Answer:
<h3>I think this might help you</h3><h3>
Explanation:</h3><h3 />
<h3>With the flu season swiftly approaching and the H1N1 already affecting large numbers across the world, New Hampshire faces the possibility of a flu epidemic. In such an instance, what action would the state or federal government take? The possibility of a massive quarantine gets thrown around every time a flu epidemic exists, but is such an action an infringement of the rights of individuals living in a free nation? Or is the common good of preventing the spread of infection more important?
</h3><h3>
</h3><h3>Even the current health care debate reflects the tension between individual rights and the common good. Over the past months New Hampshire town halls have been crowded with individuals taking a side in the individual rights/common good debate. Some have expressed the view that health care initiatives are in the interest of a healthier state and nation. Others claim that compulsory health insurance impedes individuals’ right to the best health care money can buy. Can the individual rights vs. common good debate help us understand some of the ideological tension behind the current health care discussion?
</h3><h3>
</h3><h3>As many of these examples show, this month’s question is largely political, but it can also flow into other areas of thought. There’s the philosophical and moral question of the Donner Party; if you and five others were stranded and starving, and your only hope of getting out alive is to eat the first member who passed away, would you do it to save the rest of the group? There is the question that comes up around the disabled. Do you build special infrastructure to accommodate the few who are disabled even if that meant the cost to do this would jack up prices. Then there is the commercial/environmental side. What is more important, buying a cheaper car that fits your personal budget and your personal tastes or a more expensive and efficient auto that would help save the environment? What do you think?
</h3>
Answer:
Check the Explanation
Explanation:
1) States offering the program placed the benefit levels at an extremely low rate while setting the eligibility standards to a level that discriminated against blacks.
2) A lot of the black population was involved in jobs that paying Social Security taxes was nonexistent, most were only qualified for government handouts that came with one form of stigma or the other.
3) The moral standard eligibility put in place by various states around the U.S. were determined by local authorities that discriminated against black race.
Answer:
The new Parliament of New South Wales opened and sat for the first time on 22 May 1856. It was a bicameral (two House) legislature, similar to that of England, consisting of an Upper House (the Legislative Council) and Lower House (Legislative Assembly).
Explanation:
Answer:
1. sensory;
2. attend to;
3. short-term
Explanation:
Sensory memory is a term in psychology that describes the shortest-term element of memory. It is defined as means to retain or keep impressions of sensory information after the original stimuli have ended.
For example, shortest - term of memory is when an idividual sees an object briefly before it disappears. Once the object is no more in sight, it is still retained in the memory of such individual for a very short period of time.
Thus, Sensory information is concluded to be stored in sensory memory, then after assessing or recalling the memory, it gets transferred to short-term memory.
Hence, When an external event occurs, information about it FIRST goes to SENSORY memory, and then, if we ATTEND TO the information, it goes to SHORT-TERM memory.
