Recent orders
Your response on social media and how it has changed American politics is very thought provoking.
Peer 1
Your response on social media and how it has changed American politics is very thought provoking. I agree with your position that social media has altered how Americans interact with the political world as well as how election candidates are able to reach out to voters. I concur that with the ability to publish content that could reach millions of platform users at basically no cost, social media provide political candidates huge coverage and an advantage for those who know how to utilize it to manipulate public opinion. I would add that social media has put the voters at a disadvantage. While this is an absurd claim to make seeing that every one controls their own social media accounts, my argument is that people have no control of what is presented in the form of ads, propaganda campaigns, and other political tools used. As a result, voters no longer engage with politicians on a policy-based discussion but rather on how well one is able to manipulate social media algorithms to their favor. “Do you agree that the voter is at a disadvantage because of the way politicians are able to manipulate content on social media?”
Peer 2
You offer a very insightful standpoint on the war on terrorism and specifically America’s presence in Afghanistan. I am in agreement of your observation that just after America removed its troops, the Taliban took control of Afghanistan very quickly which sparked media attention. This is an important development because it highlights two matters in my opinion. First, that American troops’ presence in Afghanistan was necessary as far as keeping the Taliban at bay is concerned. Secondly, it may point to a fact that the presence of America in Afghanistan greatly weakened the nation and stripped it off of its capability to make policies and defend itself independent of external control. I feel that the last point should be emphasized and better discussed because the developments after September 11 have meant a focus on America as opposed to its actions on a global front. I pose the question: “would America’s position in Afghanistan be viewed differently if another superpower, such as China, was involved instead?”
Your presentation is very informative in relation to how you provide detailed analysis on the American society
Peer 1
Your presentation is very informative in relation to how you provide detailed analysis on the American society, its relations with other nations like Cuba and Vietnam, and key ideas that have gone on to shape the American culture. I am particularly interested in the comparative analysis of key ideas of MLK, Jr. and the Black Panther Party. Your analysis points out that they both wanted to have equal rights and justice for the black community. While I agree with this position, it is important to note that their ideas were by far more than a drive to have fairness for the black community. These pioneers of justice wanted fairness and justice for black people. They were focused on ensuring that their communities could move from being victims to becoming truly a part of the American society despite being a minority. In this, I pose the question “do you think recent academic has focused more on the ideas of MLK, Jr. and the Black Panther Party on the basis of black rights to forget their role in fighting for equal rights?”
Peer 2
Indeed, the 60s in America were a period of protests and reforms. The period had so much going on and you elaborately narrow these developments down to include the rise of Cold War politics, the Cuban Missile Crisis, assassinations of President Kennedy and Martin Luther King. Specifically, your position on the 60s and 70s as being unravelling is refreshing. Women, African Americans, Native Americans, gays, and many other organizations continued demanding their rights of equality. I feel that it is important to add that the same period saw governments being truly focused on listening to its people. Do you think that the activities of the 60s and 70s in America shaped the way the government operates today?
PEER 1
PEER 1
In a general sense, Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) refer to an integrated, comprehensive, public health approach to the delivery of treatment services as well as early intervention for individuals with substance abuse disorders and those at risk of developing these disorders. Substantial experimental evidence or strong research supports the model. It is without a doubt that SBIRT is correlated with improvements in treatment system efficiency, equity and economy. As Bray et al. (2017) concluded, the SBIRT program is an effective method of introducing a series of services that broaden the continuum of care for individuals with substance abuse disorders. In conjunction with this study, Babor et al. (2017) cite that SBIRT is not only an effective but also an innovative way of integrating the management of substance use disorders into general medicine as well as primary care.
References
Bray, J.W., Del Boca, F.K., McRee, B.G., Hayashi, S.W., Babor, T.F. Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT): rationale, program overview and cross-site evaluation. Addiction, 112(52), 3-11. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.13676Links to an external site.
Babor, T. F., Del Boca, F., & Bray, J. W. (2017). Screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment: implications of SAMHSA’s SBIRT initiative for substance abuse policy and practice. Addiction, 112, 110-117. https://sites.education.miami.edu/sbirt/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2018/07/Implications-of-SAMHSA%E2%80%99s-SBIRT.pdf