PAD 530 Week 5 – Discussion 1

 

“Generational Differences and the Public Sector Workplace” Please respond to the following:

·         Analyze the descriptions of generations from traditionalists to Generation. Assess your own category and discuss the ways you agree and differ from the description, indicating which generation best describes you. Provide three reasons and examples for your position.(NOTE:  I was born in 1962 (53 years old))

 

·         Assume you have performed an analysis of your agency’s workforce and have concluded that over 30% of employees will retire within the next 24 months and another 35% in five years. Currently, the workforce of 650 employees has 40% baby boomers and 60% Generation X-ers and Generation Y-ers. Your observations indicate that the baby boomers distrust the Generation X-ers and Y-ers, appear to disrespect the baby boomers. Recommend two strategies you could implement to address and change this situation for the better. Provide a rationale for your views.

 

Week 5 eActivity

Use the Internet or Strayer Library resources, or both, to research two news events related to sexual harassment laws covering lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals published within the past 12 months. Be prepared to discuss. 

 

PAD 530 Week 5 – Discussion 2

 

“Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered Employees in the Public Sector Workforce” Please respond to the following:

·         From the e-Activity, analyze the two news events published within the past 12 months related to sexual harassment laws for or against lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals. 

 

·         Propose at least two ways your agency plans to address these events, highlighting two challenges to identifying and prosecuting offenders within your agency.  

 

·         Debate It: Take a position for or against this statement: A public sector agency should provide medical benefits to employees who choose to have surgery to change their sex. Provide at least two reasons and examples to support your position.

 

 

Tom Ridge: Americans Need to ‘Dial Down’ the Hyperbole on Terrorism

Sept. 16, 2016

    

 

Tom Ridge, founder and Chairman of Ridge Global, served as the 43rd Governor of Pennsylvania and was the first Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

It’s making us fear going into the world and doing what makes the country great

A frightening, yet isolated incident in New York City this week underscores a growing trend that I’m concerned will continue to have a lasting negative impact on the American psyche when it comes to coping with the threat of terrorism.

A man wielding a large cleaver not far from Penn Station slashed a detective in the head before being shot by police. It surely was a scary situation for anyone on that city block. Thankfully the officer is expected to survive. You would assume such an incident would be well covered by local media outlets in New York. And it was. But in this post-9/11 age—with concerns about ISIS-inspired lone-wolf attackers—an incident that would historically be considered only local news was the lead story on multiple national newscasts.

“This most recent incident, once again, triggers fears of lone-wolf attackers,” said one national television reporter, who then interviewed a crime analyst who asked whether this attacker may have been inspired or motivated by others. It is certainly reasonable to ask those questions. But let’s assume a terrorist did inspire the attacker. Does it change the result? For the officer in the hospital, does it really matter whether the man with the cleaver had a mental illness, was angry with law enforcement, read an article about radical Islam or none of the above? The breathlessness of the coverage—coverage that up until 15 years ago would have likely not extended beyond newscasts and newspapers in New York—is ratcheting up anxiety levels that is not healthy for our nation.

It turns out I made headlines the other day when I warned against “hyperventilation” over terrorist attacks. I had been invited to join a panel discussion with Secretary Jeh Johnson, one of my successors at the Department of Homeland Security. We were asked if we can expect another attack this year and how many. I think my answer surprised some in the audience. I said what I really think the country needs to do is accept the reality that terrorism is a global scourge and accept the reality that it will probably happen again. I’m not trying to say that the pain or suffering of a terrorist attack isn’t significant or isn’t real. As someone who has had the honor of being in the company of many of the Flight 93 families, I know it’s all too real and painful. But I want Americans to dial down some of the hyperbole and the hyperventilation. And our friends in the media can help.

The cleaver attack in New York is a perfect example. Every day across our country there are evildoers who attack innocent people. More than 500 people have been murdered so far this year in Chicago alone. These are not ISIS-inspired attacks. Social issues such as poverty, education, gang warfare and drug abuse are fueling these crimes. The media devotes coverage to deaths caused by terror attacks disproportionate to urban gun violence and even fatalities on our highways. By the end of this year, more than 40,000 Americans will likely die in car crashes. The number of Americans killed in 2016 by an ISIS-inspired terrorist attack is miniscule in comparison. More and more of what should be treated as local news is now national, or even international, news. Terrorism is often assumed as a motivator with accompanying graphics and music to play up the fear.

What’s missing is context. And without context, I fear that the American psyche—built over nearly 250 years on resilience and determination and resolve—stands to suffer. I worry that Americans, in the wake of real attacks such as in San Bernardino, combined with news reporting that inserts the specter of terrorism into the coverage of traditional violent crime in which terrorism is not a factor, will begin to shy away from the things that make our democracy great—travel, visiting public spaces and attending large events.

Perhaps no country has had to deal with the threat of terrorism more than our friends in Israel. In the wake of the recent Paris attacks, Israeli-American psychologist Alon Gratch wrote a powerful essay about how Israeli’s have learned how to expose themselves to the things that make them most anxious. “Avoiding public transportation, concert halls and shopping malls only exacerbates your anxiety, and factually speaking, it does not make you safer,” Gratch writes. He explains that the goal is not to eliminate anxiety but rather to reduce it to a tolerable level as some anxiety is essential for self-protection.

My hope is that all Americans will not be breathless about future threats, or the inevitable future attack, but instead continue to maintain proper vigilance and enjoy all that democracy offers. Let’s work together to make our nation safer, not only from the specter of terror but from all violent crimes and needless loss of life.

 

http://time.com/4497615/tom-ridge-terrorism-hyperbole/?xid=time_socialflow_twitter 9/17/2016

Discuss one (1) project where you used a problem-solving approach to address what turned out to be common-cause variation, or where you used a process improvement approach to deal with a special cause.

If you do not have a personal experience that echoes either of these situations, you may use Internet to search for a case that reflects either of these situations.

Examples:

·                     one’s personal investment strategy since 2008

·                     reducing waiting times at the local hospital or emergency room

·                     reducing difficulties trying to connect to a Wi-Fi Internet provider

 Answer the following questions:

1.     Describe the experience in the project.

2.     What were the solutions used to address the problem?

3.     Was the case you described a special-cause or common-cause?

4.     Do you feel the solution or approach used appropriate for the cause?

5.     What would you do if you could do it again?

6.     What conclusions can you draw from the problem-solving or process-improvement techniques?

Note: You may create and / or make all necessary assumptions needed for the completion of this assignment. In your original work, you may use aspects of existing processes from either your current or a former place of employment. However, you must remove any and all identifying information that would enable someone to discern the organization(s) that you have used.

 

2 pages

 

 

What he told Americans they had to do to overcome the Depression
What agencies he relied on to provide relief
Significant acts passed during his presidency to help end the Depression
Success or failure of his program and why

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Part 2

 

 

 

Most historians agree that the New Deal did not solve the problems of the Great Depression and that, in short, it failed to bring about full economic recovery. Nevertheless, it can be argued that the New Deal was significant in that it introduced a new political tradition and brought fundamental change in a number of areas to America.

 

 

 

Write a 350-word response to each of the following questions:

 

 

 

• What do you think is meant by the statements above? How did the New Deal change America?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Do you think the New Deal changed the relationship between citizens and the federal government and if so, how? For example, should the government help regulate the economy?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rogerian Argument Essay

(10%)

Important Dates:
Topic and working thesis due in class Friday, February 10
Essay due: Friday, February 17
See syllabus for late paper penalty
Revisions (if you choose to do one) will be due two weeks after the paper is returned to you.

Purpose and objectives

·      Demonstrate knowledge of the principles and features of a Rogerian argument by writing on a topic of your choosing

·      Address and analyze the opposing perspective (reader’s view) while establishing your position with supporting evidence

·      Propose a compromise that incorporates the collaborative and fair-minded spirit of the Rogerian argument

The Specifics

·      Must be 3-4 pages, double spaced

·      Times New Roman, 12 pt font

·      Hook and Title

·      Sources: Must include at least three acceptable sources with proper in-text citation and a Works Cited page (APA or MLA)

Choosing a topic and position

As discussed in class and mentioned in the text, Rogerian arguments are particularly effective for emotionally charged, controversial topics. So I would encourage you to select a topic that you feel connected to in some way, but please avoid general, “overly-argued” topics that have been argued excessively (not “the death penalty is bad”). ‘Controversial’ doesn’t mean your topic has to be heavy, or necessarily life or death, however. What makes you mad? What gets you fired up politically or socially? Is there a local issue you’ve been following closely that would lend itself to this type of argument? Please feel free to chat with me about your topic if there are any concerns or questions.

A word on sources

No Wikipedia or Quora or anything in that shady/academically unsuitable vein.

·       Acceptable: Credible, Updated, Trustworthy Websites (.edu, .org or .gov)

·       Relevant news articles from reputable news organizations (using the criteria we will discuss in class)

·       Academic Journal Articles (through library database)

·       Government Reports

·       Primary Sources (e.g. “Official Notices” source on page 199 under Works Cited)

As the writer, keep in mind the following goals and objectives:

• Establish an emphatic persona, using neutral, non-threatening language throughout the paper
• Identify and discuss specific points and instances in which opposing assertions are valid (this should include one of your sources)
• Show where your position and  assertions are valid and support (at least two sources here)
• In your conclusion, seek compromise, address mutual benefits and appeal to a higher interest for both parties

General Structure – below is a framework you can follow for your paper which also includes the major components I will be looking for when reviewing and grading:

Introduction

·      Hook.

·      Sets up the problem in appropriate language and establishes common ground

• Explain the issue’s significance and scope
• Two-part thesis statement that acknowledges the other side as well as your argument (using the “Despite/Although/While” language discussed in Writing Workshop)

Statement of the Reader’s view of the problem

·      Include your acknowledgement/concessions/merit in their side (one source here)

Statement of your side: Writer’s side

·      Present and discuss your evidence (two sources here)

·      Address how the reader would benefit from seeing your side (statement of mutual benefits)

Conclusion

·      Convey possible compromise