Berth and Birth Commonly Confused Words

Berth and Birth Commonly Confused Words The noun berth refers to a place to sleep (usually on a train or ship), a place for a boat to moor, or a persons place or position on a team. As a verb, berth means to bring something (usually a ship) into a place where it can stay. The noun birth refers to the arrival of a baby (that is, the emergence of an infant from its mothers body) or to the beginning of something. As a verb, birth means to be born or to give rise to something. Examples At night, the seats pulled together to form the lower berth. The upper swung down on hinges from the wall. The upper berth contained the blankets, linens, mattresses, and pillows for both beds.(Rudolph L. Daniels, Trains Across the Continent: North American Railroad History. Indiana University Press, 2000)When a ship arrives at the port, the planners must decide where to berth the ship for the unloading and loading of containers.[Curt Siodmak] found an assignment at Paramount Pictures rewriting the script for a Dorothy Lamour sarong saga. He then found a berth at Universal Pictures, which specialized in horror movies.(Lee Server, Encyclopedia of Pulp Fiction Writers. Facts on File, 2002)An outdooring is the first African rite of passage. It always begins at dawn, eight days after the childs birth, and gives family and friends a chance to see and welcome the newest soul.(Maya Angelou, All Gods Children Need Traveling Shoes. Random House, 1986)The fact is that women can grow and birth a child independently of the father. Sadly, an increasing number of women in our modern societies are compelled to do exactly that.(Aviva Jill Romm, The Natural Pregnancy Book. Celestial Arts, 2011) Idiom Alert: "Give (Someone or Something) a Wide Berth" [This idiom means] to keep well away from or avoid (someone or something): I always give the park a wide berth when Im out at night. [A nautical idiom―a berth is the amount of space necessary for a sailing ship to maneuver safely.](Elizabeth McLaren Kirkpatrick and C.M. Schwarz, The Wordsworth Dictionary of Idioms. Wordsworth Editions, 1993)If Vito was impressed by his new schools academics, he gave a wide berth to its extracurricular activities and is notably absent from his sophomore and junior yearbooks.(Michael Schiavi, Celluloid Activist: The Life and Times of Vito Russo. University of Wisconsin Press, 2011) Practice Exercises (a) In the history of invention a long time almost invariably elapses between the ____ of an idea and its realization in practice.(H. W. Dickinson and Arthur Titley, Richard Trevithick: The Engineer and the Man, 1934)(b) Give a wide _____ to nesting birds, animals with young, and wildlife that is using a water source. Feel free to watch these wild inhabitants of the desert, but do so at a respectful distance so that your presence does not disturb them.(Erik Molvar and Tamara Martin, Hiking Zion and Bryce Canyon National Parks, 2nd ed. Globe Pequot, 2005)(c) McDowell helped me walk back to the ships sick bay, a small _____ walled in with panels of strong canvas.(Paul Dowswell, Powder Monkey: Adventures of a Young Sailor. Bloomsbury, 2005) Answers to Practice Exercises (a) In the history of invention a long time almost invariably elapses between the  birth  of an idea and its realization in practice.(H. W. Dickinson and Arthur Titley,  Richard Trevithick: The Engineer and the Man, 1934)(b) Give a wide  berth  to nesting birds, animals with young, and wildlife that is using a water source. Feel free to watch these wild inhabitants of the desert, but do so at a respectful distance so that your presence does not disturb them.(Erik Molvar and Tamara Martin,  Hiking Zion and Bryce Canyon National Parks, 2nd ed. Globe Pequot, 2005)(c) McDowell helped me walk back to the ships sick bay, a small  berth  walled in with panels of strong canvas.(Paul Dowswell,  Powder Monkey: Adventures of a Young Sailor. Bloomsbury, 2005)

Doctors Paid to Hastily Review SSD Cases

Doctors Paid to Hastily Review SSD Cases Lives in the Balance: Doctors Paid for Quantity of SSD Case Reviews, Not Quality An investigation recently uncovered highly disturbing findings that doctors in Tennessee were paid for the quantity of federal disability program applications they reviewed, a system that creates a blatant disregard for proper procedure and attentiveness, and instead rewards efficiency motivated by greed.These doctors would hastily review disability cases, denying a majority of likely viable cases in order to receive a sizeable amount of money- filling their own pockets without a care for the fates of the thousands of vulnerable people they held in the balance.Trusting Corrupt Medical Professionals with the Fates of the Vulnerable Disabled Population Those who apply for disability often have a serious medical condition that is expected to last for at least a year, or unfortunately, is expected to be terminal.It is unconscionable that medical professionals, who were tasked with the important job of reviewing federal disability cases for vulnerable citizens, did not thoroughly review c ases, including pages upon pages of supporting evidence. These doctors would instead skim over the information, and provide speedy verdicts that would unfairly evaluate the needs of those waiting for benefits.The recent investigation supports a common trend of disability applicants dying waiting for a decision or facing further declining health due to the inability to afford medical treatment when benefits are denied. In fact, 9,714 people died waiting for an appeal in 2016, likely all while doctors got richer, with an indifferent swipe of a pen.Man with Stage 4 Cancer Denied Necessary SSD Benefits by Doctor Set on Filling His Own Pockets The article tells the story of a man, Alan Chrisman, who worked for 30 years as a Stonemason, and dutifully paid into the Social Security Disability fund throughout his career. He was diagnosed with Stage 4 cancer which, according to the Social Security Administration’s rules, meets eligibility requirements.Unfortunately, his request for SSD benefits was flat-out denied by Dr. Thomas Thrush.He reviewed one case every 12 minutes in 2018. The federal standard is 1.5 cases an hour. Thrush has earned an astounding $2.2 million reviewing cases since 2012. Meanwhile, Mr. Chrisman and his family suffered, waiting six long months to receive an answer, only to feel the crushing weight of denial while suffering the pain of Stage 4 cancer.Lawyer Helps Apply for Reconsideration, Finds Critical Mistake, Wins SSD Benefits There is not a sufficient amount of checks and balances for doctors such as Thrush who are entrusted to review these critical cases. This is because a negligent 2% of denied cases are reviewed by the Social Security Disability Administration.Fortunately, Chrisman hired a lawyer who found a critical mistake that Dr. Thrush made, resulting in obtaining the benefits he needed to receive medical treatment and surgery.Nearly 50% of Disability Offices in the U.S. Reward Doctors for Reviewing as Many Cases as Possible The investigations findings are alarming, and these practices are not only confined to the offices in Tennessee. In fact, the investigation reported that nearly half of all disability offices hire doctors to act as medical consultants, creating a culture that essentially awards denials and inadequate reviews, all in the name of processing applications faster.But the applications and supporting medical evidence that the doctors spend limited time reviewing are more than just paper, it’s about people. These applicants could be a person’s mother, father, sister, brother, friend.You may even find yourself in need of applying. Wouldn’t you want a fair doctor to carefully review your application?Many people unexpectedly become sick, or are born with a condition that makes it impossible to work. In fact, nearly 50 million Americans are disabled, but only about nine million receive benefits, in part due to the complicated system.What should an applicant do to avoid delays and corruption, and improve the chances of being approved?Contact an Experienced Lawyer to Help Guide You Through the Complicated SSD Process If you are disabled, unfortunately, similar unjust Social Security Disability review practices could be happening in your state. In addition to potential fraud, the Social Security Disability application process is inherently complicated and confusing.It is important to contact a skilled Social Security Disability lawyer from the beginning who knows the ins and outs of the complicated process and can help you obtain the benefits you deserve, walking you through every step of the way. Your health is incredibly important, and during this difficult time, you should be focusing on getting better, while a lawyer fights for your rights.We Can HelpIf you are disabled and unable to work, call  Disability Attorneys of Michigan  for a free confidential consultation. We’ll let you know if we can help you get a monthly check and help you determ ine if any money or assets you receive could impact your eligibility for disability benefits.Disability Attorneys of Michigan  works hard every day helping the disabled of Michigan seek the  Social Security Disability  benefits they need. If you are unable to work due to a physical, mental or cognitive impairment, call  Disability Attorneys of Michigan now for a free consultation at  800-949- 2900.Let Michigan’s experienced disability law firm help you get the benefits you deserve.Disability Attorneys of Michigan, Compassionate Excellence. Michigan Social Security Disability Attorney, Social Security Disability Lawyer

The Challenges That Induce Unfavorable Conditions Assignment

The Challenges That Induce Unfavorable Conditions - Assignment Example Deida, in his book, ‘The way of the superior man,’ notes that men positively convert challenges into growth. He explores a positive perspective of growth that stimulates individuals to works towards realizing their potentials. This is one of the ways in which challenges helps people to grow. When faced with a challenge, a person’s weakness is exposed to him and to the society by extension and this may trigger an initiative to cover the weakness by solving it. Challenges, therefore, stimulate growth by initiating improvements (Deida, p. 61). Challenges also form the basis upon which developments can be built, especially among people with positive attitudes. A person with a positive attitude particularly identifies a challenge with the notion that the challenge can be solved. Such individual, therefore, explores avenues into generating solutions to challenges a move that identifies challenges as an avenue towards growth (Emmerling, Ghanwal and Mandal, p. 42). Exploration of the story, ‘graduation,’ directly expresses growth through challenges. The main title of the book that conveys the author’s themes for example talks of the singing of a caged bird. While the bird faces a challenge of loss of freedom, its condition prompts it to sing in an attempt to find help out of the cage. The author also directly illustrates the impacts of poverty, as a challenge, towards innovation and hard work. While the rich could easily afford clothes for the graduation ceremony, the poor class developed initiatives having presentable clothes. Similarly, the narrator explains how her mother made her an outstanding garment from what they could afford.  Such an initiative was prompted by her family’s financial challenge. The narrator’s high ambitions to success were also most likely inspired by the level of poverty in their family.

Cover letter Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words - 26

Cover letter - Essay Example Gaining education from some of the most reputable institutes in the world like the University of La Verne also enabled me expand my knowledge and concepts pertaining to marketing. Besides routine academic activities, my activities outside college premises have always focused on building healthy relationship with my community. To this effect, I volunteered in many game tournaments and also served as a host in many soccer tournaments. As far as my short-term and long-term goals are concerned, I have planned them according to my personal and professional interests. For example, my short-term goal is to earn a position in the marketing department. This will allow me to gain invaluable information about my field and grow intellectually. My long-term goal is to work for some high profile social or economic organization at an executive position. I believe that a position in the marketing department can become a valuable part of my educational and professional career because it will allow me to exercise the skills I have gained so far in my desired field of

Does Money Equal Power In American Politics Politics Essay

Does Money Equal Power In American Politics Politics Essay This essay argues that money does equal power in American politics and that campaign reform is still required in American society as this remains an ongoing problem. In order to show the impact of money in the American campaigning system I believe this essay should begin with a statement of the recent facts and figures in relation to the cost of campaigning in America. The 2012 campaign by Obama and Romney for the presidential race resulted in spending of over $6 billion reported which  includes money spent by the campaigns of both candidates, outside groups such as PACs, and independent organizations such as businesses  [1]  . In the evaluating of money and democracy in the presidential campaigns we must also look at public spending as this was supposed to be the answer in reforming the presidential campaigning. Campaign finance is not just a problem in the presidential campaigns, In 2010 $1.5 million was the average spent by house incumbents and $11.2 million was the average spent by senate incumbents, these numbers which we will compare with those of challengers to see if there is any inequality  [2]  . These figures alone show the e ye watering large amounts of money spent today by those in politics. There are many aspects that need to be looked at to determine if money affects he democracy of America. However this is not a recent problem in America, money in elections has been a problem for many decades and finally an introduction of a Act in 1971 was supposed to put this problem to bed. The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971 was created to restore peoples confidence in the campaigning system as many people felt large contributors had the biggest voice in political campaigns. This required funding to be made public. The Watergate scandal revealed during President Nixons campaign proved the corruption that was within the political system even with reforms in place as those who contributed large amounts were given positions as ambassadors in Nixons re-election committees, money equalling power  [3]  . This resulted in amendments being made to the original FECA such as the creation of the Federal Election Committee (FEC) who would ensure laws such as declarations of contributions where adhered to and brought public funding into the picture to try to stop the influence of large contributors. However, even when efforts are made to make campaign finance transparent to the public, there are still those who challenge this. In 1976 in the case of Buckley v Valeo, the reforms legislated by the FECA were brought to the courts. This case argued that the provisions made in the Act were unconstitutional. Here it was argued that money in politics was not corruption but instead it was a form of speech, therefore was protected by the first amendment of the Constitution of America and was a right of all Americans. It was decided that monetary contributions were an expression of ones support for a candidate which was a democratic right  [4]  . This association of money equals speech has been the hindrance of any reform after that and still poses problems in reform. Justice John Paul Stevens in 2000 presented a forceful opinion that money is property and not speech, surely money couldnt equal speech when money is not evenly distributed, this would prove that those with the biggest wallet had the biggest voices. The need for further reform after an extremely large redirecting of contributions in the form of sof t money led to further reform of the campaign system in the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA)  [5]  which targeted the booming problem of soft money during campaigns. This problem was as a result of the allowance of the FECA of organisations giving money indirectly to candidates; this money was not recorded by the FEC and had an unlimited budget. This was abolished by BCRA to further attempt to bring fairness to all candidates and to try, once again, ensure money did not equal power in America. Campaign reform in America tries to take the impact of money away from the impact of politics. But interest groups and the subsequent PACs have still left a question mark on the influence of money on the campaigns. Louise Overacker in 1932 expressed her concerns that financing of elections in a democracy is a major problem and raised the question of if democracies do not inevitably become government ruled by small groups  [6]  . This brings us into the discussion of interest groups and PACS and their impact on American Democracy. PACs are organisations created through the FECA to allow these organisations to raise and distribute money to campaigns, allowing more money to be directed at candidates. Many interest groups and large organisations create PACs  [7]  . Interest groups are known to have aims in politics in America, firstly to elect friends and defeat enemies and secondly to increase the number of people in political positions that share their views. Business interest groups on the other hand will more than likely use the friendly incumbent rule of backing the incumbent that is certain to be re elected and generally shares their views rather than a challenger who may be more supp ortive of their interests but is not guaranteed to succeed in their campaign  [8]  . Why is this? Why not support the candidate who is more supportive of your cause and stand by them? This raises the suspicion of interest groups being more concerned with gaining the access of those in power. If interest groups are raising large quantities of funding for these candidates surely they are receiving something in return, otherwise why continue to pump money into a wasted cause?  [9]  It is known that many people involved PACs are those that are well educated and part of the upper class society which raises the question of is there an unbalance in the representation of society in America? As political scientist E.E Schattschneider said the flaw in the pluralist heaven is that the heavenly chorus sings with a strong upper-class accent  [10]  . If so this puts further questions on the American branding of democracy. However those who are against this view that interest groups and individual contributions thwart democracy argue that it does the opposite. They, on the other hand, argue that interest groups are a direct result of a democratic state. They argue that interest groups and PACs increase peoples awareness and interest in politics and therefore improve democracy in expanding peoples knowledge in political matters, an aspect recognised by James Madison  [11]  . Therefore in theory this activity contributes to democracy in America. But interest groups and PACs as discussed above look after and promote their own interests, they can do this by emphasising the negatives of another candidate through negative campaigning  [12]  or issue advocacy or by promoting the positive aspects of the candidate they are supporting. Therefore are they really serving the needs of the country or the needs of themselves? I feel they are only looking after their own interests to try to increase those in s upport of the candidate that will best serve them in the event that they win their election. Interest groups and PACs are unlikely to use their funding to compare the candidates in a fair and democratic way in the aim of giving the public a fair and even view of each candidate. Their aim of promoting their interests will lead to thwarted pictures of candidates. The fact is that organisations that make contributions, especially those with significant financial resources, want to ensure they make a Return on Investment, thats what these contributions are from many PACs and interest groups, they are investments not donations. As said on Capitol Hill my vote is not for sale but is available for rent.  [13]   Public funding was created by the FECA to try to take the issue of money out of campaigns and to prevent corruption of wealthy individuals in politics. However those who took public funding had to abide by a budget given to them. The option of partial funding in presidential primaries was rejected by many as they began to use the system to benefit themselves. In 2000 George Bush decided to reject partial funding in the primaries  [14]  . This was with the aim of using this time of to raise as much money as he could so that he could easily out race the other opponents in his raising of funds; therefore he was able to create more awareness of his campaign in the primaries over the opponents who were under strict instruction to stick to their public budgets. Bush easily received the nomination he needed but then used public funding in the general election as he has the awareness of his campaign already generated. This shows that even the candidates themselves are thwarting the syste m to improve their own campaigns without regard for other candidates chances of receiving recognition or a fair campaign. The ease of which Bush succeed proved that the money he received equalled power in his race for nomination despite the public funding being in place. More worryingly this year neither Obama nor Romney accepted public funding. Why? Because more money can be gathered from independent sources. A frightening thought considering how much they raised. Is the ideology of a public funding system becoming extinct?  [15]  if so it is direct proof that money equals power. Why is public funding being abandoned by candidates for the White House? Mainly it is due to the growth of Super PACs and dark money  [16]  . Super PACs seem to be replacing the previous spurt of 527 committees who raised money to influence the outcome of elections by raising unlimited amounts of money. Once this money was not used in conjunction with the candidates campaign and did not openly call for the defeat or election of a particular candidate it was completely legal. However now Super PACs can collect money from both individuals and corporations, they also cannot give money directly to the candidate but can use the money raised independently to help ensure the election of there preferred candidate. In the 2012 election the estimated money raised from outside groups was $970 million, this increase is being linked to the increase in Super PACs. $123 million is the estimated amount spent by dark money.  [17]  Dark money was a phrase adopted by the Mother Jones Magazine  [18]  which referred to the secret donations given to candidates by individuals and organisations. These donations occur in all political campaigns but seem to be most a part of the republican party fundraising. If people or businesses are able to donate large quantities of money to candidates without them being made public we again have to ask how this affects democracy in America. Money donated to campaigns that are not made public means that we are unable to see if there is a correlation between the money those secret donors have given and the decisions of the lawmakers. However the question on money in politics applies to all elections including those in the house and senate between incumbents and challengers. As mentioned in the introduction the power difference between incumbents and challengers in the house and senate where public funding isnt in place is extremely large. This difference boils down to money. Incumbents have the benefit of being well known and established and therefore do not need to spend vast amounts on creating public awareness. They also have loyal contributors already established to their campaign. Challengers on the other hand struggle to raise the money needed to create awareness of their campaign. Often the incumbents merely raise large quantities of money to discourage competition from new challengers. Is it a democracy where people are not made aware of new challengers due to the large spending of incumbents? When new challengers do not even get a chance due to the impact on money? It is known that people vote for those they recognise and reject those they have a lack of information on. Between 1984-2004 57% of challengers spent less than $100,000 on their camp aigns and all of them lost  [19]  . Money equals power. I have discussed many things within the American campaign system that make me question the branding of America as a Democracy due to the corruption caused by money. But does money actually get those who contribute a foot in the door? Political scientist say that the contributions of PACs does not have a major impact on legislators decisions, this is because although there is a direct correlation between donations and votes, there is no proven relationship between donations and lawmakers decisions  [20]  . However this will always be hard to prove as you cannot match contributions on a quid pro quo basis. It may have been found that money doesnt buy votes in congress but it is proven that contributors do get the loyalty of those in congress. It is known that contributions do achieve access  [21]  such as meetings with the candidates they have supported. Since most organisations will support those who are already in support of their views the do not need to persuade the candida te on their interests, therefore many of the PACs interests may be try to be mobilised through congressional committees. An example of money buying access can be seen in the Bush administration. Bush rewarded those who donated money to his Pioneer bundling system, most of whom were wealthy energy company official, business executives and lobbyists, with individual meeting and receptions, later Bush appointed 19 of the members as ambassadors worldwide  [22]  Would the lack of large donations have the same impact? We also saw that in the reign of Nixon those who donated large amounts became part of his re election committees, would this have been the case without the large donations? And would the contributors continue to donate without anything in return? It is unlikely. The New York Times gave the statistics that since Obamas election in 2008 to now, those who donated $30,000 or less, about 20% of these visited the White House, were those who donated over $100,000 where about 75 % more likely to visit the President.  [23]  Statistics that dont prove anything other than money equals power and access. Although reform was again attempted again through BCRA in 2002, there still seems to be problems within the campaign finance system. There are many suggested ways in which reform can be achieved. One is the idea of imposing ceilings on the amount spent in campaigns, but this may affect the competitive aspect of the campaigns. This also wouldnt help the challengers who already struggle to make themselves known to voters, therefore the well known incumbents would benefit leading to further questions of money impacting democracy. Another possible solution is to ban PACs and stopping large donations and let candidates rely on small donations to fund their campaigns but this is unlikely to raise enough funds.  [24]  The idea of public funding seemed to be the perfect solution as it took the importance of large donators out of the picture and put limits in place by candidates. If this was put in place for all elections in the house, congress as well as the presidential elections, this would reduce the amount spent on elections. However, the budgets of these public funds need to be increased to encourage candidates to be a part of this system. It may also attract candidates who dont want to waste too much time in their campaign raising money if the budget is right  [25]  . The problem with this is that this idea has been branded welfare for politicians an idea disliked by the American society.  [26]  The judgment by the courts that money equals speech also needs to be revisited. With this opinion being circulated it is only benefitting those with money. In order to pursue interests through politics, money and access is needed, but these are things not equally distributed, this makes you wonder how is this a democracy if it is allowing the people with these abilities to use them to push their ideas?  [27]   In conclusion, the problem is that many of the ideas for reform have as many positives as negatives, there seems to be no direct way to solve the problem of corruption within the political system and to prevent money from equalling power. In the last reform there was a corset affect that what was squeezed in one place merely popped out in another  [28]  in the increasing of 527 committees and the creation of Super PACs. It is viewed that this will be the case in any reform as John McCainn stated I promise you that in 20 or 30 years from nowà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦a group of others will be standing here saying weve got to clean up the system again, because therell be smart people that figure out loopholes in the system. I doubt he foresaw the speed at which these loopholes would be found. The fact of the matter is that money will always be the fuelling of politics in America and therefore until some way is found to take money out of politics money will equal power. As this essay title say s America has the best democracy money can buy. Bibiography Book sources: Jon R Bond and Kevin B Smith, The promise and performance of American Democracy. Thomson/Wadsworth 2009 Lowi, Shepsle, Ginsberg. American Government power and purpose. 7th ed. New York:Norton 2002 Tonnahill, Neal R, American government: policy and politics, 11th ed, Pearson study edition 2012 Robert Singh, American government and politics: A concise introduction. Sage 2003. McKay, Haughton and Wroe. Controversies in American Politics and Society. Oxford UK, Malden,Mass:Blackwell 2002 Robert Singh, Governing America: The politics of a divided democracy. Oxford University Press 2003. Samuel Kernell and Gary C Jacobson. The logic of American politics. Cq Press 2006, 3rd edition Bardes, Shmidt and Shelley, American government and politics today. 2004-2005 ed, London: Wasworth 2003 Internet sources: The Atlantic Wire last accessed on 19/12/12 The New York Times: last accessed 20/12/2012 The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/us/politics/white-house-doors-open-for-big-donors.html?pagewanted=all last accessed 20/12/12

Chromatography: How can we separate a mixture?

PurposeThe chromatography lab is to understand how molecules with similar molecular properties can be separated with paper chromatography. These differences will be interpreted to see the distinction of separate chemical substances.Pre Lab Questions1. Explain capillary action as it pertains to water and paper.Capillary action makes water draw up the paper. As paper absorbs water mixes with the solutions in the paper.2. What is the Rf value in a chromatography experiment?Rf = Distance travelled by the solute from the original line/distance travelled by the solvent from the original line3. If a molecule has a high affinity for the stationary phase, how is the Rf value affected?High affinity for the stationary phase affects the Rf value by lower Rf values.4. If a molecule has high affinity for the mobile phase, how is the Rf value affected?The Rf value will be higher5. Imagine you are doing a chromatography experiment with a polar solvent and a molecule containing a carbonyl group. Woul d the Rf value be high or low? Explain.The Rf value would be predicted as being low because it would tend to stick to the paper more.6. Why must a pencil be used, instead of a pen or marker when marking chromatography plates?A pencil is being used when parking chromatography plates because the ink could take part in reacting with the substance that it is placed in.7. Why should latex gloves be worn when preparing chromatography plates?Latex gloves should be worn to prevent contamination of the chromatogram8. The sample fine thin-layer chromatography plate, shown below, was prepared by spotting methyl red at R, sudan III at S, and bromocresol green at G. A single drop of each was placed on M. The plate was put in the developing solution until the solvent front reached 10 cm. Estimate the retention factor of R,S, and G, by measuring to the middle of the spot.0.625 ; .369. Describe how the TLC plate shown in question #8 was improperly prepared. For thin layer chromatography the adsorbe nt is coated as a thin layer onto a suitable support. This layer substance mixture is separated by elution with a suitable solvent.10. Suppose that, while one of the chromatography plates is developing, the beaker is accidently bumped, and the developing solution splashes on the TLC plate. Explain how this would influence the results.The results would shift dramatically towards the selected solution before.Materials List:Food dye solutions, 3 colors and an â€Å"unknown† dye mixture Sodium chloride solution Isopropyl alcohol Paper chromatography plates Capillary tubes Pencil Five 250-mL beakers Plastic wrap Metric ruler Lab notebook Latex gloves, safety goggles, lab apronsProcedure: Activity 11. Wearing latex gloves, obtain ten chromatography plates, as directed by the instructor. Prepare each chromatography plate by marking lightly with pencil, a line at the bottom. Draw two small dots on the bottom line. Place the labels B (blue) and R (red) below the dots on the line. Repe at with the yellow food dye (Y) on another chromatography paper. Prepare the remaining eight plates the same way so that you have five sets of chromatography plates. 2. Properly prepare 250 mL beakers3. Cover 250 mL beakers with plastic wrap 4. Prepare 10 mL of below solution and place them in the beakers. Label with the mobile phase composition. a. 1% salt water b. 1% salt water/isopropyl alcohol (3:1) mixture c. 1% salt water/isopropyl alcohol (1:1) mixture d. 1% salt water/isopropyl alcohol (1:3) mixture e. isopropyl alcohol 5. cover each beaker with a piece of plastic wrap 6. Prepare 1 mL of each dye solution 7. Place one drop of blue food dye with the capillary tube 8. Do this for the â€Å"R† (separate capillary tube) 9. Do this for the â€Å"Y† (separate capillary tube) 10. Allow droplet to fully dry 11. Gently lower one of the plates into one of the 250-mL developing solution beakers, ensuring that the dry food dye spots are at the bottom.Ensure that  no solv ent splashes onto the chromatography plate above the initial solvent level 12. Carefully re-cover the 250-mL beaker13. The solvent will quickly rise through the plate. Allow until  ¾ way 14. Once the solvent level has reached the maximum height, quickly remove the plate from the 250-mL beaker and mark the exact point of the solvent front before the solvent evaporates. (will take longer) 15. Mark the plate with the identity of the developing solution composition. Set the plate face-up to allow it to dry 16. Replace the plastic wrap cover on the 250-mL beaker17. Repeat steps 7-16 with each of the other developing solutions. Ensure that each plate is properly marked and labeled 18. Measure the distance between the bottom line and the upper solvent line on each plate. Record this information in the data table 1 for the corresponding developing solution 19. Identify and circle each spot corresponding to the indicator dyes on each of the chromatography plates 20. Measure the distance be tween the bottom line and the center of each indicator spot (B,R andY) on each plate. Record this data in the corresponding data table 21. Ask the instructor whether the chromatography plates should be retained or disposed off

The Simpsons vs South Park

By contrast South Park relies on our knowledge of subjects outside the realm of elevation. South Park's humor is heavily dependent on the fact that its audience is consuming media and observing culture outside of traditional television shows. The Simpson family is, literally, a middle American family. The town in which they live, â€Å"Springfield† Is constantly shown to be In the center of the country in any of the shows maps. The family consists of Homer and Marge, he's an overweight, undereducated couch potato and she's the long suffering loving wife.Together they have three children Bart, Lisa and Maggie. The trouble-maker, straight a student and doodler respectively, just the composition of this family shows that the creators are seeking to lampoon the average American family. The stupidity of Homer and the children's antics and the ridiculous nature of the world around them are strictly for laughs. In show advertisements mock sexism and religion in American culture. With in the show, the television often reflects criticism of news and popular action movies and issues of children and violence.But for all this satire, there is not much bark to the Simpson bite. The show itself must depend on advertisement revenue. Its network, FOX, Is one of the Top 4 networks In the country. In the late ass's, the Image of Bart Simpson was synonymous with Butterfingers candy bars. There were two music Cad's released with official music videos, that would play at the end of the episodes. It's parody too point. And Its parody that many American's are well aware of already. It's as if the creators wink and nudge at the audience and say ‘You're smart and we know it.Now please, buy our products. † South Park attempts to do something beyond just simple parody of our consumption and violence. Trey Parker and Matt Stone attempt to create new meaning out what we have already viewed. The very meaning of the parody is derived from what you already know of the target of ridicule. This is what Jerkiest and Fiske refer to as intellectuality. They attempt to relate the Simpson to this dynamic but I believe this realm is where South Park is actually operating.The Simpson may use this intellectuality when playing with genre, but South Park uses it when conveying the very meaning of the parody. Even this season alone, South Park had covered the topics of social media sites Like Faceable, celebrates and sex scandals and the hypocrisies of the media concerning such events, and marijuana legalization debate. All of these topics are lampooned by critiquing the media's covered and both sides of the social and political debate on TV.You have to be critically aware to understand the finer points of South Parks humor that lies beneath the crude language and crass Jokes. The irony is that those that think Homer Simpson is a cutting edge satire of American life, are most likely a carbon copy of Homer himself. It's easy to criticize South Park on the surface, b ut those that are media literate will â€Å"get the Joke† more than its critics. The Simpson are entertaining but ultimately, too safe.