Tag: APUS

…and Justices for all…

This writing was originally submitted as a response to a homework assignment:

The Supreme Court, in the case of Kelo v. The City of New London (Top 25 cases, #12 in Unit 5), ruled in June 2005 that local governments may force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project's success is not guaranteed. The 5 to 4 ruling provided the strong affirmation that state and local governments had sought for their increasing use of eminent domain for urban revitalization, especially in the Northeast, where many city centers have decayed and the suburban land supply was dwindling.

Discuss the relevancy of this case to the charge of the adverse impact caused by activist judges on the American political system. In preparing your post, you might want to read the dissent opinion by former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. As part of your response, you may address the aftermath (city council elections/Pfizer abandons site/etc…); but remember what the primary question is for this week's Forum discussion question:

"Discuss the relevancy of this case to the charge of the adverse impact caused by activist judges on the American political system."

Remember to cite sources used and reply to at least two of your classmates' posts.

There can be a benefit to turning assignments in late–I have greater opportunity to build my work upon that of others (which is one of the elements of education–learning from and standing upon the shoulders of those who came before). I am also able to draw upon more information and sources that have come to pass, thus giving me the ability to form a better opinion–the true point of education and forward thinking–part of the point of the Constitution as well!–to be a continuing living thing which changes and adjusts to reflect the times and knowledge gained from our past, present, and future history.

This hunger or desire to learn and think also leads to activism–if defined as looking into and pursuing the interests of a "good", which may or may not be seen as a "common good" among varying parties. Activists–political, judicial and any other -al that can thought, created or named–will tend to lean "left", "right" or possibly somewhere in the middle. So, really, who then is an activist if we all have the ability to view any given person at any time as an atcivist? I suppose this is why at times news agencies try to clarify by saying "activists for the cause"; whatever the cause may be at the time. 'Tis hard to keep them straight without a scorecard–harder still, even then.

In the case of Kelo v. New London, I cannot clearly define any activist among the lot. Maybe if we introduce the pro- prefix to activist we can better define and label those involved…

New London sought out being proactive in the community's assumed times of economic hardship. New London looked toward acquiring land in order to hand it over to Pfizer for the creation of more jobs in the area…

[…Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! Let's hear it for Jobs! (…in the morning!)]

The idea is good. Take advantage of eminent domain in order to give the local economy it's own "little blue pill" which should, in theory, be in the better interests of the local public–and possibly even the greater public, I mean we're talking about a huge drug company! The sad part is in order to do so we begin to challenge numerous rights of property.

In the materials for this week we are told that traditionally upholding the rights of the state is more conservative in thinking; that "judical restraint" and giving more literal interpretation to the laws is opposite to being a "judicial activist". Challenging the state, giving new interpretation to the law, and giving more liberty to the individual would then be "activist" (but, at the same time, looking out for the many rather than the few is also seen as a liberal thought–I'm confused!). Here, in this case, the waters are muddied.

The Supreme Court sided with the state's decision. The Court ruled that the greater interest of the public outweighed that of the individual. The benefit to the public through eminent domain benefitted the private entity.

…we have conflicting ideas here. Who is the activist again?

To see the activist in this case, we should turn to the additional materials supplied for this week, and not rely upon the loose defintions given in the regular reading. Former Justice O'Conner in this–and many other–case(s) is the activist–and in some ways, the anarchist. In her dissent, O'Conner shared her views in that the Court had paved the way for the governing bodies to lay claim to any land and reshape it however deemed fit. O'Conner stated that she would rather rebell against what the majority had said, and give the rights of the land back to those who had held onto it for so many years. O'Conner–the conservative activist.

So, the question arises as to whether having a judicial activist has some adverse impact on the judicial system. The answer? Yes.

I now pose the question as to whether these "adverse" affects are negative. In my opinion, no. Having a Justice challenging their peers is a necessary "evil" in playing "devil's advocate"–in keeping the scales balanced; and in many cases, O'Conner did just that. Granted, in some of the cases that appeared before her, such as Lawrence v. Texas–a case concerning sexual acts among homosexuals–O'Conner was capable of sticking with conservative views and being liberal with the law.

In Lawrence, O'Conner agreed that having laws in place that prohibited homosexual sodomy was unconstitutional; yet O'Conner refrained from siding that these acts are a natural right. Essentially, O'Conner stated that under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment outlawing sodomy for homosexuals was unfair as acts of sodomy are legal between heterosexuals. Though O'Conner supported the Court's ruling on that particular element and concurred with the ruling, she did not support the overruling of a related judgement, Bowers v. Hardwick, which had upheld existing laws that banned sodomy regardless of orientation.

In my example, we can see that it is possible for one to be an activist without going so far as to bring about true anarchy. We can also see how it is possible for this activist to posess some of the ideas of and act as an anarchist against their peers–be them co-workers or members of the same political party–in order to level the field.

Adverse impacts do present themselves from activists in any camp on any issue. The adverseness, however, isn't always negative.

References

Bowers v. Hardwick. 478 U.S. 186. U.S. Supreme Court. 1986. Retrieved 10 Oct 2011, from: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0478_0186_ZO.html

Kelo v. New London. 545 U.S. 469. O'Conner, J. Dissent. U.S. Supreme Court. 2005. Retrieved 10 Oct 2011, from: https://edge.apus.edu/access/content/group/155085/Unit%205:%20The%20Supreme%20Court/Unit5_KeloVNewLondonDISSENT.pdf

Lawrence v. Texas. 539 U.S. 558. U.S. Supreme Court. 2003. Retrieved 10 Oct 2011, from: http://supreme.justia.com/us/539/558/case.html

Unknown. "Unit 5: The Supreme Court." 2010. Web/PDF Document. Retrieved 10 Oct 2011, from: https://edge.apus.edu/access/content/group/155085/Unit%205:%20The%20Supreme%20Court/Unit5_TheSupremeCourt.pdf

Lyndon B. Johnson (ordering pants is more entertaining…)

Originally posted in response to a class assignment:

Listen to one of the presidential speeches listed in Lesson 4. Summarize it, then discuss what you found most convincing or important about what was said. (Do not comment on the politics of the speaker, Democrat or Republican, but on the effectiveness of their arguments or vision.) 

Was the presentation effective? 

Why do you think this speech was chosen to be used in this class as an example of this president's legacy? 

Include citations or URLs for your work to receive full credit, and provide substantive replies to the posts of at least two of your classmates.

In 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson delivered a speech in which he shared information and viewpoints on the Vietnam War, US deficit and his decision to abstain from seeking re-election. Johnson, not necessarily known for his speaking abilities, seemed to deliver the speech without great emotion, and made attempts to share with the public his feelings that the war being waged in Vietnam was of importance and required many additional troops—this point had been made at the beginning and came back toward the conclusion of his address. In the middle of Johnson’s speech came talk of how the United States was facing a great deficit due to over-spending of the government. Johnson proposed that the government listen to his pleas to decrease spending and raise taxes—which shouldn’t have come at much cost considering the status of employment and wages amongst the public—to counteract this deficit.

What seemed to boggle my mind about the address was the transitions from Vietnam to the budget, and then finally returning to Vietnam. Johnson’s poor segue to the budget from Vietnam came directly on the heels of saying that there would be a need for the increase in spending to support our efforts and interests in the conflict. In an effort to change the view, there was an attempt to express that the world was looking upon the US during the conflict as a world power with an inability to keep its’ own budget in check. I would suppose that this maneuver was an attempt to garner the favor of those fearing the red menace; however to my knowledge many Americans had stopped buying into the domino theories of the spread of communism. Additionally the country was experiencing much civil unrest and was less than enthused with our involvement elsewhere.

Not only had the public began to lose favor of Johnson over Vietnam, but they were also beginning to see an end come to establishment of some of the plans that he and his predecessor, Kennedy, had been attempting to work on. Though Johnson had seen many of the “Great Society” dreams come to fruition attitudes had begun to change in the public and in the Congress.

In listening to Johnson, I heard a plea—a plea for the public to understand his vision, and a plea for the now Republican strong Congress to back him. In his plea, however, he also seemed to recognize his defeat.

Finalizing his speech, Johnson stated that his tasks were too great for him to take the time to run for a re-election. Though the words he spoke said that he had a greater interest in running the war than hitting the pavement for the next election parade, the undertone—the subtext surrounding his unwillingness to seek or accept nomination from the DNC—said that he saw that he was failing in the eyes of the public. The words also seemed to echo that he could see that he, himself, was failing as well—Johnson died a few days after what would’ve been the end of his second term, had he been re-elected.

Was Johnson’s speech effective? I don’t believe so. Johnson’s speech was, in my opinion, a downer. Granted, not every presidential address is a pep-rally; however, when facing troubles and low public opinion, one would think that including some high-points or bragging rights would give good balance. Instead, Johnson elected to keep to the topics he had in mind.

Johnson can be remembered for many different things throughout his Presidency. Some remember him as the Vice-President who had been thrust into the Presidency due to the tragic murder of Kennedy—and then some think that he may have played a role in that plot. Some may remember him for seeing some of Kennedy’s visions through, and for pushing his own agendas for education. Some may also remember him as pushing hard for the Vietnam War. Many don’t remember him at all.

I would suspect that Johnson, and this speech, were chosen as material for us to review in this class because Johnson is amongst one of the forgotten presidents. I would say that if one were to poll young school-age children (who have actually gotten a worthy course in US history) none would really know of LBJ, aside from the fact that he had finished Kennedy’s term. Even in some programs I have watched on television I have seen the documentaries jump from Kennedy to Nixon.

I believe that it is also possible that this speech was included in the material because of the many similarities that pundits have drawn between Johnson and President Obama. Obama, like Johnson, has challenges to face in the worlds of healthcare and education. Obama, like Johnson, has come into office with fairly high ratings and zeal. Obama, like Johnson, faces some civil unrest and a public which has fallen unsure in certain areas. The differences between the two, however, lie in the fact that Obama faces a poor economy and LBJ faced the Vietnam War. In Johnson’s fight in Vietnam he lost and is now a spec in our history. In Obama’s quest, will he favor any better?

Ultimately, however, I believe that the speech was included so that we may hear the final section, where the President announces that he is not going to seek re-election. I come to this conclusion as the material supplied for the class reads, “Note: Scroll to the very end to hear his decision.”

[…personally, I believe that likening W. to LBJ would be better. I see W. becoming a forgotten president, with the only memorable part being the events surrounding 9/11. Speaking of 9/11, W. and LBJ also have a bit in common with Vietnam and the “war on terror” …but who compares a Democrat to a Republican and vice versa?]

References

Johnson, L. B. “The President's Address to the Nation Announcing Steps To Limit the War in Vietnam and Reporting His Decision Not To Seek Reelection. Washington, D.C., 31 March 1968. Audio. Retrieved 11 Oct 2011 from: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/mediaplay.php?id=28772&admin=36

Unknown. "Unit 4: The Executive Branch." 2010. Web/PDF Document. Retrieved 10 Oct 2011, from: https://edge.apus.edu/access/content/group/155085/Unit%204:%20The%20Executive%20Branch/Unit4_TheExecutiveBranch.pdf

…and to see what I'm referencing in the title of this post:

ʎʇıɹnɔǝs ןɐıɔos

This entry was originally submitted as a homework assignment:

Lesson 6 discusses the Bush administration proposal to privatize Social Security. One aspect of that plan was to allow individuals to invest most, if not all, of their own money into investments, rather than into the Social Security System.

Was this proposal a good idea or not? Why?

Do some additional research on this topic (how Social Security can be changed or if it should remain as is) and include it in your discussion.

Include citations or URLs for your work to receive full credit, and provide substantive replies to the posts of at least two of your classmates.

Social Security being likened to a “third rail” is quite apropos; never have I heard a discussion of any part of the system without a heated debate among the participants. For that very reason I tend to stray away from conversations involving any part of Social Security and other government aid or assistance programs. Unfortunately, this task proves difficult at times as I am a part of and live amongst the communities which take advantage of these benefits.

A few months ago I had been stopped by a neighbor of mine who had wanted to ask whether I had heard any of the news surrounding the current discussions of Social Security reform, and whether I had an opinion. I told her that I had not even known that there was another debate going on, and I had even admitted that my ignorance was rather stupid as I should be aware. Later, I discovered that she had actually gotten some of her wires crossed and was actually referring to the news of a reform in the Commonwealth’s Medi-care/caid programs—something I should have been more abreast of, as these programs relate closer to the health and well-being of my children.

The neighbor, though, had every right to be concerned as she is legitimately—to my knowledge—taking advantage of disability benefits which are paid via the Social Security Administration. This woman, who is of the same graduating high school class as I, lives in fear of changes to any portion of the welfare system.

I, too, fear changes to welfare. For the short-term, my fears surround my children—the ability to receive medical care and afford food and housing; the long-term fears of my wife and I being able to care for ourselves when we are older I rarely think about—though thought has been given.

Having been told for well over fifteen years now of the possibilities of working well beyond our retirement ages should we choose to attempt to rely upon Social Security, my wife and I have become believers in paying into private retirement funds. Another reason for our personal desires to pay privately come from our lackluster work histories—our benefits from Social Security as it currently stands are well below what we foresee as being necessary due to our having not paid much into the system. Finally, we believe that it would be nice for us to not rely upon the government when we are elderly as we have had to rely so heavily upon the system during our youth.

In a sense, we are following Bush’s ideas by paying into a private system to have a better shot at retirement than if we relied solely upon the government.

Realistically, we are screwed either way.

Having stated that we have and continue to rely upon the government one could easily assume that we are a low-income family. We most certainly are. Unsurprisingly, we have had to withdraw monies from our private retirement funds to aid in covering current bills—I now have no retirement benefits and my wife has less than $200 saved. My wife’s retirement is building back extremely slowly as we cannot afford to save much more than 3% of her wages. I cannot see there being any retirement being built for me as I have yet to find a job that will work around my school schedule, my wife’s work schedule, or the children’s schooling and activities.

Ideally, the thoughts of having private retirement are excellent—relieving an (foreseeably) overburdened system of the excess weight by asking the public to save a portion of their own makes sense. The actual application of it, however…

Along with my personal example of how saving privately can fail—through the early withdrawal of funds—there remain questions surrounding other forms of failure—as was noted in this week’s material. If a private fund were handled through the investment into stocks or bonds that can fail, what then? What of investing into a private fund which is held by some institution which goes bankrupt? Who is going to come to the aid of someone who has had these misfortunes? Would someone burned by these failures be able to then rely upon Social Security? (Unit 6, 2010)

Shapiro noted that Bush’s generic plan did not give detail into these circumstances (Unit 6, 2010). We could assume that since the Social Security Administration was to keep operating as it had—though possibly paying out lesser amounts—that it would be made available to those who had the aforementioned misfortunes. My question then, if we make that assumption, is how much more of a burden would be placed on the system with the unknown number of cases requesting aid due to having private funds depleted or negated in some fashion?

Ultimately, there does need to be some sort of change made to the entire system. The only solution that I can fathom would be that of requesting that the public pay into a private fund of their choice (if the individual elects to) as well as a flat percentage of gross salary/wages per pay period into the SSA funds. I would also suggest changes be made to the Social Security Wage Base (SSWB)—the cap placed on the amount of monies that can be paid to the SSA. Two possible changes to the SSWB would be either the raising or elimination of this figure—ideas which have risen before (Miller, 2008). Another option that I might suggest would be setting the SSWB at a certain limit and then increasing the tax rate incrementally on a slope for individuals with an income above the SSWB—one caveat being that there would be a cap set for the amount paid back.

From what I have gathered, my thoughts on changing Social Security have even better potential to benefit than those thoughts proposed by Bush. Bush’s plan called more for a redirection of an individual’s funds into a fully private account rather than the more general SSA funds (White, 2011). Bush’s redirection would possibly cause more harm to the SSA as there would be less monies being deposited with a continued and possibly growing number of funds being withdrawn to pay for the benefits to widowers, children, and those receiving other SSI or medi-care/caid benefits. Bush’s plan also left the cap in place, whereas I propose raising the cap for funds to be paid in. My idea also gives the potential for allowing someone who may end up with less from a private fund to still draw from the SSA, while Bush never really covered that.

[…no, I don’t see my plan going anywhere as it calls for higher taxation of the wealthy.]

References

Miller, J. "Go Ahead and Lift the Cap." 2008. Web. Retrieved 10 Oct 2011, from: http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2008/0308miller.html

Unknown. "Unit 6: The Bureaucracy." 2010. Web/PDF Document. Retrieved 10 Oct 2011, from: https://edge.apus.edu/access/content/group/155085/Unit%206:%20The%20Bureaucracy/Unit6_TheBureaucracy.pdf

Weisman, J. "Skepticism of Bush's Social Security Plan Is Growing." 2005. Web. Retrieved 10 Oct 2

011, from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35231-2005Mar14?language=printer

White, D. "Common Sense Says No to Privatization." 2011. Web. Retrieved 10 Oct 2011, from: http://usliberals.about.com/od/socialsecurity/a/SocSecReform.htm

…and on a different note, I kept trying to think of some way of referencing Tom and Dick Smothers… I couldn't… click here to see the joke I was desperately trying to work in.

Week 3 – (…posting this took an act of) Congress

This post was originally submitted as a homework assignment:

Congress now has some difficult times ahead – and some difficult decisions to make for the American people. After reading Lesson 3, answer the following questions: 

Given what you now know about how Congress works and how a bill is passed, what do you think the likelihood of success will be for President Obama to implement his agenda? 

In retrospect, identify at least two past presidents and explain how well they were in implementing their agenda?  (Please stay out of the politics and use the PROCESS of implementation as the foundation of your answer.) 

Include citations or URLs for your work to receive full credit, and provide substantive replies to the posts of at least two of your classmates.

Prior to reading this week's material I had a general understanding of how bills may or may not become law thanks to Schoolhouse Rock! I remember seeing a poor, depressed Bill sitting there on the steps of Capitol Hill, explaining the processes he would have to go through in order to become Law, and the fears he had for being turned down in the House, Senate or even vetoed by the President. Sure, Bill told us that it was possible for him to be modified for re-introduction, or that if he went through everything just to become vetoed he could still become Law if the members of Congress had enough votes to overrule the veto. The troubled road that Bill was facing was understandably depressing; fortunately he seemed to pass quickly and was signed by the President. Congratulations, Bill, you are now a Law.

The way that our government has been established, with the system of “checks and balances” that attempt to keep fair and common interests in mind with the passing of laws, it can be difficult for any bill to pass whether or not the thoughts are introduced by a President and regardless of political affiliation. To postulate on whether the recent plans of our current President can become law is beyond my abilities and interests. I can say that in order for any plans to reduce taxes, create jobs and stimulate economic growth, the plans would have to go through the House and then Senate for review before being enacted by the President. Likelihood of this? I cannot say.

For the most part, every President has had issue with introducing his plans. There have been a few which have had various ideas go through with relative ease—these Presidents have usually had such success due to the nature and the state of the nation at that point. Presidents F. D. Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Johnson are a few that are known for having strong plans for aid to the public in their respective time-period's need—Johnson's work being an extension of the late Kennedy's plans.

Roosevelt managed to introduce, pass, and implement several plans for recovery during a great economic depression. Kennedy/Johnson managed to make more argument on the topics of rights and bring about aid and resources to everyone with focus on the young, elderly and underprivileged with programs such as Medicare and Social Security.

This post received the following comments:

From Joseph Butvilas:

Jeremiah,

     I have to admit that I laughed a little when you mentioned schoolhouse rock and what you remembered of how a bill becomes a law. While I have never personally watched the show, I am aware of what it is, and was amused to learn that it actually is a good learning tool. 
     I do agree with you that every president has at least some trouble passing laws, but that is how it is supposed to be, right? With out the power of Senate and Congress coupled with the system of checks and balances, our government would be nothing more than a dictatorship. The president would have absolute power and it would negate everything our founding fathers envisioned for the United States. 
     JFK and Lyndon Johnson were successful when it came to signing bills into laws. One key issue I think you may have overlooked is the Civil Rights Act. While it was John F. Kennedy's vision, he was assassinated before the bill could be signed into law. It was Lyndon Johnson who eventually followed through on it. 

Very interesting post,

V/R,

Joe B.

From Harold Armstrong:

Funny you mention Schoolhouse Rock because as I post this it is actually on TV right now in Korea. I am although actually interested on what your views with President Obama introducing his Bill. While he managed to entise the younger voters to check his name on the ballet, I think his approach to getting bills signed off on is a little flawed. I find it funny that he thinks he can bully his bills into law. Honey is sweeter than vinegar there Mr Prez.

Marijuana

This entry was originally posted as a homework assignment:

In UNIT 1B, the concept of Federalism was discussed. Included in the readings were examples of issues that have arisen under the umbrella of state's rights. Pick one of the examples from the readings, or use one of your own, and discuss it here based on what you learned in Unit 1.

What is the issue? Describe it briefly.

Is it appropriate to be regulated by a state or should it be regulated at the national level?

Why is this issue important? How do you feel about it?

Include citations or URLs for your work to receive full credit, and provide substantive responses to the posts of at least two of your classmates.

Marijuana has to be, in my opinion, the one issue where conflict between State and Federal governments is well known. Though the public may not be well educated on the matter, myself included, the vast majority seems to have an opinion. Through some hasty research on the matter for this forum posting, I have a better understanding and some stronger opinions. I will concede, however, that the issue is not of great importance to me; therefore my knowledge is still lacking and I have no interest in researching the issue further for the sake of this writing.

Marijuana is classified, federally, as a Schedule I drug—one which holds a high potential for abuse and has no medicinal purpose. The federal government seems to wish to continue to keep this classification and enforce the penalties of use or possession of the drug, and has continued to do so in some part through the commerce clause, as noted in the text. By making an argument over the possibilities of a black-market (which, as many of us know, already exists—it would simply go through some interesting changes) the Supreme Court ruled the growing of one's own marijuana in a state which allows for medicinal use to be illegal.

For this post, we were asked to answer whether the issue is one which should be handled on a state or federal level. In thinking about this topic, I believe that I see evidence off our Supreme Court asking itself that very question. Rather than giving better argument on what may be a more obvious piece of federal law—rather than arguing that federal law sees the drug as being as dangerous as heroin—the Supreme Court uses the commerce clause. Why? Perhaps the Court feared taking that step which would actually challenge the boundaries of what rights the federal and state governments have.

Personally, I believe that the issue of the legality of marijuana in any form taken in any manner should be at the discretion of the states. I do, however, believe that a firm decision needs to be made at the federal level in either direction.

This assignment received the following comments:

From Ryan McFarland:

Jeremiah, very well stated, but where did you get your information from? I have say that because I deal with the drug marijuana day in and day out at work, I do not think leaving the law up to the state will be good enough. By giving each state a choice is only making the law more difficult. It needs to either be illegal or legal. By all means I feel it should be illegal, no matter what. In my state, Connecticut, they just decriminalized marijuana and we have to issue infractions for possession of marijuana. If your going to decriminalize the drug, why not make it legal, sell it in a store and tax the sale of it. Get something out of everyones habit. It would be a start if nothing else.

Ryan

From Prof. Keith Carlson:

Remember to cite your sources for all submitted posts in this course.Thanks!

From Jessica Meehan:

Hi Jeremiah!

I think you had a lot of very helpful information in your post. I agree that many people do not know many facts about this, myself for example, but we do seem to have somewhat of an opinion on this matter. I also agree that the goverment should have an opinion. I myself dont know enough about this issue to really make a firm decision whether it should be legalized for medical use or not. Good post!

Weeks 3 and 4

Posted by Michael R Bussell Sat Jun 18 15:07:32 2011.
Message: When facing the IED threat, we know that the device builder may use a variety of means to function the device. In Iraq, the use of jamming equipment was useful, while back in Afghanistan, jamming equipment has less of an impact because the enemy quickly adapted to counter some of our protocols. What can we learn from this?

We can learn that we should never underestimate the capabilities of our foes or the elements which we are in. We can learn that thrests are everchanging, and that we must, too, be everchanging. Though the methods used in one place at one time may pay off, we must realize that these efforts will inevitably be thwarted in some way, if not by our foe, then by the shear nature of the elements. This is true, not only in facing IEDs in the mid-east, but everywhere in our lives in any given situation. To combat this, we must work harder, better, faster and stronger through the adoption of better tactics, furthering our knowledge and simply “thinking outside of the box”.

Mirrored from Being Jeremiah Palmer.

Incident Command – FINAL EXAM

Question 16 (Worth 20 points)

For the last question set up and diagram an Incident Command System for the following scenario. Define all the roles and responsibilities for each function area that would be included in this scenario.

SCENARIO: At 10:05a.m. today, a hurricane/earthquake/tornado/flood hit the community of Edenton. The downtown area was hardest hit. People have reported damage to homes, and businesses have been affected as well. No fatalities have been reported. Three people with injuries have been taken to the Edenton Community Hospital, which is also reporting some damage. As many as 10 people are missing.

The downtown fire station is destroyed/inoperable. Two other fire stations are operational.

Other posssible effects:

A large fire has broken out in downtown
Water mains are cut
10 percent of the population has sustained injuries
Utility lines are down
Animals in the zoo have escaped from their cages
Looters are rampaging downtown
Sewers have backed up, endangering public health
Many houses are destroyed/inhabitable and shleters will be needed
A hazardous spill has occured
A major road has been affected.

ESSAY SUBMISSION

In this incident there would be a unified command (UC) established at the designated EOC–unless it was downtown, in which case the designated secondary-EOC would be used. At the UC level would be the EM director and the community’s top-level elected official(s). Branching off of the UC would be the PIO, safety, and liaison. Below the UC would be the Operations (OPS), Planning (PLAN), Logistics (LOG), and Finance/Administration (ADMIN) levels.

OPS would be represented by a head of each agency or department; or represented by an EM staff member, council-member/magistrate. Each OPS member would be charged with collecting/supplying information to/from in-field OICs. Recommended OPS structure would be as follows:

• OPS Chief (representative of all OPS branches)
• FIRE branch
• LAW enforcement branch
• HEALTH branch
• ANIMAL control branch
• public WORKS branch
• UTILITIES branch

PLAN would be represented by either an EM staff member or council-member/magistrate. PLAN would work close with UC, LOG and OPS in gathering information and redistributing SITREPs for all levels. Would also work closely with PIO and top-level liaison.

LOG would be represented by EM staff or council/magistrates. LOG would work with UC, OPS, and PLAN in locating/supplying needs. LOG would work with PLAN to locate the additional support for OPS branches that do not already have MOAs/MUAs with outside agencies; otherwise requests to other agencies are under respective OPS branches. Once LOG/PLAN has gotten an outside agency to agree to assist, the outside agency is forwarded to

ADMIN for filing of MOU/MOA for incident and attached to the respective OPS branch.
ADMIN would be represented by EM staff, council/magistrate. Another possible candidate for this position would be the governing body’s attorney(-ies). ADMIN would work closely with UC, LOG, and PLAN in keeping records on operations, filling/filing/forwarding other necessary documentation, and giving estimates on costs/damages.

In this incident, I would recommend the following actions (not necessarily in this order):

• All available fire units be dispatched to downtown fire. As looting/rioting is taking place and could potentially spread—and as additional fires may occur outside the focal area—I would recommended that at least one engine and it’s minimal accompaniment (unless this is a small community) remain at the outer-lying stations. FIRE should contact outside community departments with agreements for assistance.

• WORKS needs to be contacted with regard to main supply lines to downtown area. As a large fire has broken out, this area is a priority. If sections of town can be separated or routed to use other sources, then that switch should be made. Other priorities for water will be care facilities.

• HEALTH needs to get report of hospital situation. Recommend setting up local health department as triage for non- life-threatening injuries. An ambulance needs to be at health department for additional support/supplies and to provide transport to hospital if a life-threatening injury happens to arrive.

• UTILITIES need to be contacted for status. Electric to EOC, dispatch & repeater sites, and hospital are a priority. Other care facilities and emergency services are secondary [making assumption that these facilities have backup generators and can wait, if not will be covered by LOG]

• ANIMAL control will work with zoo officials in locating/capture/holding of lost animals.

• LOG will contact Fish & Wildlife for additional ANIMAL control.

• LAW will respond to downtown area with sufficient officers to make presence known. LAW will not stop active looting until additional support arrives—no need to become a martyr. LAW will safeguard buildings that have not been looted.

• LOG will request National Guard for additional LAW, FIRE, HEALTH, WORKS support.

• WORKS will need to gather more information on damage to sewers. LOG may be able to locate supply of emergency above ground lines and pumps for sewage, storm water.

• FIRE should dispatch one qualified unit (or one of the aforementioned engines on standby) to HAZMAT area for spill/release identification. Use ERG and CAMEO/ALOHA for recommended evacuation area and evacuate. Contact area HAZMAT team.

• LOG/PLAN should contact highway department for status and forward them to WORKS. Highway should be closed at junctions nearest the damage and surveyed. If possible, the highway should be opened for emergency vehicle traffic only until proper clearing/repair efforts are made.

• LOG should contact local schools, churches, civic buildings for sheltering possibilities. LOG should contact Red Cross for shelter opening. LOG should locate/supply any needs for sheltering (food, water, cots, blankets, portable toilets, etc.). LOG/PLAN should have/designate a representative at shelter for updates.

Points earned on this question: 20

DB Question 7 – Mock Disaster Plan/Excersice

The following scenario would, to my knowledge, be one of the largest table-top exercises conducted in Harrison County. In attempting to think of a disaster scenario, I couldn’t help but think of something on a larger scale than what was requested. The reason behind my thoughts of a larger disaster lies with my beliefs of how ill-prepared the community actually is. To my knowledge, there has never been a disaster scenario played to this scale, nor do I believe that there had ever been a good review of the incidents that had taken place in 1997.

I do know that much has changed since that time, and that there are many unwritten plans of action; however I do not believe that everyone is truly aware of what each other has in mind. I also do not believe that our agencies know how to function if a key member in their organization is absent—a point which would be inserted into sub-scenarios of this larger scenario.

Another hole that I know exists in our community’s plans involve what to do should our dispatch center lose communication. Granted, if the phone lines go down, there isn’t much that can be done; however, what is to be done when there isn’t any CAD ability? All of the radios are routed through a computer based system, and, to my knowledge, there still aren’t any “physical” radios on site—what then?

I believe that I may develop this plan further, and turn it into my EM director and see if it becomes one of the next exercises. I worry, though, that by the end it may turn into something resembling a game of Dungeons and Dragons…

DATE: 		IRRELEVANT
TIME: 		IRRELEVANT
LOCATION: 	MUCH OF CYNTHIANA AND PORTIONS OF HARRISON COUNTY
EVENT: 		“100-YEAR” FLOODING

NARRATIVE:      A large powerful storm system has moved across the US,
                pulling moisture from the gulf, and has stalled over the
                area, releasing copius amounts of rain in a fashion
                similar to that experienced in March of 1997. Cynthiana
                and Harrison County is experiencing flooding akin to that
                of 1997. The main highways are inaccessible once again.
                Fresh and waste water treatment plants have been shut
                down. The western side of Cynthiana is flooded and
                inaccessible. The phone system is down due to AT&T’s
                switching station being flooded.
                One factor of this storm system differed from the one
                previously experienced — high winds skirted along a
                smaller system that preceded this rain event. Winds from
                the line preceding the rains caused structural damage to
                the roof of city hall; however this wasn’t discovered
                until the following rains came, leaking through the
                building into the dispatch center, rendering most of the
                equipment useless. EOC is assumed to have been partially
                self-activated by EMA; however other officials are not
                present.

OBJECTIVES:     1.) Communications are down and infrastructure has been
                crippled. Appropriate measures must be taken to fully
                activate EOC. Establish alternative methods for
                communication with all applicable agencies and public,
                and solve the issues of infrastructure whilst a public
                panics. Alternate agency contact information *may* be
                located in the ERIL section of the EOP and in dispatch
                SOG/SOP. Other necessary items or equipment may be
                readily available or promptly procured from EMA.
                2.) All agencies within Cynthiana exist on eastern side
                of town. An appropriate number of response units and a
                base of operations for these units must be made on
                western side of town. Decide an appropriate number, find
                a location for operations, direct units how to reach
                western side with the existing road closures.
                3.) Contact needs to be made with hospital and care
                facilities to check status of operations and rations.
                Locate means of providing support.
                4.) Contact needs to be made with the city of Berry for
                status. Attempt to provide mayor with any necessary
                supplies.

DIRECTIONS:     Complete objectives by utilizing all available plans and
                by brainstorming to fill any gaps in plans. For areas
                which are decided on the spot without an established plan
                backing the decision, city/county attorney(-ies) may
                provide advice if decision could have legal ramifications.
                EM deputies and attornies will be assigned to represent-
                atives of EOC to record decisions and provide further
                information on departmental decisions from a randomized
                list of sub-scenarios—EXAMPLE: EMS dispatches two EC units
                to western side; deputy assigned to EMS in scenario
                announces to EMS representative that one EC has arrived in
                x-minutes while other EC has experienced mechanical
                trouble along the way.
                Notes will be collected and compiled at the end of the
                scenario. Review of the scenario will be conducted next-
                day, with discussion.

Initially, there would be two somewhat separate IC operations going on until a Unified Command was established with the activation of the EOC. IC-1 would be the EMA preparing for the rains, assumedly a week or so in advance—this timeframe estimation comes from the recent history of the NWS communicating with KYEM and local EM agencies on forthcoming weather events. During the EM preparation the EOC would be partially activated. IC-2 would involve the damage within the dispatch center. During this phase, dispatch would be attempting to return to a non-preferred working state. Concurrently EM would be continuing efforts in relaying messages to the county Judge-Exec and Cynthiana mayor’s office and assumedly assisting in bringing dispatch online. As the waters continue to rise, dispatch would come back to a crippled operating state (likely relying upon spare mobiles and HTs) and attempts would be made to contact other officials and bring the EOC to full activation.

All representatives in the EOC would fulfill Operations and some Planning roles. In regard to the exercise itself, additional staff or volunteers would act in planning capacities in order to keep the exercise going to provide additional documentation of the actions taken for the following day’s critique.

Logistics would primarily be headed by the EM, with communications between the agencies taking place in the EOC for additional brainstorming. All actions under logistics, unless the responsibility of another agency or another agency volunteers, would be the responsibility of EM.

Finance/Administration would be handled by the heads of the governments and/or their appointed representatives/staff. How this would be handled with the event affecting two to three governmental bodies (Berry, Cynthiana, and Harrison County) would be questionable and likely an issue which would need to be addressed—part of the point of an exercise. One could speculate that Berry would not be present and rely upon Harrison County, and that the county and Cynthiana would work mutually for the entire event while keeping separate records.

Other elements of ICS would be the responsibility of respective agencies.

Previous Mock Disasters in Cynthiana, Harrison County, KY

Since I have the opportunity to share these items with a new audience…
NOTE: This post is not serving as my graded submission–it will come later. I just wanted to get in on a little show and tell. 😉

As you know, many agencies and organizations are required, or have made it part of their normal operations, to perform table-top and full-scale drills and exercises. When we have had the ability to, our EM has taken photographs or video of the events. Below are some of the photos and videos that I’ve had time to publish online.

1999 – Motor vehicle accident w/ multiple injuries and casualty.

This exercise involved members of the Harrison County Volunteer Fire Department, Browns Ambulance Service, and Harrison Memorial Hosptial. The incident was staged outside of city limits, so city fire and police were not involved directly. Victims were transported and “treated” at HMH. Actors were members of KY51 AFJROTC.

2003 – Shooting situation at school function w/ multiple injuries and casualties.

Please excuse the quality of the videos–this was recorded before I had a nice camera and computer with enough power to edit/process videos.
WARNING: Audio for the videos is extremely LOUD–you may want to turn your volume all the way down and then slowly bring it up…

This incident was perhaps one of the largest (and most entertaining) exercises conducted to date. Agencies involved were the Cynthiana Police Department, Cynthiana Fire Department, Harrison County Sheriffs Office, Harrison County Fire Department, Browns Ambulance Service, Harrison Memorial Hospital, Harrison County Board of Education, and the Harrison County Coroner. Actors were members of the local police and fire explorers, and emergency management.

2007 – Motor vehicle accident involving school bus w/ multiple injuries and casualties.

This incident was tailored more toward fire-rescue involvement, whereas the last major exercise had been tailored more for law enforcement. Agencies involved in this incident were the Cynthiana Police Department, Cynthiana Fire Department, Harrison County Sheriffs Office, Harrison County Fire Department, Browns Ambulance Service, and Harrison Memorial Hospital. Actors were junior members of Harrison County Fire.

Mirrored from Being Jeremiah Palmer.

Discussion Board 7

Global warming; it’s a very hot topic. (Pun half-intended.)

Personally, I buy it.

Though there are those that say we are merely repeating old weather patterns that haven’t been seen in some time and theories that it’s simply our movement in space–theories that do make sense, as well–I believe in the theories and evidence of our roles in the climatic changes. Unfortunetly, I am not capable of saying much more than that, as it isn’t a topic that I’ve read much on.

Whether or not global warming is real, and whether or not the effects can be reversed, I do believe that we should act as if it is a real threat. Making efforts for conservation, clean energy, reducing “carbon footprints”, etc., is not only good for the environment, but good for the person as well.

Mirrored from Being Jeremiah Palmer.