand how this group differs from other cultures?
Your paper should be 2-3 pages in length and conform to APA formatting. Include at least three peer-reviewed references from the library databases, in addition to the course textbook.
Option #2: Horizontal and Vertical Individualism and Collectivism
In our chapter readings for this week as well as the lecture content pages, Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk, and Gelfand differentiated between horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. In subsequent studies other researchers have compared many cultures on this construct. For this assignment, identify two nations that you believe to differ on this construct.
Microcultures and Cultural Dimensions
· Describe how the two nations represent the two sides of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism.
· What are the defining characteristics?
Your paper should be 2-3 pages in length and conform to APA formatting. Include at least three peer-reviewed references from the library databases, in addition to the course textbook.
This discussion will help us identify the different theories of the self as it relates to the mind, the body, or the soul.
Task
Consider the readings in this unit and how they describe the concept of the “self” and personal identity. Answer the following questions:
What were your initial thoughts about your “self” prior to this class?
Does the “self” have to be a thinking thing?
Does the “self” change over time?
Which philosopher’s concept of personal identity matches your own views?
What aspects of your thoughts about the “self” have been challenged by our readings/course materials and how?
Expectations and Criteria for Success
Making Connections
In your responses, be sure to make some connection between a philosopher (a specific philosopher from the unit), your views on the self, and the concepts of philosophy we started to address in Unit 1. Why is the concept of the self so important as a philosophical question? Does Socrates tell us in the Apology how asking challenging questions leads us to better knowledge? How does Russell explain in his reading that the self can be expanded through philosophical reflection on what might appear to be just “common sense”?
Expectations and Criteria for Success
Your discussion post should answer each question above in at least two to three sentences. Successful posts will answer each question with specific examples and details from the assigned sources. Once you have completed your initial post, read and respond to the posts of at least two of your peers. reference course materials and contribute new points of discussion. Your discussion posts should provide in-text citations for any paraphrased and/or directly quoted material.
