I think its China , US and matbe be more
True. Discrimination has always been an issue in many societies all over the world. There are different ways on how people react to this type of stimulus; others engage in violence, while some focus on fascist forms of revolution to end discrimination. Discrimination can take many forms in sexual preference, women, race, and color.
H<span>is problem-solving ability in math represents: domain-specific knowledge
Domain specific knowledge is a specified skill that could not be applied to other knowledge. In this case, due some conditioning in brain, Cliff could only understand math and all equations but does not possess the ability to be excel at other subject
</span>
The name of the tactic is media advocacy.
As explained above, media advocacy is the strategic use of newsmaking through TV, radio and newspapers to promote public debate, and generate community support for changes in community norms and policies. Therefore, it is the <u>strategic use of mass media</u> to advance public policy initiatives. Members of the general public are the last decision makers and opinion leaders in our society. Community attitudes, beliefs, norms, and practices are shaped by the dialogues that occur within families and the social networks we experience in our everyday lives.
Answer? 1) Yes, it is a bit ironic. If a company has an Ethics program that's comprehensive enough, executives should not have to be caught in business criminal activities.
2.) First let's talk about Ethics programs. These are basically programs that embody the business philosophies of a company such that every stakeholder understand how business is run in the company. It basically defines to employees, staff, investors, vendors and customers the rules of Business Ethics as defined by the firm, from the maximum amount of tips to collect from customers to how intimate employees get with clients so that there's no confusion. Now, all this is to clarify but the question here is how effective was the program if criminal activity was discovered? It's simple. The most comprehensive Ethics programs can't control human circumstantial behaviour. As clear as rules may be, they are always still broken. And this is because, with humans, there an infinite number of things to put into consideration, most of which won't always follow rules. One may be 100% compliant with said rules but find themselves weak to give in at some point for any possible reason the person deemed more important than upholding the companies ethics. In other words, these rules are held by the people it binds and the delivery will always be subjective. Whenever it is deemed unfavorable to uphold, it most likely will be dropped.
Therefore, it might have been the most effective and comprehensive Ethics program in the world but only as effective as the executives demmed it subjectively.
