American History of the 60-70s essays

American History of the 60-70s essays During the 50s and the 60s television had a huge impact on Americans lives.timeAmericans relied strongly apond the T.V. this allowed American people as well as the rest of the world to see things and witness things without even being remotely close. Television took one of its first major steps in Texas where president John F Kennidy was assassinated in the mid 60s. And how the hole event had gotten captured on tape. This allowed for the hole assassination to role out and for people of the world to see what had happened. After president Kennidy died in the hospital L.B.J. took office. Soon after the United States of America went to war in Vietnam. The Television played a majore part during this war. Reporters and news crews would be conducting daily interviews with soldiers to show on T.V. back home in the United States to show and tell the American people that we were getting some were in Vietnam. But where the telivision played a much bigger role was when the news crews sta rted to tape the body bags and woumded soldiers comeing back from battle to show to the people back home in the U.S. T.V. cameras are what withdrew us from the war so soon. The U.S. had gotten increasingly involved in the Vietnam war by having our airforce bases over their flying missions to protect the world against communisom and to bomb the enemy. Well naturally the communist didnt like the fact the the United States was coming into Vietnam and bombing them so they started to attack the airforce basis. After this was happening for a while the United States sent over the army boys to protect the airforce basis for the attacks. Evenshally the army didnt just set at the air force base and wait for the enemy to come to them. The army sent their boys out on search and destroy missions to hop fully keeps the communist away from the basis. As more fire basis went up more army men continued to trickal into Vietnam and they were no longer on j...

Review of Insta-Snow Fake Snow

Review of Insta-Snow Fake Snow The Bottom Line Insta-Snow is fake snow. You add water to a non-toxic powder made from a polymer, which instantly swells up to make what looks very much like snow. If you chill the Insta-Snow its the next best thing to real snow, though it doesnt melt and I wouldnt recommend throwing it in the air to catch snowflakes on your tongue. However, Insta-Snow is a lot of fun and easy to make. Pros doesnt require winternon-toxicvery easy to makesurprisingly easy to clean uplooks very much like real snow Cons not cold unless you chill itcant really make a good snowball out of it Description Insta-Snow expands to 100 times its original volume. You make it by mixing 1 teaspoon of snow powder with 2 ounces of water.Once hydrated, the snow is good for a couple of days. You can rehydrate it or store it to make again later.Insta-Snow does not stain surfaces, but it shouldnt be placed on untreated wood.You can use the snow outside. Its the same chemical used in gardens to help ​the  soil  retain moisture. Guide Review - Insta-Snow Review I got Insta-Snow for my kids, ages 9-14. They figured out the instructions easily without any assistance from me and soon there was instant snow everywhere. The snow feels very interesting. It is damp, but soft and fluffy and not cold. If you add a few drops of food coloring you can make colored snow. Insta-Snow looks much like real snow, though it does not melt. In fact, it lasts practically forever. If fake snow dries out, all you have to do to recharge it is spritz it with some water.

Employment law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words - 2

Employment law - Essay Example The emphasis is on the common law tests used to determine employee status. This is a particularly contentious area in the modern labour markets where the lines between the employed and self-employed are increasingly â€Å"blurred†.3 This paper demonstrates that the common law tests developed to determine the employee status is unsatisfactory and why. I. Significance of Determining Employee Status Initially, the courts treated the employee status as one defined around the concept of master and servant. As a result, during the 19th century, the employment relationship was primarily regarded as one of service in which the emphasis was on the servant’s (employee’s) duty to remain loyal and subservient rather than the master’s (employer’s) duty to â€Å"provide continuing employment.†4 In more recent times the word â€Å"worker† continues to gain currency in legislation and regulations suggesting the modernisation of employee status.5 For i nstance, Section 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provides that: In this Act ‘worker’ (except in the phrases ‘shop worker’ and ‘betting worker’) means an individual who has entered into or works (or, where the employment has ceased, worked under) – (a) A contract of employment, or (b) Any other contract, whether express or implied and (if it is express) whether oral or in writing, whereby the individual undertakes to do or perform personally any work or services for another party to the contract whose status is not by virtue of the contract that or a client or customer of any profession or business undertaking carried on by the individual.6 In other words, the term worker is used interchangeably with the word employee, reflecting the varying forms of employment that can take place in modern times. For instance the individual who works from home may not be under the kind of control that the workplace employee is, but should not be denied employee status.7 The use of the word worker immediately draws attention to the changing nature of the employee status and carries with it the identification of the significance of the employee in today’s labour market. The employee is no longer a servant, but a source of human capital. In this regard, the common law tests for determining the master servant relationship which necessarily flow from the older notion of master and servant, is no longer compatible with modern notions of the employee/employer relationship. There are essentially four primary reasons justifying a more robust test for determining employee status in more recent times. To begin with, the predominance of the contract of employment as a basis for identifying the employee’s status does not take into account the relative inequality of bargaining power between the employee (the weaker party) and the employer.8 These inequities compromise the extent to which the employee may bargain for and ob tain specific benefits under the contract of employment. The fact is, a self-employed worker will obviously be responsible for its own salary and health and safety at work.9 Secondly, the