NEED IN 8 HOURS or LESS

Please discuss the importance of resiliency vs. reactionary approaches to dealing with terrorism.

REPLY TO MY CLASSMATE RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE QUESTIONS AND EXPLAIN WHY YOU AGREE? (A MINIMUM OF 150 WORDS or MORE)

While boosting the capacity of individuals to respond in an appropriate manner a resilience approach accepts a certain degree of risk as inevitable (Howard-Williams, 2017). According to Flynn, resilience could actually defeat terrorism though investing in it might seem like an expression of defeat (Friedman, 2016). To “fail gracefully and recover nicely” is the goal of resilience along with designing systems so they can withstand shock (Friedman, 2016). The nature of contemporary terrorist threats and how to spot potential plots to the public in greater details is what resilience policies can involve by the government (Friedman, 2016). A staple of international security conferences over the past few years and has begun making its way into government documents known as the concept of resilience (Roggeveen, 2010). To absorb shock and recognize while retaining its essential structure and identity is resiliencies ability of a system or society (Roggeveen, 2010). Resilience advocates argue our society must be made more robust since to some degree terrorism has to be endured (Roggeveen, 2010). Advocates also say the better approach is to improve our ability to bounce back from such attacks (Roggeveen, 2010). A proactive approach is required to prevent attacks which is more important (Stewart, 2009). Early indicators that planning for an attack is under way authorities can establish systems to proactively identify (Stewart, 2009). Authorities respond to a crime scene after a terrorist attack to find and arrest the militants responsible for the attack is a reactive approach to counterterrorism (Stewart, 2009). The individual or group behind the attack is a customary focus point (Stewart, 2009). When an unknown actor carried out the act in an effort to identify a suspect, much time is emphasized in this approach (Stewart, 2009).

References:

Friedman, U. (2016). Learning to live with terrorism. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com

Howard-Williams, R. (2017). Terrorism and world risk society: Resilience, resentment, and spectacle Vol. 10 Iss. 70 Retrieved from https://www.21global.ucsb.edu

Roggeveen, S. (2010). Resilience the key to fighting terrorism Retrieved from https://www.smh.com

Stewart, S. (2009). Counterterrorism: Shifting from ‘who’ to ‘how’ Retrieved from https://worldview.stratfor.com

“A” WORK DISCUSSION

  

It appears that no country is immune from terrorism, with the most recent attacks occurring in Paris in January 2015. If you had the ability to implement a policy to stop terrorism, how would you do so and protect the rights of citizens?

REPLY TO MY CLASSMATE RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE QUESTIONS AND EXPLAIN WHY YOU AGREE? (A MINIMUM OF 150 WORDS or MORE)

                                                             CLASSMATE’S POST

No country is immune from terrorism, but there are ways to help prevent it or at least knowing how to respond will help greatly. The Department of Homeland Security has a campaign, “If you see something, Say something. I think this is a great start to helping individuals feel like it is okay to say something, if they think something is not right. Often people are scared or do not know what to do or how to react when they feel that something is not right. With technology being at and advance level it also makes it easier to say something and get the proper individuals in place to respond or investigate the situation.

According to Spindlove & Simonsen (2013) ” Terrorism constitutes one of the most serious threats to global security”. If I had to make a policy, I would add more security and have just a special department to deal with it also train others outside of the department so that all will know how to respond. There are also different threats, but within foreign I would have restricted air zones and within domestic, without discriminating deeper and more intense background checks on gun purchases. Also, there would be more uniform processes for screening potential terrorist. I am sure that as time changes the policies change also. There will always be room for improvement and different ideas.

NEED “A” WORK DISCUSSION IN 5 HOURS

Describe for us a leadership situation you witnessed over the last week.  Please let us know if you thought it was successful or not.

REPLY TO MY CLASSMATE’S RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE QUESTIONS AND EXPLAIN WHY YOU AGREE? (A MINIMUM OF 125 WORDS or MORE)

The sole purpose of healthcare facilities is to provide personalized help to patients. Nevertheless, this primary objective becomes difficult to achieve whenever the medical team, particularly doctors and nurses, are clashing over power, responsibility and knowledge (Perzynski, Shick & Adebambo, 2019). In this one particular hospital, this is exactly what one would observe. Often times, such disparities occur due to incompetence of the managerial team.
 It was therefore impressive when one leader from the managerial team noticed this and took up the responsibility to attempt to put an end to the conflict or at least reduce the discrepancies between the doctors and nurses. He called a meeting between the two parties and dictated rules of equality to both parties through a democratic policy.
 In my opinion, this was indeed a success. This is because, when the leader took the initiative to call a meeting, he portrayed command and control, a trait that should be in any individual who assumes any leadership role (Maccoby, 2013). More so, the meeting enabled the two parties to speak freely in a bid to determine the root cause of the problem. This provided a platform for the two parties to air their grievances and agree to a solution.
 The leader also portrayed his ability to resolve conflicts in the hospital. He did not turn a blind eye to the issue in which the nurses had been feeling undermined due to the misconception that nurses are lower in the healthcare hierarchy. This theory is now behind the times. It is therefore justified to say that the display of leadership changed the situation since after that week of observation, doctors and nurses were seen working together as a team and not an employee-subject kind of relationship. Nurses were now at liberty to express their views and voice their demands without being disregarded. In addition to this, the leader leads by example and would do as they had agreed upon.

                                                             References
Maccoby, M. (2013). Transforming health care leadership: a systems guide to improve patient care, decrease costs, and improve population health. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Brand. 

Perzynski, A., Shick, S. & Adebambo, I. (2019). Health disparities: weaving a new understanding through case narratives. Cham: Springer.

Legal Bindings

Decorate Ltd (Decorate) is a large office interior design company which has ordinary shares only, 
listed on the Australian Stock Exchange. The majority of shares in Decorate are owned by Colour Ltd 
(Colour), who holds 85%. The remaining shares are held by Light Pty Ltd (Light)who holds 11%, Bright 
Ltd (Bright) who holds 3% and Julie McMahon, who holds 1%. 
Decorate has a brief constitution which states that the company will employ Julie McMahon as 
company solicitor. The constitution states that all other matters are to be dealt with under the 
replaceable rules in the Corporations Act. 
At a recent shareholder meeting, Colour indicated it would like to increase it’s shareholding in 
Decorate to 100%. The directors of Decorate agree and believe it will result in large tax and 
administrative savings for Decorate. The directors of Decorate have also become aware that Light, 
originally an interior design company specialising in residential design, has recently established a 
new company, Office Design Pty Ltd (Office). Light owns 100% of the shares in Office and the new 
company specialises in interior design for offices. The directors of Decorate believe that Office is in 
direct competition to Decorate and are concerned. 
To assist Colour in gaining 100% ownership, the directors of Decorate propose a change to 
Decorates constitution as soon as possible, allowing the majority shareholder (Colour) to 
compulsorily acquire the shares of the minority shareholders (Light, Bright and Julie). It is proposed 
that Decorate will provide detailed information relating to the constitutional amendment to all 
shareholders. In addition, an independent valuer will assess a range of matters, including market 
value, to ensure a fair share price for the minority shareholders. 
Bill, the managing and sole director of Light indicates that he will not support the amendment and 
Light will take legal action against Decorate to stop the amendment if necessary. He asks the other 
minority shareholders (Bright & Julie) to join him in the legal action. 
Tony, the managing director of Bright tells Bill he and his board will not support the amendment to 
the constitution and will join in the legal action. However, the shareholders of Bright disagree and 
have repeatedly expressed their desire to sell the shares in Decorate and believe the amendment to 
the constitution is a good opportunity to do so. 
Julie McMahon informs Bill she is not sure if she supports the amendment or not. She is having 
financial difficulties and would like to sell her shares in Decorate but is concerned if she does, she 
can no longer rely on the clause in the constitution stating she is the company solicitor. 
With reference to legal authority discuss the legal implications for Decorate Ltd, Colour Ltd, Light 
Pty Ltd, Bright Ltd and Julie McMahon. 
The parties involved DO NOT require any information on statutory member remedies or takeovers.

human discussion

 

Minimum of 350 for original post   

No citations in the posts 

We are going to be looking at two little parables found in Luke:

     a.   The Parable of the Mustard Seed

     b.   The Parable of Leaven

These two parables are found back-to-back in Luke 13.  While you may think you understand exactly what Jesus is saying in these two little parables, think again!  Read this little essay on the perception of Mustard seed in first-century Palestine.  And then do a little bit of your own research on the meaning of leaven as it is used in the Bible.  Jesus is comparing the empire of God to both the mustard seed and leaven. 

1.  After doing a little research on how mustard seed and leaven were viewed in first-century Palestine, please write your own interpretation of both parables.

2.  How does Jesus reverse conventional thinking with these two parables? 

Please remember to include specific references (chapter and verse) to the particular passage you are writing about. 

In the Gospel of Luke, we have some of the best loved teaching stories told by Jesus.  The interesting thing is that when you dig into some of these teachings stories – and you take into consideration the laws and customs of first-century Palestine – the meaning of the stories no longer seems crystal clear.  We begin to be slightly puzzled by what Jesus could have meant – which is arguably JUST what Jesus intended to do with these stories!  Wisdom teachers historically try to get people to understand the idea that life is rarely black and white – that is, things may not be what they appear to be. 

Jesus’ teaching stories and parables frequently upend or reverse traditional thinking.  Remember that Jesus said,  “And people will come from east and west, from north and south, and dine in God’s empire. Those who will be first are last, and those who will be last are first.”  (13:29-30)  The meaning of this verse appears to be this:  Be prepared to be surprised!  The empire of God is not what you think it is.  In fact, it may be the exact opposite (first will be last, and last will be first).  Also remember that Jesus says that God makes the sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous.  There is no black and white thinking in God’s empire. 

So, in looking at the parables, lets first make sure we are all on the same page regarding the meaning and function of parables.  Our textbook defines “parable” in this way:

A brief narrative or picture.  It is also a metaphor or simile drawn from nature or common life, arresting the hearer by its vividness or strangeness, and leaving the mind in sufficient doubt about its precise application to tease it into active thought.  

This implies that the very purpose of the parables is to “arrest” (or put a halt to) automatic and conventional thinking – and to cause you to STOP and think again!  Dig deeper, think outside the box.  But, above all else, THINK!  Don’t let others tell you what is true and what you understand.  

If we wish to truly understand any of the parables, it is especially important that we interpret them through the lens of the time and place in which they were told – first century Palestine.  But how can we do this since we do not live in first-century Palestine?  The answer is that we can do a bit of research into some of the historical information that we DO have from that time. 

1 page needed ASAP

The Health Professions and Workforce Planning

 

The health care industry requires an adequate supply of a broad range of professionals and support personnel who must continuously be trained to adapt to new knowledge, technologies, and procedures.

 

One of the key challenges in the health care field is ensuring that there is an adequate supply of various groups of health care workers, and that there is an appropriate geographic distribution of these individuals. Workforce planning issues may involve imbalances between need and supply, inadequacy of training for the profession, emigration and brain drain, workforce distribution, cultural alignment between health care workers and the populations served, and challenges and opportunities associated with health system changes.

 

As a team, select a health profession of interest to you. Review the Learning Resources to help you make your decision and for initial information about this profession.

 

Conduct research on this profession using resources from previous courses, the Walden library, and credible Web sites. Your research should include:

  • Overview and history of this profession
  • Education and training required
  • Licensing and credentialing, including similarities and differences among state licensing requirements
  • Sites of practice
  • Number of professionals in practice, including annual entrants and exits from the profession
  • Distribution of the profession, including shortages
  • How professionals are compensated (e.g., fee-for-service, salary) and levels of compensation (including differences)
  • Current issues facing the profession (e.g., scope of practice concerns)
  • Competitor and highly related professions
  • Future outlook, such as the role of technology, impact of other professions, changes in the health care system
  • Global aspects of the profession

Starbuck Case

 

 Starbucks Case Study

Read the three articles noted below about an actual union-organizing effort involving Starbucks in New York City: Use the link for the case.

After reading all the articles and considering additional research, address the following questions (feel free to use supplemental authoritative resources in your response):

  • Do you think the administrative law judge and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) went too far in overruling Starbucks? Why or why not?
  • How much leeway should an employer have in setting standards for conduct, customer interaction, and attire in the workplace?
  • Does the NLRB decision unfairly limit Starbucks in the management of the stores? Why or why not?
  • What is your view of the court’s decision?

Ensure to provide references.

Attached is a sample work by a student from another school I found on the internet through Coursehero. Please be advice this attachment is just for a guide and note photocopy. Ensure Safe Assign work.

Thanks

Human Discusssion

 

  1. Watch Flight of Faith:  The Jesus Story  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gU5p6061M34  (This 48-minute video will give you an overview of the landscape in which Jesus lived – and how it looks today.  The narrator tells the traditional story of Jesus’ life, but as we go through the semester, we will see that there are many other ways of understanding Jesus and his teachings.)
  2. Read Frontline:  Jews and the Roman Empire. Judea was the province in which Jesus lived located within the massive Roman Empire.  (Just read down through “Tensions in Judea at the Time of Jesus’ Birth.”)  https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/portrait/jews.html
  3. Read The Human Journey: Jesus and the Origins of Christianity – A Multicultural Story http://humanjourney.ishk.net/ideas-that-shaped-our-modern-world-section/jesus-and-the-beginnings-of-christianity-a-multi-cultural-story/
  4. Read Frontline:  The Tensions Between Faith and History: Can Christian faith be reconciled with an historical approach to Jesus and the Bible?  This article will address the possibility of conducting a historical study of Jesus while holding firm to religious belief in Jesus.  https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/tensions.html
  5. Read Frontline:   Jesus was born, lived and died as a Jew.  https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/bornliveddied.html
  6. Read Frontline :  The Complexity of His Religious Identity.  Jesus was viewed as many things: healer, wisdom teacher, apocalyptic preacher, and anointed one (Messiah).https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/complexity.html
  7. Historical references to Jesus’ life.  There isn’t a lot of outside evidence of Jesus’ life, but there is some. 

 

Over the next 16 weeks, we are going to be looking at the complexity of Jesus’ identity.  There are several resources this week that discuss this complexity, as well as the difficulty of uncovering the historical Jesus (apart from what the church has written about him).  After reading all of the resources for this section – most especially Frontline: The Tensions Between Faith and History – please write a discussion forum post in which you address the following points:

1.  What do these scholars have to say about how they reconcile their Christian faith with an historical study of Jesus and the Bible?

2.  What do the scholars have to say about how an historical/critical study of Jesus benefits and enhances their faith?

3.  What do you see as the dangers of studying Jesus from a historical/analytical approach?

Note:  Please stick to the materials posted for Weeks 2-3 as the resources for your writing.  Please do not quote scripture in this assignment, but please DO use quotes and references from the posted resources.

Respond to post

  

Make a 50 word or more respond to the below post.

I voted for “Traditional Work Groups” . I opted to vote this way because historically this is considered a “functioning team”. I have sat on many of these teams over the last 21 years. This work group is extremely important because it allows individuals to come together and see the companies vision/mission for what it is.  This group takes in depth look at the way the current processes of a company are functioning, and whether they need to revised or if they should remain in place. What I have found over the years that makes this group of individuals so important is the fact that, it is made of representatives from various departments. In my case it was Finance Reps, Registration Reps, Nurse Practitioners, and Operation Managers. We sat together, looked at how were functioning in accordance with the hospital, how far off we were, or what we needed to do to stay on the right track. When the Author from the required reading said ” “work should be structured, for individual jobs with internal forms of control such as enriched jobs” (Cummings P.399).  This statement is absolutely true, because with enriched jobs the employee are impassioned to conquer tasks and challenges. When the tasks increase, and the employees put for the effort, then eventually the pay will increase. This is a cycle, however it can be lucrative one for the organization and the employee .

Our required reading show us that with self-management teams “Tasks design generally follows from the teams mission and goals that define the major purpose of the team and provide direction for task achievement” (Cummings P.389). This point is poignant one to say the least because, work groups are not intended to implement individual agendas, however it is set aside to push the goals of the department/organization. When the missions and goals of an organization are adhered to it makes the process very clear, and gives a little more push to meet the established goals. Self-Management Teams are often apart of high involvement plans because according to the required reading “Self-Managed teams also should have the ability to counsel members and to facilitate communicating among them (Cummings p.391). Self-Management teams are sensitive in nature, they must adhere (strictly) to company policy, and they must be developed enough to speak respectfully, and appropriately to coworkers as they “push” each other toward the finish line. Whenever there is a breakdown in communication, the self-management team is charged with getting everyone back on track, and laser focused so that purpose can be fulfilled. In Conclusion, we see in our required reading “Self-Management Teams also, teams represent the work design of 2000s because high levels of technical uncertainty and interdependence are prevalent in today’s workplaces and because today’s workers often have high growth and social needs” (Cummings P.398). This idea in and of itself provides us with insight as to why Self-Management teams are dedicated to high level issues. Their minds have been developed to assess, diagnose,and repair issue that many who have an antiquated way of thinking may not be able to appropriately handle.

References:

Thomas G. Cummings and Christopher G. Worley, Organization Development & Change, Tenth Edition© 2015, 2009 Cengage Learning.

REPLY TO CLASSMATE’S POST

  

We often hear people talk of their rights, but rarely do I hear someone speaking who could actually explain from where these “rights” are emanating. 

Often we hear “I know my rights” and most often that person might have the vaguest grasp of what is contained within the Constitution.  But now let us explore the SOURCE of these unalienable rights. Do you think it is the Bill of Rights (BoR)? 

Does the BoR spell out to the people what rights are being granted and is this the source of these rights?

What “rights” are given specifically to the people in any of the first ten amendments of the U. S. Constitution? 

Do the words actually say, or can you prove it was the intent of the writers, that these ten phrases are speaking to the people, or are they directed possibly someone else?

We would know which are rights granted here in the document, by reading the words of the Bill of Rights and observing if any of them speak to “the people” and say “you get this right that is specifically named here”.   Shall we look to see how many there are actually being granted by this part of the document? and how many are assumed but not explicitly enumerated?

Is there a right found here?  Read it carefully before responding

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Is there a right granted here? Carefully read because it doesn’t say way what you may think. The instruction, the take away, the writing was not directed at the people was it?

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

This one doesn’t read like a Right as much as it does a rule about what the government may not do, as restriction on power, not and extension or granting of a right to the people.  Seems like the rights are assumed and that this document was just a list of the 10 most troubling things the founders were concerned about while forming a new government.

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Pretty sure this one was written to the government about what they cannot do to the people. Not written to the people talking about a right.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This one is laundry list of what the government may not do to a person:

  1. No secret      indictments;   1.5 Allowing for temporary suspension of that      restriction during times of war or public danger (see Lincoln who      suspended Habeas Corpus during one such time);
  2. No Double Jeopardy—which may sound like a right but      really limits the powers of the prosecution.
  3. You cannot make me testify against myself? Sounds like      what the government cannot do. I could testify against myself if I      wanted to, but cannot be compelled by the State to do so;
  4. The state cannot take my stuff, my freedom or my      life, unless they can do so through a process of law;
  5. The State cannot take my stuff for public use      unless I have been justly compensated. Again, state cannot . . . 

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The State cannot:

  • Leave      me hanging      indefinitely in jail,
  • Cook      up a bunch of people      who will convict me without Due Process;
  • Get      people from another      place to judge me, only from within my “area”;

The State must  give fair and full warning of the charge and reason for such charge—they cannot ambush me in a prosecution;

The State must produce those who accuse me, they cannot accuse and hide;

The State must use resources to assist me in producing people who may have information;

The State must allow me to have legal assistance, BUT does not say they have to provide it in the event that I cannot afford it

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

This one is a civil matter, but provide a venue for redress that the State must provide for matter over 20 dollars—they must provide the court, the jury, and adhere to both the process and the ruling of said jury.

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

This one says the State cannot . . .

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted

The last two limit what the federal government can do, saying that unless the document has specifically granted the government a power, then everything else is assumed to belong to the state government or retained by the people.  Again, not granting anything, only stating that the Federal government cannot remove them without specific authority.

So who has rights in this country? And from where do they emanate?

PLEASE EXPLAIN WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH MY CLASSMATE RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE QUESTION AND WHY? (A MININUM OF 125 WORDS) 

                                                              CLASSMATE’S POST

The source of what the citizens of the United States consider rights, does not come directly from the Bill of Rights (BOR), but from the interpretation of the words found within the BOR by the Supreme Court. It is the Court’s duty to determine what actions constitutes free speech per say, or what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, etc. The first ten Amendments do not actually spell out any specific rights that the people are entitled too, but instead what restrictions on governmental power can protect individuals from having certain liberties violated. The BOR was written by the Founders and includes liberties that they felt could be easiest violated by the government or were seen as natural human rights. The 1st Amendment does not actually provide someone any rights, but as I stated before, presents restrictions on government power that may prevent someone from engaging in the activity mentioned, such as freedom to worship or speak.

Any citizen of the United States has rights according to the Constitution and the Court’s interpretation of said document. The rights provided are shaped by the Court and can change over time, depending on the cases decided upon. For instance, what constitutes free speech has evolved over the years from any form of expression to certain actions that are not allowed. For instance in the Schenck v. United States (1919), the Court determined that distributing fliers that could encourage people to dodge the draft was a criminal offense, unlike simple expressing one’s ideas verbally, which was okay. In the Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) case, a KKK leader was found guilty of inciting violence because on a speech given in Ohio, a ruling that was overturned by the Court based on the fact that the speech did not specifically state any violent intentions but was abstract in nature. So as you can see, one’s “right” to any given freedom is not written in stone so to speak, but is subject to the changing interpretation of the original words.

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)

Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)