Get help from the best in academic writing.

Causes of the Crisis of Democracy

Twenty-five years ago, Michel J. Crozier, Samuel P. Huntington, and Joji Watanuki identified a “crisis of democracy” which painted the “bleak future for… government” Twenty-five years ago, Michel J. Crozier, Samuel P. Huntington, and Joji Watanuki identified a “crisis of democracy” which painted the “bleak future for … government” as an image of “the disintegration of civil order, the breakdown of social discipline, the debility of leaders, and the alienation of citizens” (Crozier 2). While this vision of the demise of democracy appears extreme, there has been a dramatic drop in the public’s trust in politicians and political parties in recent years which has resulted in a public disenchantment with the government. A growing scepticism among the British public has reversed the traditional deference to political elites, and voters are quick to voice their opinions on policy and politicians alike. The growing discontent with the negativity of political discourse, and a lack of confidence in the efficacy of the government suggests that voter disengagement and disenchantment is a threat to the stability of the government, and politicians must take note and reconnect with their public. Although many are quick to blame the apathy of voters or the sensationalist media on voter scepticism, research funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) has found that charges of misconduct against individual politicians are responsible for the decline in trust in the government and politicians (Denholm). Voter apathy is a result of the growing perceptions of scandal amongst the elite members of all the main political parties, resulting in a disinterest in politics in general and a negative estimation of politicians themselves. In response to this growing mistrust, a series of Parliamentary committees in the 1990s examined issues of political corruption, ethics, and abuse of campaign finance regulations. The committees found that perceptions of politicians as untrustworthy and self-interested derive in part from gossip regarding individual members of the elite, which raises public uneasiness about the standards of behaviour of the political elite. The Committee on Standards in Public Life, established by the Prime Minister in 1994, is evidence itself of the mounting concerns of the public. The introduction to the Committee’s first report states: We can say that conduct in public life is more rigorously scrutinised than it was in the past, that the standards which the public demands remains high, and that the great majority of people in public life meet those high standards. But there are weaknesses in the procedures for maintaining and enforcing those standards. As a result people in public life are not always as clear as they should be about where the boundaries of acceptable conduct lie. This we regards as the principle reason for public disquiet (Whetnall). The decline in trust and the corresponding drop in voter activity is not due to long-term social forces, but to recent political affairs such as allegations of sleaze in the early Nineties. However, it is impossible to pinpoint recent political scandals as the sole cause of the drop in the public’s trust of politicians. There is the perceived lack of difference in the major political parties after the general election of 1997, which contributed to lower voter turnout and general apathy. Giddens (1998) has argued that contemporary Britain requires a politics free from sharp ideological division and adversarial conflict as a response to global trends such as globalisation, detraditionalisation, increased reflexivity, and a new individualism (368). This ‘politics without adversary’ is an attempt to appeal to a broader range of voting public, but in reality has alienated much of the public and raises doubts regarding the genuineness of the party and politician ideology. In an interview conducted by Weltman and Billig (2001), a Conservative councillor suggests that the left/right distinction is not longer capable of mapping the social and political world because the contours of modern society have altered. Asked whether he generally thinks of other members of the council in terms of ‘left’ or ‘right’, he says that he ‘could have used those words with more sense ten years ago, both in terms of individual people, councillors, and in terms of attitudes’ (Weltman and Billig 373). One can infer from this interview that contemporary politics are breaking down into a non-adversarial form of politics, one with which the public cannot identify and cannot trust to enact significant change. Through an examination of the social and political events which have shaped the current public mistrust of politicians and political parties, one can deduce that much of the current disenchantment in politics and politicians is rooted in the absence of available political spaces for the public. There are few practices or institutions which are able to respond to issues of public interest and political disagreement, and to channel the public opinion in an effective and meaningful way. Currently, Britain is facing public disquiet over the prospect of joining the European Union and the coinciding single market economy, along with the protests against the involvement of Britain in the war in Iraaq. Whatever the reasons behind the drop in public confidence in the government, what is clear is that the British government needs to re-evaluate its relationship with the public in the light of an invasive media, new technology, a better educated public, and a pervasive culture of cynicism. New technology, such as the internet, offers politicians the opportunity to make a connection with out-of-touch voters and offers new ways of mobilising and recording popular opinion, an opportunity which few politicians have taken. We are entering a new era of politics, in which the old ideologies of ‘left’ and ‘right’, public and private, moral and immoral, are breaking down. The public, alienated from this new ‘politics without adversaries’ and incensed at the unethical behaviour of individual politicians, has expressed their loss of trust in the government. It remains up to the politicians themselves to win back the confidence of the public. Bibliography Crozier, M., A. Huntington, and J. Watanuki (1975) The crisis of democracy, New York: New York University Press Denholm, A. (2004) Public trust in politicians hit by sleaze claims, The Scotsman, Tuesday 25 May. Giddens, A. (1998) The third way: The renewal of social democracy. Cambridge: Polity. Pharr, S. (2000) A quarter century of declining confidence, Journal of Democracy vol. 11, no. 2, April: pp. 5-25. Weltman, D. and M. Billig (2001) The political psychology of contemporary anti-politics: A discursive approach to the end-of-ideology era, Political Psychology vol. 22, no. 2: 367- 382. Whetnall, A. (1995) The management of ethics and conduct in the public service [online]. Case Study released by the Cabinet Officer, Office of Public Service, United Kingdom. Available from: [Accessed 15 March 2005]
Fire at The Middle Floor of A Government Building in Downtown Riyadh Case Scenario.

I’m working on a geographic information project and need support to help me understand better.

IntroductionIn this activity you must define your own scope of analysis in response to the security problem assigned to you (CILO 1), identify factors relevant to your scope of analysis, evaluate their relationship, & propose a GIS-testable hypothesis (CILO 2), defend a chosen method, collect available data, and generate output using GIS software (CILO 3), and finally you will report on the results (CILO 4).TaskEach student will be given an open-ended security scenario. Follow the process below and answer questions on your problem based on the criteria given in the CILOs.ProcessStep 11. Find your assigned security scenario from your section pdf file.2. Open attached Portfolio Project Template. This will be your Project Portfolio document.3. Write down your assigned security-related problem.Step 21. Write a title: GIS Scope of Analysis2. Answer the following questions: i. Describe the background of the problem: you should be able to convert a vague problem statement or observation into a detailed and concrete description of relevant variables, properly contextualized in terms of both geography and policy. ii. Finding similar examples that have been researched in the past and using security science theory to create a framework for analysis. iii. Compare potential GIS analytical approaches to define your supported GIS question.Step 31. Write a title: Formulating a Hypothesis2. Answer the following questions: i. Identify factors (be they variables, parameters or whatever) pertinent to the scope of analysis. ii. create a statement proposing explanatory relationships should be constructed that is fully explained and clearly links back to the original problem and scope of analysis.Step 41. Write a title: Test Hypothesis2. Select and describe a method of GIS analysis that can be implemented through software3. Describe the necessary data from appropriate data sources that you would need to make a mapStep 51. Write a title: Propose Action Plan2. Propose action plan supported by your GIS analysis and relevant security science theory3. Discuss local (Saudi) implementation of your action plan4. Give references to international best practices that support your planStep 61. Upload completed document with four (4) titles and questions answered to Blackboard.AssessmentGrading is by rubric and is 15% of final grade.Due11:59 pm 7 December 2020SCENARIO : *There is a fire on the middle floor of a government building in downtown Riyadh*
Fire at The Middle Floor of A Government Building in Downtown Riyadh Case Scenario

Share this: Facebook Twitter Reddit LinkedIn WhatsApp Who, or What, is to Blame for Obesity in America? Introduction As of 2015, the number of obese people in the world surpassed the number of malnourished people. This issue has been expanding outside of America and it’s one that affects one third of children and adolescents ages six to nineteen. Diseases such as diabetes, dyslipidemia, heart disease, hypertension, and many others go directly hand in hand with obesity and affect millions of Americans every year. Fast food restaurants take a lot of the blame for the rise in obesity in the last fifty years in the United States, but is it really their fault? Eating fast food has been tied to many diseases including obesity and this is a difficult train to turn around because nowadays, traditional family dinners are being replaced by fast food. The average American eats out, instead, of making a home-cooked meal, five times per week. At McDonald’s, the Quarter Pounder with Cheese meal with a medium Coke contains over 1,200 mg of sodium which is more than half of the daily salt intake that’s recommended by dietary guidelines. The real question that America is struggling to answer is whether obesity is an outbreak of terrifying proportions. If you look at a picture of a large crowd from forty or fifty years ago, you’ll realize that there are almost no obese people in the photo. Researchers are struggling to answer one question, what changed? Should people who are obese blame themselves for their weight problems? Many Americans believe in personal responsibility, in fact, much of our nation’s obesity epidemic comes down to personal responsibility because if people ate less and exercised more, as a nation we would be much healthier. Even though Americans live in a highly individualistic culture, they have the unnatural talent to automatically blame others first, instead, of themselves. New studies suggest that our health falls to be a victim to this bias because 94% of Americans agree that people are responsible for their own weight issues. Many Americans underestimate how large this obesity epidemic is. “If you don’t see the role of the junk food industry in causing the problem and in continuing to maintain the problem, you’ve missed a big part of the diagnosis,” says Daynard, who is leading a soda industry lawsuit. The Guardian columnist George Monbiot has a few theories of what might have been the cause in the rise of obesity such as people are eating way more than they used to, there’s been a huge decline in the amount of exercise Americans do, and the lack of manual labor in the workforce also plays a large part. Although the idea of creating public policies to help reduce obesity and encourage healthy eating sounds quite attractive, it may not be as effective as policymakers would like. Personal Responsibility It’s not the point to blame the entire fast food industry because personal responsibility is a huge factor in deciphering what is to blame for obesity in America. Since the boom of the fast food industry came at a time of major malnutrition in the United States, huge companies are aggressively trying to sell their food to people who don’t necessarily need it. People can’t be forced to make the right decision, but consumers take much of the responsibility for their weight and the fact that every two out of three Americans are either obese or overweight. Food companies should have offered healthier options long ago. For many people, the party that is responsible is the obese people themselves. In the United States, Americans are known for being an individualistic society, so it’s hard to believe that they would put this responsibility on themselves instead of blaming others. This idea follows the false perception that obesity is strictly a self-inflicted disease when, in fact, obesity is a multifactorial disease, which means, it’s caused by many things. Many metabolic, genetic, and psychological factors cause obesity which contributes to more weight gain and a higher resistance to weight loss. Certain prescription and non-prescription medications can also slow a person’s metabolism which can then stimulate hunger and contribute to overeating habits. People today are no longer referring only to the public for failing to move their appetite from sugar. Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that more than one in three adults are currently obese. American waistlines keep expanding despite an abundance of evidence that shows what an unhealthy lifestyle that is. Unfortunately, today, people still don’t know what the true consequences of eating fast food are. Monbiot has turned to numbers in nutrition because what Americans eat has massively changed. “We buy half as many eggs in 1976, but a third more breakfast cereal and twice the cereal snacks; half the total potatoes, but three times the crisps,” says Monbiot. Lack of Science One reason why food companies didn’t offer healthier options before was because the science behind it wasn’t there. For years the understanding of the way food was made was greater than the understanding of nutrition, so healthy things like whole grains were left in the dust and things such as fatty acids were embraced. Dr. George Blackburn of Harvard’s Medical School says, “we didn’t even put nutrition in the medical curriculum except in the last 30 or 40 years.” Scientists are just now feeling a responsibility to be cautious of people’s healthy eating habits. Even when big companies succeed, they are still in danger to scientific surprises that can make or break a business. When these companies finally determined that saturated fat was one of the enemies, they had to reformulate their products. The lack of science can’t completely explain the growing portions of food, from the size of a medium soda at the movies to McDonald’s supersized burgers, and everything in between. Some of the fast food chains have launched family sized portions of some of their food options. This brings up a good question, did Americans eating habits change food companies, or did its new products change Americans? Many Americans are angered by the fact that the amount of sugar and other unhealthy ingredients in our food have skyrocketed since the 1960s and 70s. By 1962, the food industry had recognized that high sugar intake could also increase cholesterol levels. Around this same time, the Sugar Research Foundation paid one researcher $6,500 (which is about $50,000 today) to write a review article that downplayed the connection between heart disease and sugar. How is the fast food industry supposed to react when science is practically threatening its businesses? In the industry of sugar, the companies within would much rather try and confuse the public with its “healthy” products. The Sugar Association had pointed out that sugar doesn’t have a direct connection or role in heart disease. Researches have acknowledged that many companies are in difficult decisions because they need to sell food that people will buy and public health isn’t necessarily always on their radar. In the past, tobacco companies have been accused of tampering with nicotine and some say that fast food restaurants are doing the same. As of today, there has been no company that has admitted to manipulating the ingredients in the food that they sell. Researchers from the University of Illinois has sought out to better understand how the American public places blame when it comes to obesity. Despite the opportunity to blame the government, restaurants, food manufacturers, farmers, parents, etc, people overwhelmingly choose individuals. The fact that researchers need to research this is quite astounding because it suggests several things about how the country views its own obesity problems. Research that’s funded by the industry itself can greatly advance human health and if the funding of the research is honest in communicating its findings to the public, regardless of whether the products come out looking bad or good. A survey was given out by Clear Voice Research whose panelists are quite representative of the U.S. population in terms of socioeconomic characteristics, region, and gender. The main question on this survey was, “Who is primarily to blame for the rise in obesity?” Results show that 80% of people believed individuals are either primarily, or somewhat responsible for the rise in obesity and parents are the second people to blame coming in at 59%. Ellison claimed that the findings from doing this survey was very unexpected. Marketing In the article Obesity and Fast Food by Ananya Mandal, fast food consumption costs were nearly $164.8 billion in 2010 and that was a 3% rise from 2009. Studies have shown that people eat more when presented with a variety of food or flavors. For example, you are less likely to eat a plain baked potato than you are to eat one that’s loaded with butter, sour cream, cheese, and bacon. This is thought to be true especially with the way cereal has more complex flavors and varieties, this gets consumers to eat more of their product. Nowadays, dinner entrees served at restaurants are typically paired with two and up to four sides. Today, the world is a place where fast food restaurants are supersized, GMO’s and artificial substitutes are common in daily diets, and where healthy foods come with a big price tag. Price is also an important variable in determining the cause for obesity. In a world full of inconsistent grocery prices, fast food restaurants have managed to keep their low prices with great consistency. For most Americans, at this point, it’s an easy choice between cheap and convenient fast food or expensive and time-consuming meal preparation. This choice is clearly disastrous as seen from the rising obesity rate. Everywhere, the food people are tempted to eat is staring right back, waiting to be purchased by those who fall for its advertising. Fast food chains are putting $36 billion every year into directing consumer’s decisions to favor eating out instead of staying in. Many of these efforts are going towards making, and marketing, healthier menu items. “Obesity is in the news every day, so it would be hard to say that people are unaware of the policy initiatives in place to reduce U.S. obesity rates,” said co-researcher Brenna Ellison. Americans are generally seen as people who can endure pain without showing their feelings and they always believe that they know best and don’t like to be told what to do, let alone what to eat. Companies try everything they can to even persuade what kids want to eat in every aspect from child-friendly marketing of sugary cereals to ads with funny cartoon characters. Kids are only concerned with what gets their attention, even if it is a cheap plastic toy inside of a ready box with a golden M. According to Sarah Muntel in the article Fast Food – Is it the Enemy? she exclaims, “Coincidentally, that 33.8% of the U.S. population is affected by obesity and 19% of children and adolescents are also affected.” This is because most fast foods out there are being targeted towards children. Some of these claims are stereotypes and not every food company is living up to them. General Mills is the nation’s number two cereal maker and now makes all its cereals from whole-grain flour and Pepsi devotes two thirds of its revenue to finding healthier ingredients for its products. Fast Food and its Convenience The term fast food is defined as “a type of mass-produced food designed for commercial resale and with a strong priority placed on ‘speed of service.’” To make speed the priority, fast food chains made sure it wasn’t an inconvenience to the customers that were short on time. The quickest form of “fast food” is pre-cooked meals that are kept ready prior to a customer arriving to ensure that waiting time is reduced to just seconds. Although there are many foods that can be cooked fast, the term “fast food” was coined as a commercial term limited to food that is sold in a store or restaurant to be taken out or taken away. Food accessibility is a huge component in the industry’s role in obesity. The only inconvenience in getting fast food is the short wait you must go through which is no comparison to the tedious and time-consuming process of grocery shopping and then preparing a meal. In the United States, drive-through restaurants became quite popular in the 1950s. Many franchises of fast food chains have standardized food that is shipped to each restaurant from a central location. For the sake of convenience, people in the U.S. consciously and consistently eat food they know is bad, just to save time. Americans continue to consume empty calories and other food that doesn’t count as “nourishing.” Past research has shown that many of the food policies that are already in place and that are designed to improve food choices, such as requiring calorie information on restaurant menus and taking sugar-sweetened drinks don’t always produce the best results. This leads to another question, why aren’t consumers responding to increased calorie information on menus? Conclusion It’s no question that obesity and overweight rates in the U.S. are much higher than they were twenty, or even thirty years ago, so it’s not surprising that health officials are actively searching for solutions. Fast food is quite often construed as the main force behind America’s obesity problem because the amount of sugar has obviously gone up and whole foods have decreased. Companies like Pizza Hut and Starbucks spend billions keeping their products on our minds and in our mouths whether its coupons in the mail, television commercials, or hearing about the chain from a friend or family member. Many experts have concluded that the solution for this problem is simple. Everyone is a part of this ever-growing problem and it is going to take everyone to step off the obesity bandwagon and make a difference. Everyone would all love to blame somebody other than themselves, but the truth of the matter is that it’s each person’s own responsibility, whether they choose to eat the unhealthy food or not. 90% of policymakers are blaming the obese for not having the personal motivation to do something about their weight problem. Policymakers need to be realistic about the solutions they are proposing and trying to implement because if people don’t buy into them then they need to be reevaluated and that takes more time. It is important to remember that obesity isn’t always a self-inflicted condition and that it’s a condition with many factors that are quite complex, and it is a valid medical condition which deserves a valid medical analysis. If the food industry is the way it is today, obesity will not be able to be eliminated, or even fought, instead it will continue to thrive exponentially as it has been for the last sixty years. Sugar tastes great and everyone can agree on that, but companies need to remember that if they can’t survive by honestly selling their products, they might want to investigate a different industry. Bibliography Cosgrove-Mather, B. (2006, March 20). The Blame Game and Obesity in America. Retrieved November 17, 2018, from Hofmann, F.,

Park The Social Condition that Influenced the Decision Making and The Impacts Ques

Park The Social Condition that Influenced the Decision Making and The Impacts Ques.

Group Decision-Making people working in groups often make worse decisions than people working individually. This finding is even more disturbing when we realize that the American legal system relies on the power of group decision-making (e.g., juries) for determining the guilt or innocence of people on trial. This unit, your task is to examine the influence of the group in jury deliberations. If you have served on a jury, you may use your own experience as a basis for the analysis; if you have not served on a jury:Watch the video clip “Twelve Angry Men (Links to an external site.)”orRead the 12 Angry Men (Links to an external site.) movie review.Use this example as the basis of your analysis.Reflecting on your jury experience (or the jury experience depicted in “Twelve Angry Men”), answer the following questions:What social conditions influenced the decision-making process? Explain the impact of each.Were the pressures for group harmony implicit or explicit?How did groupthink influence the situation?How is minority influence used to change majority opinion?Is group decision-making more or less efficient than individual decision-making?Is group decision-making more or less accurate than individual decision-making?How can we change the social circumstances surrounding jury deliberations to reduce the influence of group dynamics?
Park The Social Condition that Influenced the Decision Making and The Impacts Ques

Write about an experience you have had in nature where you have felt music was part of the experience.

best assignment help Write about an experience you have had in nature where you have felt music was part of the experience. Your essay is to be one page, single spaced. Describe the place and why the experience reminded you of music, and if you wish, give the title and perhaps the lyrics of the musical piece.

As you grow and learn more about leadership, thinking about your own skill sets and goals is important. Start thinking

As you grow and learn more about leadership, thinking about your own skill sets and goals is important. Start thinking. As you grow and learn more about leadership, thinking about your own skill sets and goals is important. Start thinking about your own leadership goals, such as developing leadership skills, learning about specific leader characteristics, and how to develop your leadership plan. For the next few weeks, you will start to develop your own Leadership Style Action Plan, applying knowledge of leadership principles to personal and workplace situations. Prior to starting your Leadership Style Action Plan, review the following article: 800-1,000 Words Then, respond to the following: – Based on your research, the course materials, and what you have reviewed, choose 1 leader whom you admire who shares a few of your same leadership traits. Explain these similarities. – Identify 1 leadership theory that matches your style, and explain the key leadership concepts of that theory. – What did you already know about your leadership style? – What is 1 new thing that you learned about your leadership style? Be sure to provide APA citations and references to support your work.As you grow and learn more about leadership, thinking about your own skill sets and goals is important. Start thinking

Capella University Sales Force in Small Travel Business Discussion

Capella University Sales Force in Small Travel Business Discussion.

Write 750 wordsFirms strive to achieve competitive advantage and gain customer loyalty by working with customers and getting to know them. This allows companies to better serve the needs of their customers. Building these customer relationship management systems requires an information technology infrastructure that collects the information and provides management the needed analytics to understand the customer. Many firms have realized a need before the customer does. Take Uber or Travelocity. Both of these firms are giving the customer control and convenience, integrated with the use of technology.Building CRM capabilities takes time and requires a data warehouse for the analytics. Travelocity started with the building blocks to learn about their customers and the best ways to deliver targeted market campaigns to them. In addition, Travelocity can respond quickly to offers from their suppliers. For example, at 8 AM, a major airline offered travel agencies a special fare from Los Angeles to San Juan, Puerto Rico. Travelocity quickly scanned their customers’ browsing behavior, pulled the e-mail addresses of 30,000 people in the Los Angeles area who had browsed, but not bought, tickets to the Caribbean, and then generated an e-mail message to them. The response rate was incredible—with 25 percent of the recipients who had been e-mailed booking flights. This was an effective campaign measured by the response rate or take rate, as well as a highly efficient one as measured by the ROI from the profit on sales of those extra tickets.Assignment ExpectationsGo to and review their solutions.Write a report in which you identify a business that you, as an entrepreneur, will start. Describe what the business does, the services it sells to its customers, and how you could use to jump-start the business. Prepare a diagram of the business processes in your firm, showing how you will use
Capella University Sales Force in Small Travel Business Discussion