A Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Military and Veterans Affairs (VA) Combat-Related PTSD Programs

A meta-analysis was conducted to examine the effectiveness of 55 treatment outcomes reported by military and Veterans Affairs (VA) treatment centers for combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The analysis includes 46 tested treatment outcomes derived from 21 psychotherapy studies, and nine tested treatment outcomes derived from seven pharmacotherapy studies, which were obtained through PsychINFO and PsychARTICLES database searches, as well as a reference search. Analysis of all treatment outcomes suggested a statistically significant, and meaningful, decrease in PTSD symptoms between baseline and post-treatment time points, t(54) = 9.27, p < .001, d = 0.35. Additionally, analysis of outcomes between psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy treatments resulted in statistically significant differences in PTSD assessment scores at post-test, indicating a greater degree of change for psychotherapy than for pharmacotherapy.

Schleiermacher's Doctrine of Biblical Authority: An Alternative to Content-Based/Supernaturalist and Function-Based Rationalist Models

Author: Kerry W. Holton Title: SCHLEIERMACHER’S DOCTRINE OF BIBLICAL AUTHORITY: AN ALTERNATIVE TO CONTENT-BASED/SUPERNATURALIST AND FUNCTION- BASED/RATIONALIST MODELS Advisor: Theodore M. Vial, Jr. Degree Date: August 2015 This dissertation examines Friedrich Schleiermacher’s understanding of biblical authority and argues that, as an alternative to strictly supernaturalistic and rationalistic models, his understanding allows the New Testament to speak authoritatively in Christian religion in an age of critical, historical awareness. After classifying Schleiermacher’s position in a typology of the doctrine of biblical authority, this dissertation explores his conception of divine revelation and inspiration vis-à-vis scripture. It demonstrates that although he did not believe there is warrant for the claim of a direct connection between divine revelation and scripture, or that scripture is the foundation of faith, he nonetheless asserted that the New Testament is authoritative. He asserted the normative authority of the New Testament on the basis that it is the first presentation of Christian faith. This dissertation examines Schleiermacher’s “canon within the canon,” as well as his denial that the Old Testament shares the same normative worth and inspiration of the New. Although this dissertation finds difficulty with some of Schleiermacher’s views regarding the Old Testament, it names two significant strengths of what is identified as his evangelical, content-based, and rationalist approach to biblical authority. First, it recognizes and values the co-presence and co-activity of the supernatural and the natural !ii in the production of the New Testament canon. This allows both scripture and the church to share religious authority. Second, it allows Christian faith and the historical-method to coexist, as it does not require people to contradict what they know to be the case about science, history, and philosophy. Thus, this dissertation asserts that Schleiermacher’s understanding of biblical authority is a robust one, since, for him, the authority of scripture does not lie in some property of the texts themselves that historians or unbelievers can take away.

High Value Lies, Ugly Truths, and the First Amendment

Lying has a complicated relationship with the First Amendment. It is beyond question that some lies – such as perjury or pretending to be a police officer – are not covered by the First Amendment. But it is equally clear that some lies, even intentionally lying about military honors, are entitled to First Amendment protection. U.S. v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537 (2012). To date, however, both Supreme Court doctrine and academic commentary has taken for granted that any constitutional protection for lies is purely prophylactic – it protects the liar to avoid chilling truthful speech. This Article is the first to argue, contrary to conventional wisdom, that certain types of lies paradoxically advance the values underlying the First Amendment. Our framework is descriptively novel and doctrinally important insofar as we provide the first comprehensive post-Alvarez look at the wide range of lies that may raise First Amendment issues. Because there was no majority opinion in Alvarez, there is uncertainty about which standard of constitutional scrutiny should apply to protected lies, an issue we examine at length. Moreover, our normative claim is straightforward: when a lie has intrinsic or instrumental value it should be treated differently from other types of lies and warrant the greatest constitutional protection. Specifically, we argue that investigative deceptions – lies used to secure truthful factual information about matters of public concern – deserve the utmost constitutional protection because they advance the underling purposes of free speech: they enhance political discourse, help reveal the truth, and promote individual autonomy. A prototypical investigative deception is the sort of misrepresentation required in order for an undercover journalist, investigator, or activist to gain access to information or images of great political significance that would not be available if the investigator disclosed her reporting or political objectives. Tactical use of such lies have a long history in American journalism and activism, from Upton Sinclair to his modern day heirs. Using the proliferation of anti-whistleblower statutes like Ag Gag laws as an illustrative example, we argue that investigative deceptions are a category of high value lies that ought to receive rigorous protection under the First Amendment. At the same time, we recognize that not all lies are alike and that in other areas, the government regulation of lies serves legitimate interests. We therefore conclude the Article by drawing some limiting principles to our theory.

Candidate Conservation Agreements to Minimize Military Conflicts with Wildlife Laws: The Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus)

The proposed Endangered Species Act listing of the gopher tortoise has the potential to impact the military mission at installations in the southeastern United States. Candidate Conservation Agreements with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service could be a tool to promote conservation and potentially preclude listing. This project identified military activities that could be affected and determined that military natural resources managers are unsure if such an agreement would prevent impacts to the military mission or impose the same restrictions as federal listing. This project found that if a gopher tortoise Candidate Conservation Agreement can be developed such that it benefits the species as well as the military, it should be used as a model for other species.

Balancing Wetland Management with the Military: Using Special Area Management Plans (SAMPs) to protect wetlands on U.S. Air Force Installations

U.S. Air Force installations by virtue of their isolation and often remote locations provide protection to critical habitats that would otherwise be susceptible to development and other stressors. While Air Force activities may not always compliment environmental protection, a balance between environmental protection and Air Force requirements must be achieved to minimize conflict. Special Area Management Plans (SAMPs) are a possible solution in the quest to balance conservation with mission requirements. Beale Air Force Base, California is the first military installation to pursue implementation of a SAMP. This project found that SAMP implementation could be a tool to successfully balance conservation efforts with military requirements on other Air Force installations; however, further education on the SAMP process would be required.