Saint Leo University Computer Forensics Discussion.
6 Active Learning Discussions Separate response for each discussion questionRespond to the stated question, including any relevance to and implications on the field of criminal justice. Be sure to discuss the issue(s) to which the question pertains. Remarks can include your opinion(s), but must be based on experience, research, and/or prior learning. Use this exercise to foster a rich dialogue with your colleagues about issues that are important to the field of criminal justice. Your initial posting must be no less than 200 words and is due no later than Thursday 11:59 PM EST/EDT. The day you post will count as one of your required four unique postings. You will also be required to post responses to at least threeof your colleagues’ initial postings. Responses must be no less than 100 words, be posted on at least three unique days, and are due no later than Sunday at 11:59 PM EST/EDT.Discussion 3Deputy Jones received a call to respond to a domestic disturbance in the parking lot of a local Wal-Mart; there have been possible shots fired. When Jones arrives, she observes a woman lying in the parking lot in what looks to be a pool of fresh blood. It also appears that here may be a gun on the ground next to the female body. The contents of her purse appear to be scattered all over the ground next to her. There is a small crowd of people standing around the body of the woman. You are detective unit #1, and Jones has requested that you respond to the scene as soon as possible. You have advised that you are en route to the scene, and will arrive in several minutes. Jones, a rookie, is confused and a bit excited, and is asking you on the radio what to do. As a seasoned detective, what would your advise Jones, the first responding officer, to do until you arrive? Are there concerns regarding the loss or destruction of evidence? Are there safety concerns? What should the first responding officer do upon arrival at a crime scene?Discussion 4Explain the relevance of Locard’s Exchange Principle to a crime scene investigator who may be in the process of searching for trace evidence at a violent crime scene. How should Locard’s theory influence the investigator as the search begins? Do you believe that Locard’s Principle is valid?Discussion 6Do you believe that a “full service crime lab” should necessarily have each forensic discipline physically contained within the lab? Given the economic hardships that most labs are now experiencing, are there disciplines that are not utilized as frequently as others, say that of questioned documents examiner, that could be outsourced? Is there an obvious danger in outsourcing the examination and processing of evidence that may be utilized in a criminal prosecution?Discussion 7Computers have brought a world of advancement to the forensic arena. The value of computers to law enforcement and criminal justice in general is without question. But, this is a double edged sword in a sense. Criminals are quickly converting computers into a tool for criminal enterprise and criminal activity. Computer crime overwhelms most local police agencies that are without resources to investigate and prosecute “cyber criminals.” Computers cross local, regional, and international jurisdictions. A criminal with a computer in Australia can easily defraud a citizen living in North Carolina. The authorities, often lacking resources to even locate such criminals, also face other overwhelming obstacles—namely jurisdiction. North Carolina authorities cannot prosecute a criminal in Australia. It is not practical to consider extradition for such crimes. Given this dilemma, how do you see the enforcement and prosecution of cyber criminals being resolved in the future? Is the cyber criminal logistically and practically immune from prosecution as long as their crimes cross international boundaries? What are your thoughts on this issue?Discussion 8The methodologies utilized in the collection, documentation and use of fingerprints, tire and footprint impressions as evidence is rather simple and unsophisticated when compared to other types of evidence methodologies such as DNA. In your view, does this lack of sophistication and modern technology in the process of recovering and analyzing this type of evidence reduce the perceived value of these older and simpler forms of evidence; or do they still have validity in the forensic arena?
1. I am not a fan of the three-strike law, I know someone that had 2 strikes and they were arrested for shoplifting and they were given their third strike. Not sure what happened to them after their arrest, but VP Harris was the DA in San Francisco. As for white-collar crimes I feel that they should get a fixed number of years for each victim or for the amount of money they stole, you can look at white-collar crimes as victimless crimes but just because the victims are not physically hurt does not reduce the pain that the victims are feeling. A lot of victims invested their life savings so that they would have more income when they retire. The strain theory covers white-collar crimes, what I found when I googled it is “Strain had a significant and negative effect on antitrust, bribery, and tax fraud, which signified that more strain was inversely related to these white-collar crimes. The relationship between strain and embezzlement, credit fraud, and mail and wire fraud were in the anticipated direction but were not significant.” I found this in the textbook, so not sure which one fits white-collar crime best “The rationality of offenders led Bradley Wright and his colleagues to look at the association of criminal propensity, perceived risks and costs of punishment, and criminal behavior. 2. ”The Three Strikes Law applies to criminals who are arrested and if two or more crimes are sentenced. Whether classified as serious or violent felonies (this also applies to young criminals, they can go from twenty-five years to life in the State Prison, this Three Strikes Act has things in its favor and others against it. The negatives of this law are that it can cause overcrowding in prisons or correctional facilities. The cost of house inmates is more. Now the positive could be that it helps keep criminals locked up out of our communities. In our country, the United States, we have many “white collar” criminals. One of them is the former president of this country and his children and collaborators. We all know that he has committed several cases of fraud. I honestly do not know why they have not yet done a formal trial. Perhaps they are still collecting more detailed information to make a trial with more convincing evidence (that is what I want to think). It would never end if I mention all the politicians who have committed fraud in Mexico; I wouldn’t have enough time to name them all. I am not so convinced by this Law, now depending on many factors about the criminal. For example, it is super important to do a mental health evaluation of the offender and analyze the severity of the crime; because I have known many cases of criminals that should never have come out. In my personal opinion, the criminals who do not deserve to be favored by that Law are child abusers (these types of criminals never rehabilitated). The scammers (white-collar criminals), murderers (psychopaths, sociopaths), they shouldn’t give them more time and opportunity to commit two more crimes, at the first one definitely a long sentence or a lifetime. That way, they won’t continue hurting and abusing more innocent children and people.
In his article “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits” (1970), Milton Friedman, the Nobel laureate in economics, argued for what was summed up in the title of his article: the social responsibility of businesses is simply and solely to maximise profits! In the following, different arguments for and against Milton Friedman’s statement will be presented and criticized. The inherent theories and principles will be presented as far as needed in order to discuss the extent to which this statement is true. Milton Freidman starts his famous article by describing the claim for a social responsibility of business by a “pure and unadulterated socialism”. For him, stating that business has a responsibility is looseness and lacks rigour. A company is only an artificial person and can not have responsibilities like an individual can. In this regard, only people in an organization, which means only the inÂdividual proprietors or the corporate executives, can have any social or moral responsibility. The managers of a company have a legal responsibility to manage the company in the best interests of the stockholders. As those shareholders’ first interest in investing their money in a business is to increase their wealth, then the managers’ sole responsibility is to maximize the profits for their shareholders. It is the legal and moral obligation of the managers to concentrate solely on serving their employers’ best interest, which means increasing profit. If the managers or the shareholders feel the need to fulfil any moral, social or ethical duties, they may very well devote some of their incomes or time to such activities. They are in doing so “acting as a principal, not an agent”. They are spending their own money and time, not those of the corporation they are working for and those of its shareholders. If an executive or a manager is fulfilling any social responsibility, this means that he will act in a way that is not in the primary interest of his employer, or worse, that is violating his duty of maximizing the profit. Any money or time that is spent by an executive in any kind of social action will not be spent to increase the shareholders’ wealth, to reduce prices or to increase wages. Therefore, this executive is spending someone else’s money, the shareholders’, the customers’ or the employees’. Furthermore, in doing so, the manager is actually imposing a tax to the shareholders, the customers and the employees. He is also deciding on how those tax proceeds are to be spent. This is for Freidman a governmental function. In doing so, executives are, as per Freidman, simultaneously legislators, execuÂtives and, jurists. They become what Freidman calls public employees, civil servants even though they are employees of a private corporation. It is therefore the government’s responsibility to impose taxes and determine the expenditures to be spent by any and all businesses in social activities. Freidman also recognizes that some businesses might act “socially”, contribute to chariÂties or provide amenities. This can be described hypÂocritically by social responsibility or social actions. The real and hidden reason for businesses in doing so is to gain a long-term profit from such actions, like attracting desirable employees, reducing wage bill or tax proceeds. To summarize his thoughts and in his tribute to an ideal free-market, Freidman believes that “no individual can coerce any other, all cooperaÂtion is voluntary, all parties to such cooperaÂtion benefit or they need not participate. There are no values, no “social” responsibilities in any sense other than the shared values and responsibilities of individuals. Society is a collection of individuals and of the various groups they voluntarily form. “ Some others do believe, all the same way, that the sole responsibility of a company is to compete to maximize profit. Adam Smith (As reported by The Economist, 2005) believes that benevolence is not necessary to advance the public interest. Rather, self-interest and profit-seeking is what brings humans to accomplish things, produce goods and services and thus benefit each others. It is false to think that profit-seeking fails to serve and advance the public interest, and that something else needs to be given back to the society to compensate for this profit-seeking. Keith Davis (1973) advances several arguments against the so called Corporate Social Responsibility. First of all, as per Freidman, the business function is an economic one, and the manager is the agent of the stockholders and has thus to maximize their profits. The second argument given by Davis is the costs of the social involvement. Indeed, many social goals do not have any economic outcome. Any business must spend with great caution its scarce resources, although sometimes very substantial, or it will sooner or later cause financial distress. Indeed, scarce resources will never self-renew, and must thus be spent in a way that guarantees at the minimum their recovery, if not gaining some premium. The author here cites some example metal foundries which could not meet the high costs of new pollution equipment and closed their doors. Another argument advanced by Davis is the lack of social skills of many businessmen. The author questions whether those businessmen, who are experts at generating profit, are well qualified to deal with social and public interests. Keith Davis also presents the argument of the dilution of the business’ primary purpose. A business involvement in social activities might dilute its primary focus on economic productivity, “divide the interests of its leaders, and weaken business in the market place, with the results that it would accomplish poorly both its economic and its social roles”. Furthermore, if a business spends resources in social programs, then these resources must be recovered, generally by increasing prices to the final consumer. In the same manner, if spending in social activities reduces the business’ productivity, this leads to higher production costs. If the business is operating in international markets with other firms that do not have to support such additional costs, the socially responsible ones will have a competitive disadvantage. Another argument is that the businesses that would support social activities will have additional social power. Davis states that “business is one of the two or three most powerful institutions in society at the present time”, giving extra social responsibilities to the business would result in an excessive concentration of power which will “reduce the viability of our free society.” In addition, Davis believes that although some people want businesses to be more responsible and socially involved, some don’t. This lack of agreement among the public may result in a lack of broad support for the businesses and thus social frictions and disagreements. Finally, one of the most relevant arguments given by Keith Davis is probably the fact that businessmen are not accountable to people, but only to their stockholders. It should therefore be “unwise” to give them responsibility in areas where they are not accountable! This idea of non-accountability of businessmen and managers is also used by Michael C. Jensen (2002). Jensen criticizes the stakeholder theory as stated by Freeman (1984), Clarkson Principles (1999) and others because it “contains no conceptual specification of how to make the tradeoffs among stakeholders that must be made. This makes the theory damaging to firms and to social welfare”. According to Freedman, as stated by Jensen (p. 254), “The â€¦ definition of ‘stakeholder’ [is] any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of an organization’s purpose”. This includes shareholders, customers, employees, suppliers, but also the people who might be affected directly or indirectly by the company’s business, through for example the damages to the environment, the layoffs, the corruption etc. Adopting the stakeholder theory brings businesses to be socially responsible. Jensen states that the managers who adopt this stakeholder theory will do what they want, spend the business’ money in social or other activities which are of no interest to the business or to the stakeholders, and will not be accountable for that. He thinks that the stakeholder theory must be inline with the long-term objective of value maximization. Only by keeping in mind that the value needs to be maximized that managers will find the good trade-offs between the different stakeholders. In a less extreme position than Freidman and the other authors cited above, Patrick Primeaux and John Stieber (1994), as well as Josie Fisher (2004) believe that social responsibility and long-term profit are not incompatible, and that being socially responsible could be converted into business opportunities. Orlitzky (2003), Russo and Fouts (1997) and Waddock and Graves (1997) (as cited by Husted and Salazar, 2006, p. 75) even found that corporate social performance has a positive impact on the firm’s financial performance! However, several different researches “employed a variety of theories and methodologies to study the potential relationship between corporate social responsibility activities and other traditional measures of a firm’s success” (Mahoney and Roberts, 2007). The results are confusing. Rim Makni, Claude Francoeur and François Bellavance (2009) found in their study “that socially responsible firms experience lower profits and reduced shareholder wealth, which in turn limits the socially responsible investments”. Bryan W. Husted and José de Jesus Salazar (2006) state on their side, that a business can not make maximum profit while investing in social responsibility activities. Rather, great overall social and financial output can be achieved only when businesses adopt a strategic approach, than an altruistic approach. Kant would have argued that even if the outcomes of such businesses’ actions might be beneficial to the society, the intention of those businesses is bad in the first place. As far as people are used as a means for those businesses to maximize their own profit, they are not ethical. All of the above are arguments that tend to support Freidman’s theory, which in turn states that a business must concentrate on maximizing profit. The less extreme approaches suppose that it is possible to conciliate social activities and profit maximization, but the latter must remain the primary goal of any business. Keith Davis, in his call for a social responsibility of businesses, puts forward the arguments that acting socially would serve the long-run self-interest of the business, enhance the public image and the viability of the business, avoid any government regulation, serve the stockholders interest and prevent any future social problems, thus before all maximizing the long-term profit for the shareholders. The whole issue of ethics and business ethics is a complex one. Companies are made up of people. Multinationals are made up of many different nationalities. Several opponents to Freidman’s theory do believe that businesses are part of society and as such they should reflect society norms. Companies, especially multinational ones, do have responsibilities in the world and have to be a positive influence. If a company is not ethical, then it will not survive as a company. Marjorie Kelly believes that maximizing profit and returns to shareholders isn’t a legitimate mandate. Indeed, she argues that the shareholders are in effect not financing the public corporations. The money that a shareholder invests in a public company does not go to the company itself but rather to other speculators. Such investments go to the public corporation only when new common stock is sold, which is a rare event. Actually only the founders, entrepreneurs and initial investors are bearing the risk associated with a business. 99% of the money which is invested further on in those companies goes to the original investors and not to the company. So in effect, an established business is not getting any money from the shareholders, who are rather exchanging their stocks and gambling on several fields. They are thus not the legitimate owners or funders of the business which in turn does not have to care about their desires more than those of other stakeholders and the community in general. Freidman, in his argumentation, states that only individuals in a business can have moral responsibility, but every business is made up of the decisions freely taken and approved collectively. The responsibility in such a decision process is thus not reduced to an individual, but rather it is a collective and shared responsibility among all the individuals who drive a business. As soon as the decisions are freely chosen and approved by the collection of individuals who run the business, they are all responsible for the outcomes of those decisions and are subject to moral evaluation. Furthermore, by seeking solely the profit maximization, some managers might allow or induce actions which may be illegal but are for sure immoral, like aggressive selling techniques or untrue publicity. They are, for this, acting in an immoral way and are responsible for that. Social responsibility refers to the obligations businesses have toward society. These are obligations that ought to be fulfilled; which indicates a normative use of the term (Josie Fisher, 2004). The author opposes to the classical economic view of Freidman and Levitt, the socioeconomic view that offers a broader account of social responsibility. “Business has obligations that go beyond pursuing profits and include protecting and improving society”. Boatright (2000), as cited by Fisher (2004, p.396), goes on to say that by implication businesses must be willing “… to forgo a certain measure of profit in order to achieve noneconomic ends”. Backman, also cited by Fisher (2004, p396), identified some examples of corporate social responsibility: “Employment of minority groups, reduction in pollution, greater participation in programs to improve the community, improved medical care, improved industrial health and safety”. The social responsibility of a business is then to comply with the behaviours and norms that society expects business to follow. This focus on the socioeconomic view is a normative discourse, as it emphasizes how society believes business ought to behave. Several studies and researches have been conducted in the last decades on the business ethics and on how companies ought to behave. Those studies concentrate on three main subjects inherent to today’s business: The globalization, the sustainability and the stakeholder theory presented earlier. Indeed, in recent times, multinational companies have grown rapidly and are yielding an excessive power. Those firms have also invaded multiple countries and cultures and are having an excessive economic and political power especially in smaller and poorer countries. They therefore are now responsible for their actions that might greatly impact such countries. Taking benefit of the poorness of local population to practice low wages or employ children is for sure a socially irresponsible action of those businesses. The second concept that has been studied in the recent ethics researches is sustainability. The sustainability is about the long-term effect of any business (or other) operation on any external factor like environment. As a matter of intergenerational equity, it is the businesses’ responsibility to consider the effects of their activities on the natural resources and the society and to repair any damages that can affect the future generations’ rights and equity. It is therefore the businesses’ responsibility to act sustainably. The third concept is the stakeholder theory, which has been presented earlier. The normative discourse of business ethics states that businesses ought to take into account the interests of all stakeholder groups. The different arguments presented so far range from those supporting Freidman’s statement that any business’ social responsibility is to solely maximize the profits to the shareholders, those who support that a business can and has the duty to be socially responsible and try to advance the public good as far as this will have a beneficial impact on the long-run value and profits of the company, and finally those arguments supporting that any business ought to act socially, sustainably, invest in programmes that benefit the public interest, and be morally responsible for the outcomes of its operations. The supporters of this last view believe that businesses have to adapt their objectives, from solely financial, to a higher level which is all of the stakeholders, the public, the environment and the future generations’ interest. The latter arguments are therefore normative, and do provide a view about what business ought to be. This is the aim of the business ethics philosophy. From a more practical point of view, and considering how the companies are acting in today’s world, it is true that many of them are advocates and practitioners of Corporate Social Responsibility. Many CEOs, especially in Europe, are convinced that basic capitalism fails to serve the public interest, and are promoting moral and socially responsible actions in their companies, like treating employees well, encouraging loyalty among customers and suppliers, avoiding any investment in unethical markets or countries that pay low wages and employ children, saving energy and recycling. However, no one doubts that this is not a standard yet. Social responsibility is not the norm today, and although some practitioners of Corporate Social Responsibility are getting some benefit, like a good public image, many of them are disadvantaged because of such social investments that some competitors do not support. Also, in the name of social responsibility, some multinational companies stopped their investments in poor countries where wages are very low. This is having a negative impact on those countries concerned that would have benefited from those investments. It is the aim of the business ethics discipline to study and propose what businesses ought to do and how they ought to behave. But I do think that it is the role of the governments to impose some basic moral principles and behaviours that must be respected by each and every business. Businessmen ought to behave morally but they will never all do so. A “critical morality of moralities” or a “Metaethics” has to be imposed by a higher institution – governments- in order to guarantee the basis for equity. Conclusion In this work, different arguments for and against the 40-year old but still so famous statement of Milton Friedman that “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits” have been presented and discussed. The normative discourse stating how business ought to behave is for sure morally and ethically against this statement and its arguments will sound both moral and logical for any mind. However, reality is far from the moral ideal. In my opinion, it is the governments’ responsibility to impose a minimum ethical code to be respected by businesses and individuals to guarantee the equity of rights and advance the public interest.
Saint Leo University Computer Forensics Discussion
Management Planning Paper Essay
Introduction Management is an important aspect in all business organization regardless of their size. It ensures proper utilization of the available resources in order to achieve a company’s goal, objective, mission and vision. Management has got various concepts, planning being the core upon which the rest should build on. Planning has got many merits on the company’s performances and failure to plan can have adverse effects eventually leading to collapse. In this paper, WorldCom is the subject of study where effects of planning and various factors that led to its failure have been looked at. Planning is very important in any organization as it helps one focus ahead and determines what actions to be implemented in the future. It falls among the four functions of management, the rest being directing, organizing and controlling. Planning is an on going process and because unavoidable factors will always be present to influence a company’s performance either positively or negatively, adjustment to the planned action is required and this can be termed as strategic planning. It gives a systematic way of determining when a given activity or task in the organization is going to be executed, which manner it is going to be done and the individual responsible for executing it. It is a basic function of management which enables adequate use of available resources in order to meet the demand. It ensures achievement of the set goals by use of facts and not guesses. Since objectives and goals are set in planning, alternatives are also availed by the same process so as to maximize the results of an organization at the long run. As a basic function of management, planning is vital for success of any company as it determines the current position and gives a way of reaching future expectations. It simplifies ways of achieving set goals in an organization. Strategic planning is vital as it enables establish a company’s strengths and weakness (Rane 2007). WorldCom organization is a company responsible for telecommunications. In 2000, this company failed in its services delivery due to lack of proper management plan which is essential in achieving a company’s goals and objectives. Get your 100% original paper on any topic done in as little as 3 hours Learn More Firstly, the management did not control the bad actions such as acts of fraud by those under their control. Infact, they joined hands in the perpetuation of these acts which are a detriment to success of a company. Under, proper management, those above such as the human resource managers and departmental directors are supposed to control when, how and who is responsible for certain action and that a proper coordination among the various departments is available. Lack of such responsibility saw this company which initially performed well go down. Secondly, information dispersion was not done in the right manner, there are several instances where transactions were carried out within minutes and the stakeholders had no idea or received very short notices of the same. Proper communication is important for it ensures satisfaction among the involved parties. For a company’s development, it has to be flexible and be in a position to adapt to the changes that occur; this is made possible by research on the desired technological advancements, this helps the company offer services well to the satisfaction of the customers. There should be proper consultations before making decision that is likely to affect the functioning of the organization at large. This is evident in WorldCom acquisition of Skytel, Inc and intermedia Inc. Other cases of decision making failures included the debt management, loan and benefit management, where the directors made these decisions on their own. Contrary to management plan, directors of WorldCom become self centered in that they were up to their own interests rather than the company’s wellbeing. This contributed to management failure which contributed greatly to the collapse of the organization. Individual responsibility and proper governance lacked in WorldCom which form the basics for strategic planning. It is for these reasons that the organization did not perform to the expectations (Worldcom et al, 2003). In planning, social responsibility requires an individual or a group’s engagement in an activity that is helpful to the society and not just to an individual. We will write a custom Essay on Management Planning Paper specifically for you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Usually, research and development are meant not to maximize profits in an organization but to serve the customers satisfactorily and in a safer manner. By WorldCom, not involving social responsibility, which is by not involving in actions that are beneficial to all, it did not succeed. Top officials engaged in fraud cases involving financial statement in order to gain not minding about customer’s interests. Apart from business responsibility, managers of a company may engage in activities such as conducting fund drives to collect money that can be used to help the needy in the society such as orphans, HIV/AIDS victims and the aged. In order to improve the corporate image of a company, management decisions that are right and good are made regardless of how unprofitable they might be. Ethics also call for actions that are aimed at bringing much profit to the company for the benefit of all the employees. Though some actions may be considered unethical to some individuals, they are undertaken so as to help a company gain advantage such actions may include employees’ relocation and retrenchment of others in order to maximize profits. In many cases, governments impose laws and regulations which a company must operate under; this affects its normal running as it must adhere to such imposed rules. In such cases deregulations has been employed in most companies WorldCom being among them (Thinking made easy, 2008). Several factors may have had an influence on the planning management of WorldCom, such may include; finance, lack of competent labor and inexperienced mangers. As a large company that deals with communication system, a lot of money was required for its proper running but this was unavailable leading to the company’s borrowing of loans. Lack of proper management of debts within the company led to misappropriation of funds resulting to greater debts accumulation. Human resource is vital for such a company in the production of the information system, this was in adequate in the company and the incoporaration of some system without the employee’s knowledge led to low outcome. Managers for this company were self-centered and they made most of the decision on their own with an aim of benefitting themselves which is contrary to management requirement. Lack of good communication protocol also resulted to the company’s failure. Conclusion In conclusion, for the success of any organization, it is important to have proper planning failure to which the company can easily collapse or fail to achieve its set goals. Without planning WorldCom did not perform well to the end and all companies are vulnerable if planning is not incorporated in its management process. Not sure if you can write a paper on Management Planning Paper by yourself? We can help you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Reference List Rane Sanjay .(2007). The Four Functions of Management: Foundation for All Management Concepts. Web. Thinking made easy. (2008). Web. WorldCom et al. Second interim report of dick Thornburgh, bankruptcy court examiner (2003). Web.
History Discussion Board
online homework help History Discussion Board.
You are going to choose Two of the following presidents: Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson James Polk or Abraham Lincoln You will then view the videos on the two presidents that you choose and also read the website on your chosen presidents: Thomas Jefferson: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.Thomas_Jefferson; Andrew Jackson: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.;; Abraham Lincoln: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.and finally James Polk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_K._Polk (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.You are going to compare your TWO presidents as leaders, with their domestic policy, with their foreign policy. Remember that Polk and Lincoln were also war presidents and should be evaluated as war leaders.You are going to rate these two presidents by the following categories: High, above average, average, below average or poor.Finally you are going to rate which of the early presidents from Washington to Grant as the best president and why.
History Discussion Board
Safe Medication management in the acute care setting
This task is mainly about responding to answers to given questions. Essay style is not required for this assessment. Respond in short answer format to each of the tasks outlined in the assessment description. Each short answer should include an introductory sentence to introduce the reader to the main body and a concluding statement at the end. Please use the current Australian guidelines such as NSQHS, Australia commission guidelines, NMBA standards, NMBA code of conduct, medication governance, medication safety assessment guidelines, and other peer-reviewed articles to support the answer. Have a look at the rubric thoroughly and meet the highlighted criteria. Please read the provided descriptions very carefully. Thank you.
Income and mortgages mind map
Income and mortgages mind map. Paper details Explore three different Internet sites for providers of home mortgages or consumer credit in the U.S. Part-1 Create a 350-word mind map in which you explain the differences in the mortgages or credit terms and which would be best for you. ** After you created the mind map, delete these lines** Part-2 Discuss the mortgage or credit terms you presented in the mind map in 175 to 350 words. This part should have two sections with the following headings: **After you completed the report, delete these lines** The terms of the mortgage or credit agreement Differences in the different choices for this type of credit agreementIncome and mortgages mind map