Expert Answers

Reading material and example included. Bobsville attachment will be added once assignment is accepted Instructions Assignment 8 Instructions: Mass Casualty Incident Specific Annex After reading the Comprehensive Preparedness Guide, write a Mass Casualty Incident Specific Annex describing the response to a high amount of casualties during a disaster in Bobsville. Your annex should: Identify the departments and agencies designated to perform response and recovery activities and specifies tasks they must accomplish Outline the integration of assistance that is available to local jurisdictions during disaster situations that generate emergency response and recovery needs beyond what the local jurisdiction can satisfy Specify the direction, control, and communications procedures and systems that will be relied upon to alert, notify, recall, and dispatch emergency response personnel; warn the public; protect residents and property; and request aid/support from other jurisdictions and/or the Federal Government (including the role of the Governor's Authorized Representative) Provide coordinating instructions and provisions for implementing Mutual Aid Agreements (MAAs) Describes the logistical support for planned operations. Write a minimum of 2 pages on the function and its contents. You may reference the Comprehensive Preparedness Guide and other agencies' documents as reference but you must write your Annex for Bobsville specifically. You will use this document in future classes and execute this plan so help yourself by being thorough. EDMG Gen-AI Specific Policy: Before beginning this assignment, be sure to read this EDMG Gen-AI Specific Policy. The link will provide you with the information needed to properly use AI. Please create your response in a Microsoft word document, and upload as an attachment for submission. Pages are to be double-spaced utilizing Verdana 12 point font text and 1 inch margins. The page requirements are exclusive of your reference list and cover page. Use the following file name example when uploading your Word document as an attachment: YourlastnameEDMG220-MassCal.docx

This week we encountered the vast history known as Prehistory, and the foundational civilization of Mesopotamia. For this week's discussion, there are three things to consider. 1) What can be learned from Prehistory? What is left for us, and how do we interpret the meaning of them? 2) Why does Mesopotamia the beginning of History? What important events happened that reinforce this belief? 3) Our sources this week are the Hammurabi Code and The Epic of Gilgamesh. Despite only looking at excerpts (short versions) of them, why are they important? What aspects of Prehistory and Mesopotamia, especially, do we still have today?

Essay Question: You are a U.S. Senator questioning a nominee for U.S. Secretary of State about the difference between democracies and authoritarian regimes. The nominee states the following: “It’s so easy and so very simple to distinguish democracies from authoritarian regimes: a) All democracies are just like us, the U.S. Everydemocracy in the world practices presidentialism with separation of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, and they have elections using the single-member district (SMD) first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system. There simply is no other style of democracy in the world. Every democracy follows the U.S. format. b) All authoritarian regimes are exactly the same. Everyauthoritarian regime is ruled by one dictator who is called the “supreme leader”. There are absolutely no other types of authoritarian regimes in the world. Also, there will never be a legislative branch, judicial branch, or any use for elections at all in authoritarian regimes. That’s it!! There’s nothing more to this!!” Is the nominee right for both a) and b)? Or are things more complex in the world? Write an essay in which you evaluate all of his claims using your superior knowledge of comparative politics. Discuss and explain in detail everything that you think the nominee missed or overlooked. The most important thing is to really, really explain your thinking. The more evidence from class (like specific class concepts, examples, discussions, videos, etc.) that you can include to support your argument, the better you will do on the essay. You must address both a) and b) in your essay. You must use the things that we covered in lecture in your essay. If your essay is missing relevant info from lecture, there will be substantial point deductions. Please upload your essay to Canvas under the “Midterm Exam Part 2” assignment. Please follow the instruction as displayed under “Midterm Exam Part 2” on Canvas to correctly upload your essay. Your essay must be an actual file that can be uploaded (Microsoft Word document, PDF document, etc.) to Canvas. I will not accept links to your documents stored on sharable drives, cloud storage, etc. Beware: once you upload your essay, it automatically goes through an online plagiarism check against other essays submitted for this class, for other classes at ELAC and elsewhere, as well as material found on the internet. If your essay gets a “plagiarism alert”, it will not be tolerated and will require further disciplinary action in accordance with ELAC policy.

Critical Policy Brief European Integration You will investigate a key tension within a European-wide policy or European Union action, within a specific state, or related to a state’s efforts to attain a “European” membership. You will present this tension by evaluating the relevant concern, highlighting any existing policy, action, or programme that requires review, and providing recommendations for policy action. Assessment: 1) Organization and Structure – Paper follows a proper structure and logically walks reader through evidence, arguments, and recommendations. Effective use of headings will do a lot of work here! 2) Quality of Evidence – The paper offers comprehensive and critical evidence, demonstrating a wide reading of relevant literature. Quality of sources and effective citation matter. 3) Content – Demonstrates clear understanding of concepts and a firm understanding of the policy area, key institutions, and core challenges. Ensuring that you are correctly applying facts and theory is important. 4) Argumentation – There are discernable arguments, offering sound insights that logically connect the argumentation to recommendations. Arguments go beyond simple description and provide critical insight and analytical originality, creating new arguments or relating facts in new ways. 5) Findings and Recommendations – Findings and recommendations follow logically from Analysis and are supported by evidence and argumentation. Recommendations are either concrete or offer clear research paths to pursue. Logical flow from start to finish - building arguments toward conclusions - is key. 6) Presentation – Presentation through a logical and coherent structure, evidence of research and proper citation, correct grammar, and effective communication are key elements of a complete assignment. The briefing paper should be max 2,500 words, inclusive of title, abstract, and citations. This is a short writing assignment, brevity (the use of concise & assertive language) is your friend!! Remember! Written assignments are expected to be printed with standard 1-inch margins, in a standard 12pt font, with page numbers. A correct and consistent citation style is required (Chicago in-text or footnote preferred). You are welcome to use news media, NGO reports, EU reports, etc. alongside scholarly literature. Exception, please note: You may choose a more creative submission for this assessment using a more traditional “policy brief” layout. Please reach out to me if you are interested in this approach. Max 2500 words, follow the formatting guidance from the handout or refer to the Examples for a stylized Policy Brief submission. Remember to take screenshots of your source material - the first page is the most important showing the source, title, and author. Paste the screenshots into a word document and upload supplementary to your Policy Brief, or simply add them to the end of your policy brief following the Works Cited page.

Ensure your essay falls between 700 and 1000 words and incorporates key concepts from the readings to construct a compelling argument addressing the assigned topic. Your essays will be checked by Turnitin to ensure originality. You can use outside sources as well. Please respond to one of the following sets of questions. What human rights issues do you consider of greatest concern to the international community? How would you evaluate the International Criminal Court (ICC), humanitarian intervention, and the responsibility to protect (R2P) in effectively dealing with massive human rights violations? What efforts have been made to address climate change through mitigation and adaptation? What obstacles are there to such mitigation and adaptation efforts and what trade-offs may be required to overcome these obstacles? In what ways have human security issues (population, migration, and global health) affected states and state sovereignty? To what extent does the need to manage human security issues strengthen international cooperation, multilateralism, and international institutions?

Investigative Paper: Federalist Papers: Nos. 9, 10, 39, 51 Find an item in a newspaper, periodical, or current academic journal that relates to the assigned readings for Week 3 on The Federalist Papers. Apply the analysis of the week’s reading to the item and explore the themes, ideas, issues, or controversies presented in the article you select against the readings assigned for the module. The content of your investigative paper may overlap with but cannot be the exact same as the topics of your discussion posts. The focus of your paper is, in part, up to you. Your paper should focus on some aspect of that week’s readings and offer an analysis of some facet of those readings. While the investigative paper is open to discussion and your opinion, you should provide evidence and support for your arguments. Papers should include direct references to the assigned text, but should not be summaries of the weekly readings. Simple summaries of the readings will not receive credit. Additionally, do not use a summary or critical evaluation of the assigned reading. Instead, focus on a particular issue that arises in both the assigned reading and the outside article of your choice. Alternatively, you can use the outside article as an example of or foil to the ideas presented in the assigned reading. What ideas in the reading were of interest to you or that you see in the world around you? Find an outside article that explores these similar themes (or contrasts with them) and evaluate the assigned reading in light of it. Your answer should show a thoughtful consideration of the question, demonstrate your understanding of the material, and be supported with evidence from the text (including proper citation). Your writing should be clear and concise. These papers are not to be treated as “book reports.” Avoid long introductions. You should begin by directly addressing the question and/or providing a “road map” for your paper. You should include references and quotes from these authors when necessary to show evidence for your argument. With this in mind, do not over quote or pack your paper with dense quotes. Quotes should not be used without direct connection to or explanation of ideas. They should not introduce or conclude your paper or any given paragraph within your paper. Minimum word count: 900 words Please use standard formatting which includes 12-point font and 1-inch margins. Please remember to number the pages of your paper. Support your answer with evidence from the text and include proper citation where appropriate. Use in-text citations and be sure to include a reference list at the end of your paper. Do not use footnotes or endnotes for your citations and references.

This paper will be about an operational rule or practice of a political system outside the U.S that you find interesting and that you think the U.S. should consider adopting. You will describe the rule or practice and evaluate the wisdom of adopting it here. Specifically, you should describe the benefits you think it would bring but also the costs it might impose, and you should consider what difficulties might be involved in adapting the rule or practice to fit the U.S. system. Your focus should be on improving how the political system operates, not certain substantive policies it produces. If you're not sure, please check with me in advance. I will be looking for sophisticated reasoning and use of ideas from class, both in your discussion of the large goals that would (or would not) be well served by the reform you're considering and in your discussion of why you think the reform would have (or not have) certain effects. You will need to do some independent research to identify a rule or practice from another country that interests you, but most of the paper should be your own thinking. I would expect papers to be about 6-8 pages. The format of citations doesn't matter to me, but it is essential that you clearly cite any sources for information you didn't know or ideas or language you are incorporating in your paper

Please respond to each post. 150 words response for each. Post 1: Art In analyzing the two different ideologies of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, both offer unique points of view in the formation of a governing document. The Federalists outline their support for the Constitution in The Federalist Papers. As the new Constitution called for a more centralized system of government (in contrast to the Articles of Confederation), the Federalists saw this as a necessity in order to ensure stability and unity of the new nation. In contrast, Letters of Brutus I displays Anti-Federalist sentiment against the current proposal of the Constitution. Brutus raises concerns about the risks of consolidating too much power at the federal level, arguing that this could lead to tyranny. It would then have the ability to infringe upon the liberties of individuals and states. In the characterization of the American people, both John Jay and Brutus offer their own unique depictions. John Jay describes them as being united. They are of common ancestry, cultural values, and experiences. They are also fond of the same principles of government. Jay believes that this shared identity provides the foundation for a strong and unified nation that is able to sustain a centralized government. He lays out these qualities as strong reasons why the nation is capable of being large while also having the ability to be unified. Brutus, however, lays out a different argument. He instead argues that the American people are too diverse geographically and culturally. The American people could not possibly all be united and have the capability of having a centralized government that could be responsive enough. In his view, more state autonomy would serve the people best. I believe both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists offer plausible arguments and legitimate concerns in their own respects. In order to be united as a nation, there must be a centralized unifying force that binds the country as a whole. In Federalist 6, Hamilton supports this idea by warning that a lack of unity could lead to conflicts among divided states. Without a strong federal government to maintain order and stability, these conflicts could fracture the nation. On the other hand, Brutus' concern is that human nature will eventually lead the federal government to undermine the states. Brutus highlights specific provisions in the Constitution as potential tools that are ripe for abuse in the consolidation power. These provisions could allow the federal government to expand its authority beyond its intended limits. The debate between these two competing ideas reflects intriguing questions about balancing unity and diversity, as well as the risks and benefits of centralizing power. While the Federalists offer a vision of stability through unity, the Anti-Federalists are wary against overreach and the erosion of liberties. Both perspectives are valuable in understanding the challenges of governance even to this day. Post 2: Catherine Brutus 1 was written by an Anti-Federalist under “Brutus”, and Federalist 2 was written by John Jay under “Publius.” John Jay had a vision of a more unified country and thought that a Strong Central Government will make America stronger since everyone may share the same interests if the people already share the same language, religion and desire for freedom. He believes that the ratification of the Constitution will not only preserve this unity but it will strengthen the nation. The thing about Jay’s vision of this perfect unified country is very ideal, but it was somewhat naïve and unrealistic. Sure everyone in America wanted freedom, but we can’t ignore the fact that the colonists came from different countries in the world. Also due to the geographical differences between the states, the climate is different and the agricultural industries for each state will be different from one another. The differences completely outweighed all the things that made everyone “the same.” As much as the people may share a common interest of having a strong country, I think Jay was not correct that the people are similar enough when it comes to religion, morals, character and language. Maybe during that time that could be slightly true, but that way of thinking will not work today in Modern America with it being a huge melting pot. Brutus 1 opposes the ratification of the Constitution and strongly emphasizes that each state need to have power of their own over a centralized Federal government. Brutus didn’t think that checks and balances will work, and thought that the diversity and the different regions that the states are located in plays a huge part in the needs and wants of the people which built a strong case to where a centralized government will not work because the needs of the people will not be well represented. Brutus also brought up the downsides of The Necessary and Proper Clause as well as the Supremacy Clause, because this can open doors to tyranny, authoritarianism and abuse of power. This is where I think Hamilton’s view was the “meet in the middle” kind of view. Both Hamilton and Brutus acknowledged that strong ambitions from a strong central government may not be the best thing, but at the same time checks and balances can fix this problem. While Hamilton also believes in the need for unity and a strong federal government, he made it clear that the federal government still needs to preserve the power of the states. He also made a great point, that ratification of the Constitution was a must, because they need to get rid of the Articles of Confederation, if the ratification does not happen it will for sure lead to the dissolution of the Union. It may not be perfect, but the country needed a constitution and it can be more good than bad. But he did lay out some of the negative sides and acknowledged it. I think Hamilton and Brutus found a lot of common ground and made some really great points. Post 3: Grace Brutus I puts a large amount of power and influence in the American citizens. He acknowledges the “fountain of power” (Brutus I) that is the American people. New found citizens of the United States are entrusted with preserving freedoms for generations to come. Along with those points, Brutus I highlights the diversity of the American population. The country is blanketed as a melting pot of different cultures, backgrounds, and interests. On a similar note, the Federalists, specifically John Jay, discusses the all encompassed idea that unity keeps the American population under a shared umbrella of values. In comparison, he continues to write in the 2nd Federalist paper that the American population should give up certain personal freedoms in order for the government to function. Regardless of relinquishing personal freedoms, the past failures of the Articles of Confederation proves the resilience of the American population to stay united even during times of conflict. Jay highlighted the need for a unified government as a way to protect from foreign intervention and the government of the people to be unified under enough common values to make that a reality. Moving forward to modern day, how much of John Jay’s ideas of a united government have become a reality? The United Nations has a Universal Declaration of Human rights that is accepted by enough countries to prove humans can be unified on broad subjects. A problem brought up by Brutus I is the size of the United States and how difficult it is to govern such a large area. He used the example of the Greeks' increase in size as a reason for their downfall. On the contrary, large areas of different governments have used methods of unification. For example, the European Union was created to make trading, traveling, and policies more simplistic and connected. The United States has an overarching government that connects the state governments. The issue of size does not stop a group of separated governments from becoming interconnected. Representation throughout a large nation can be relatively solved through multiple layers of representation: federal, state, and local governments each with their own representatives. Alexander Hamilton warned of an ambitious few that would seek out control over the American people. Brutus I commends this warning by using the Necessary and Proper Clause; standing army during peacetime; and the supremacy clause as ways the federal government could increase its power. This is a realistic threat. In America alone, the wealth inequality has shown that there is a difference in power between the majority and a chosen few. According to the Federal Reserve data the richest 1% now control 54% of stock, which has increased from 40% in 2002. Post 4:Tariqah Brutus highlights the wide range of differences among the states regarding climate, economy, customs, and laws. He argues that these differences make it impossible to govern effectively as one large republic, suggesting that a centralized government would become too detached from the people’s needs. He emphasizes that genuine representation requires familiarity and shared interests, which are impractical in a nation as large and varied as the U.S. His concerns lie in the risk of tyranny, particularly with provisions like the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Supremacy Clause, which he views as threats to state sovereignty and individual liberties. Jay presents a unifying view of the American people. He describes them as having the same shared heritage, language, religion, and guiding principles of government. He sees these shared traits as the foundation for unity and the justification for a strong federal government. Jay views America as a state designed for unity, with natural resources and geography that bind the states together. He argues that the collective war experiences and independence further solidify this bond. Jay’s depiction may seem idealistic, while Brutus provides a more practical judgment of human and political diversity. Given modern debates about the disconnect between national institutions and local communities, Brutus’ warnings about the challenges of representing a large, diverse population feel predictive. Brutus is skeptical that a genuinely representative government can function in a nation as vast as the U.S. He warns that representatives in such a system would be too detached to understand local needs, risking centralized control and tyranny. Jay, on the other hand, trusts in the shared identity of Americans to create a unified, representative government. Hamilton was dramatic, in my opinion. Hamilton warns against "demagogues" who might exploit political passions for personal gain, stressing the need for reasoned deliberation. Brutus, meanwhile, focuses on structural dangers like the Necessary and Proper Clause, the Supremacy Clause, and a standing army. Both share a concern about unchecked power, but Brutus sees the proposed Constitution as inherently flawed in guarding against it. In conclusion, Brutus’ caution about the risks of consolidation and loss of local autonomy deserves serious consideration. However, Jay’s optimism about unity underscores the potential for shared identity to overcome divisions. Balancing these views is essential to addressing the inherent tensions in government.

You have to write a policy brief on US-Russian (or a country of your choice) relations and their immediate future for the period from 2024 and 2026. A policy brief is a written report to justify a particular government policy chosen over other options. In most cases, policy briefs are produced upon a request from a government’s agency or some other institution. In our case, you are asked to prepare a policy brief for the Committee on Foreign Affairs at the US House of Representatives. Policy briefs should contain compelling factual materials about the current state of affairs and a critical assessment of these facts. Policy briefs also contain arguments to justify the recommended policy, the expected benefits, as well as possible problems if the policy is implemented. In your present report, you have to evaluate the current status if US-Russia relations from your point of view and propose specific policy steps for the future. As a professional, you are expected to compare and contrast different views and opinions of US-Russia relations and the United States’ policy toward Russia. It is recommended to review the following articles written in the past (updated) by policy experts from leading think-tanks and universities (below). Feel free to select other articles. The Wilson Center:https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/scenarios-post-putin-russia The Heritage Foundation: https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/the-us-and-its-allies-must-understand-and-respond-russias-nuclear-threats The Carnegie Foundation https://carnegieendowment.org/politika/90543 The Brookings Institution https://www.brookings.edu/regions/eurasia/russia/ The National Interest https://nationalinterest.org/feature/america-needs-palmerstonian-foreign-policy-206724 The Nation https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/us-russia-putin-relations-nato/ Which articles (except the suggested ones) did you choose for your analysis? Summarize their conclusions in 1-2 paragraphs. Which position or opinion do you tend to support and why? Which view do you not support and why? What is your view? What policies—from your point of view—should the United States conduct toward Russia in 2025-26? Describe specific policies and specific areas. In which areas could the United States and Russia cooperate? Do you support economic and pollical sanctions and why? Do you think that any form of cooperation with Russia is in fact a helping gesture to Putin’s authoritarian regime? What positive outcomes do you expect if your policy is implemented? What negative consequences do you expect if your recommendations fail? Review your paper and provide a catchy, original opening and a similar conclusion for your brief. Suggested length of you brief: at least 3,000 words

Write an essay on the questions it raises, trying to produce a single, integrated paper with a clearly stated thesis (which should be underlined) and well-developed line of argument, even though the topic may consist of several distinct quotation and questions. Support your argument with lots of evidence from the required reading by providing page references, but do not use long quotations. You are welcome to use whichever citation system you prefer (Harvard, MLA, etc.), but are required to use that system correctly. You are also required to use the Stephanos pagination (the pagination in the left and right margins of the text) in all citations of Plato’s Republic. Failure to provide textual evidence or to use the Stephanos pagination when citing the text will result in substantial penalties. Essays should be 3-5 pages long (approximately 900-1500 words), double-spaced, using a 12 pt. font and one-inch margins. Also, be sure to indicate explicitly the specific prompt. You are not required to agree with the views expressed in the questions and quotations. “When all is said and done no one wants to be ruled by self-interested, narrow-minded ideologues. If philosophers are truly able to care more for the common good than their private goods and to take a larger view of the needs of society, why not let them rule? No doubt there are dangers in doing so, but there are far more dangers in not doing so.” Write an essay that examines the issues raised in this quotation. In the course of your analysis, be sure to explain whether you agree or disagree with the view it expresses, and why.