What role does the relationship between Jessica and Lorenzo play in the story?

Jessica and Lorenzo have a relationship that differs significantly from the other relationships in the story. The key difference lies in the ex-societal nature of their bond. In the relationships between Bassanio and Portia, as well as between Nerissa and Gratiano, there is a larger community, outside the two consenting parties, that validates the relationship. In the case of Portia, she is not free to marry whom she wills because of the system of selection...

Jessica and Lorenzo have a relationship that differs significantly from the other relationships in the story. The key difference lies in the ex-societal nature of their bond. In the relationships between Bassanio and Portia, as well as between Nerissa and Gratiano, there is a larger community, outside the two consenting parties, that validates the relationship. In the case of Portia, she is not free to marry whom she wills because of the system of selection her father has put in place:

O me, the word choose! I may neither choose who I would, nor refuse who I dislike; so is the will of a living daughter curbed by the will of a dead father. (1.2.25)

The conditions upon which Portia forgives Bassanio at the end of the play show that this theme of accountability to an entity outside the pair exists in the relationship between Bassanio and Portia as well. Portia will not forgive Bassanio until Antonio makes a soul-damning oath that Bassanio will remain true. Thus, Portia can count on the integrity of Bassanio through the risk Antonio has taken upon himself in her husband's name.

In comparison with this, the role of Jessica and Lorenzo clashes as the polar opposite. Their act of marriage comes about through a surreptitious escape into the night. Thus they flee community. Furthermore, when we see them again in Act 5, they are out alone under the bright stars. Their presence as a contrast in the story draws the reader's attention to the nature of contractual bonds in marriage. It prompts the reader to inquire into the nature of marriage.

I would like to know a quote that supports how Scrooge has changed in A Christmas Carol.

Although Ebenezer Scrooge begins to show changes as early on as Stave II when the Ghost of Christmas Past shows him Fezziwig's holiday party, the real changes that we see come toward the end of the story in Stave V, after Scrooge has awakened on Christmas Day.

Scrooge spends Christmas essentially making amends. He commits money to the charity he had refused at the beginning of the story. He visits his nephew Fred for Christmas...

Although Ebenezer Scrooge begins to show changes as early on as Stave II when the Ghost of Christmas Past shows him Fezziwig's holiday party, the real changes that we see come toward the end of the story in Stave V, after Scrooge has awakened on Christmas Day.

Scrooge spends Christmas essentially making amends. He commits money to the charity he had refused at the beginning of the story. He visits his nephew Fred for Christmas and actually meets his wife. And most significantly, he visits the Cratchits, provides them with a huge turkey for dinner, and raises Bob's salary. Beyond that, we know this:

"Scrooge was better than his word. He did it all, and infinitely more; and to Tiny Tim, who did not die, he was a second father. He became as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man, as the good old city knew, or any other good old city, town, or borough, in the good old world. Some people laughed to see the alteration in him, but he let them laugh, and little heeded them; for he was wise enough to know that nothing ever happened on this globe, for good, at which some people did not have their fill of laughter in the outset; and knowing that such as these would be blind anyway, he thought it quite as well that they should wrinkle up their eyes in grins, as have the malady in less attractive forms. His own heart laughed: and that was quite enough for him" (Stave V).

Clearly Scrooge has changed completely from the miserable man he was at the beginning of the story. He went form being utterly alone and greedy to part of two families and generous. He embraces life in every way. He also went from being a man no one respected (but they did fear) to a man that earned and gave respect to others.

What is the second major event in the book The Giver?

There are a couple different events that could be considered "main events" at the beginning of the book.

- Jonas's father brings home baby Gabriel, an infant from the Nurturing Center who "wasn't doing well."

- Jonas watches an apple that is being tossed into the air.  Before his eyes, the apple changes.  He sees a flash of color.  In his community, there are no colors.

- Jonas shares his dream of wanting to bathe...

There are a couple different events that could be considered "main events" at the beginning of the book.

- Jonas's father brings home baby Gabriel, an infant from the Nurturing Center who "wasn't doing well."

- Jonas watches an apple that is being tossed into the air.  Before his eyes, the apple changes.  He sees a flash of color.  In his community, there are no colors.

- Jonas shares his dream of wanting to bathe his friend, Fiona, naked.  His mother then informs him that his strange new feelings toward his friend are the "stirrings."  He starts taking medication to suppress these feelings.

Because Gabriel is a main character in the story, the event of bringing him home is important.  The entrance of Gabriel in the family's home is the first main event.

The second main event is debatable.  While it is a pivotal occurrence in Jonas's life, the scene with the apple is extremely brief.  If you do not consider this to be an event, then Jonas's dream about Fiona and him having to be medicated for the "stirrings" would be another important event.

What is the relationship between atomic size and atomic number?

Atomic size is a periodic trend, meaning that it repeats in a regular pattern. Going from left to right across a period (horizontal row) of the periodic table the atomic radius or size decreases as the atomic number increases. However, moving from top to bottom within a group (vertical column) the atomic radius increases as the atomic number increases.

The reason for this has to do with the arrangement of electrons. The atomic number represents...

Atomic size is a periodic trend, meaning that it repeats in a regular pattern. Going from left to right across a period (horizontal row) of the periodic table the atomic radius or size decreases as the atomic number increases. However, moving from top to bottom within a group (vertical column) the atomic radius increases as the atomic number increases.

The reason for this has to do with the arrangement of electrons. The atomic number represents the number of protons, which equals the number of electrons in a neutral atom. The size of an atom is determined by the attraction of the electrons to the positive nucleus. When there's more attraction the electrons are pulled in closer. Inner electrons repel outer electrons, shielding the outer electrons from some of the nuclear charge. Within a period, each additional electron is added to the existing energy level. The addition of one proton and one electron with no change in the amount of shielding by inner electrons results in an increase in the amount of postive charge experienced by the outer electrons. This is called the effective nuclear charge. The effective nuclear charge is roughly equal to the atomic number minus the number of inner electrons. Here's an example of why fluorine is smaller than oxygen:

Effective nuclear charge of O = 8-2 = 6, number of electrons = 8

Effective nuclear charge of F = 9-2 = 7, number of electrons = 9

Nine electrons are more attracted by a charge of +7 than eight are by a charge of +6, so fluorine's electrons are pulled in close than oxgyen's. This is just an approximation, there's a little more that goes into calculating a shielding factor.

Moving down a group, the shielding factor increases because each row has an additional level of inner electrons. The electrons are thus less attracted to the nucleus and move further away, resulting in the observed increase in atomic radius going down a group.

Why does O'Connor mention the message from Mary Brigid O'Connell about her brother's socks in "Guests of the Nation"?

In the story, Bonaparte (the narrator) and his compatriot, Noble, watch over two English prisoners, Hawkins and Belcher. The British soldiers enjoy a good camaraderie with their Irish captors; all are on friendly terms, and the soldiers even play cards together.

The exchange between Hawkins and Bonaparte is used by the author to demonstrate the friendly rapport the English captives have with their Irish captors.

"You're the bloke they calls Bonaparte?' he said to me....

In the story, Bonaparte (the narrator) and his compatriot, Noble, watch over two English prisoners, Hawkins and Belcher. The British soldiers enjoy a good camaraderie with their Irish captors; all are on friendly terms, and the soldiers even play cards together.

The exchange between Hawkins and Bonaparte is used by the author to demonstrate the friendly rapport the English captives have with their Irish captors.

"You're the bloke they calls Bonaparte?' he said to me. 'Well, Bonaparte, Mary Brigid Ho'Connell was arskin about you and said 'ow you'd a pair of socks belonging to 'er younger brother."

O' Connor also includes this exchange to highlight the difficult situation Bonaparte and Noble find themselves in later on in the story. When orders come in to execute both Hawkins and Belcher, Bonaparte finds himself ambivalent. He feels only guilt that he must now execute men who he has come to regard as fellow human beings. Additionally, Belcher's dignity and kindness in the face of death adds to Bonaparte's guilt and sense of shame.

...I was somehow very small and very lonely. And anything that ever happened to me after, I never felt the same about again.

So, O' Connor includes the exchange about the socks to highlight the difficult moral decisions every soldier must make in the act of warfare. To undergird his point, he skilfully juxtaposes the humanity of the soldiers' earlier interactions with the inhumanity of the orders that are sent from superior officers.

Who was responsible for the coming of the Civil War? Were strong personalities important? Could the war have been prevented?

The American Civil War was one of the bloodiest conflicts in national history, with the total number of casualties estimated at around 620,000 soldiers.  In this war, the northern states (also known as the Union) faced off against their southern neighbors, who had just recently seceded and formed the Confederate States of America.  When it comes to placing blame for the genesis of this war, though, neither the North or the South was fully at fault, for the Civil War arose, and some scholars would argue its inevitability, due to tensions surrounding the two sides' vastly differing economies and ideologies.

The northern economy prior to the Civil War was largely an industrial one, with factories and mills in cities such as Boston, New York, and Philadelphia.  This was due in part to the greater availability of natural resources (i.e. coal) within the region.  Additionally, the mileage of railroad track in the North was far greater than that of the South, enabling faster shipment of raw materials and finished goods.

The economy of the South, by contrast, was mostly based in agriculture, with the warm climate and fertile soil of the region enabling establishment of large-scale farms (often known as plantations) and the growth of profitable cash crops such as tobacco and cotton.  As a result, southerners saw very little need for industrialization, with fewer miles of railroad track than in the North and only ten percent of the population residing in urban communities.  Furthermore, while not all southern farmers owned slaves, this "peculiar institution" was seen as an inseparable component of the agricultural economy.

Another key difference between the northern and southern regions of the United States was that existing in their respective ideologies.  The southern way of life was deeply rooted in the concept of Jeffersonian agrarianism, which valued the virtue of "plain folk" over the more elite (and possibly corrupt) city populations, and held that an individual only needed to remain in one place and work on a farm.  By contrast, the North espoused the Whig ideology, one which valued modernization and the idea of a person "pulling themselves up by their bootstraps" and relying on their own abilities to overcome boundaries of self and location.

Some major personalities central to the Civil War's eventual breakout included Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun, Stephen Douglas, and Abraham Lincoln. 

Henry Clay, a member of the Whig Party, helped to engineer the Compromise of 1850, a series of bills passed to defuse political and sectional conflicts between free and slave states over the status of newly-acquired territories.

John C. Calhoun was a South Carolina senator who strongly supported slavery, and whose views on states' rights (powers exclusive to state governments), limited federal government, the opposition to high tariffs (allowing for free trade between nations), and nulllification (the right of states to declare federal laws null and void) influenced the South's decision to secede.

Stephen Douglas was a Northern Democratic senator from Illinois who assisted Clay with the Compromise of 1850, and is perhaps best known for his support of popular sovereignty, or the idea that states should be given the right to decide whether to allow or prohibit slavery.

Abraham Lincoln was an Illinois politician and lawyer, as well as the 16th President of the United States.  While his policies and actions as President helped to preserve the Union, his belief prior to and during the Civil War was that slavery could only be abolished as the result of constitutional amendments or military tactics (the Emancipation Proclamation being seen as an example of the latter).

In conclusion, the American Civil War was the result of major sectional, political, and ideological conflicts between the industrial North and the agrarian South, and the tensions which emerged from them became too great to be resolved politically or peacefully.

What are some key quotes in Of Mice and Men that demonstrate the theme of hope and dreams?

When George narrates a vision of the future to Lennie and Candy, it represents how the theme of hope and dreams can be seen in Of Mice and Men.

In Chapter 3, Lennie asks George to narrate what their future might be like. It is clear that the life of moving from ranch to ranch and bucking bags of barley is taking a toll on both of them.  While George has repeatedly told Lennie...

When George narrates a vision of the future to Lennie and Candy, it represents how the theme of hope and dreams can be seen in Of Mice and Men.

In Chapter 3, Lennie asks George to narrate what their future might be like. It is clear that the life of moving from ranch to ranch and bucking bags of barley is taking a toll on both of them.  While George has repeatedly told Lennie of the future, this particular vision possesses greater depth: 

Sure, we’d have a little house an’ a room to ourself. Little fat iron stove, an’ in the winter we’d keep a fire goin’ in it. It ain’t enough land so we’d have to work too hard. Maybe six, seven hours a day. We wouldn’t have to buck no barley eleven hours a day. An’ when we put in a crop, why, we’d be there to take the crop up. We’d know what come of our planting.

Making direct references to the potential excitement of no longer having to "buck barley" and that "We'd know what come of our planting" show the theme of hope and dreams for the future. This is enhanced when George further describes a world where the life they lead would "be our own, an’ nobody could can us."  When Candy offers his financial help,  George represents the theme of hope and dreams:  “Jesus Christ! I bet we could swing her.” His eyes were full of wonder. “I bet we could swing her..."  The idea of "we could swing her" shows the zenith of hope and dreams in Of Mice and Men.  All three men believe in the authenticity of a future so very different from past and present.

How does William Shakespeare present commitment in Romeo and Juliet?

Shakespeare presents commitment in two distinct ways.  Through Juliet, Shakespeare shows unwavering commitment.  Through Romeo, Shakespeare shows commitment as nothing more than a passing fancy.  

Juliet is utterly committed and devoted to Romeo.  She's willing to die for him.  She is willing to defy her parents for him.  That's a big deal, because her parents are a major part of her life right from the beginning of the play.  And they are not overbearing...

Shakespeare presents commitment in two distinct ways.  Through Juliet, Shakespeare shows unwavering commitment.  Through Romeo, Shakespeare shows commitment as nothing more than a passing fancy.  

Juliet is utterly committed and devoted to Romeo.  She's willing to die for him.  She is willing to defy her parents for him.  That's a big deal, because her parents are a major part of her life right from the beginning of the play.  And they are not overbearing parents either.  Lord Capulet even defends Juliet against Paris's advances.  

She hath not seen the change of fourteen years,
Let two more summers wither in their pride,
Ere we may think her ripe to be a bride.

On the flip side is Romeo.  That guy doesn't know how to commit to anything.  When the reader is first introduced to Romeo, he is crying about how Rosaline doesn't share his commitment to her.  Then he is committed to Juliet.  Later, he tells Tybalt that he doesn't want to fight (because they are now family).  Minutes later, Romeo is killing Tybalt.  I don't think that Romeo actually knows what real, true commitment looks like. 

`225^@ = 300^@ - 45^@` Find the exact values of the sine, cosine, and tangent of the angle.

`sin(u-v)=sin(u)cos(v)-cos(u)sin(v)`

`sin(300-45)=sin(300)cos(45)-cos(300)sin(45)`

`sin(300-45)=(-sqrt3/2)(sqrt2/2)-(1/2)(sqrt2/2)=-sqrt2/4(sqrt3+1)`

`cos(u-v)=cos(u)cos(v)+sin(u)sin(v)`

`cos(300-45)=cos(300)cos(45)+sin(300)sin(45)`

`cos(300-45)=(1/2)(sqrt2/2)+(-sqrt3/2)(sqrt2/2)=sqrt2/4(1-sqrt3)`

`tan(u-v)=(tan(u)-tan(v))/(1-tan(u)tan(v))`

`tan(300-45)=(tan(300)-tan(45))/(1-tan(300)tan(45))=(-sqrt3-1)/(1-sqrt3(1))=(-sqrt3-1)/(1-sqrt3)`

The rationalized answer is `sqrt3+2.`

`sin(u-v)=sin(u)cos(v)-cos(u)sin(v)`

`sin(300-45)=sin(300)cos(45)-cos(300)sin(45)`

`sin(300-45)=(-sqrt3/2)(sqrt2/2)-(1/2)(sqrt2/2)=-sqrt2/4(sqrt3+1)`

`cos(u-v)=cos(u)cos(v)+sin(u)sin(v)`

`cos(300-45)=cos(300)cos(45)+sin(300)sin(45)`

`cos(300-45)=(1/2)(sqrt2/2)+(-sqrt3/2)(sqrt2/2)=sqrt2/4(1-sqrt3)`

`tan(u-v)=(tan(u)-tan(v))/(1-tan(u)tan(v))`

`tan(300-45)=(tan(300)-tan(45))/(1-tan(300)tan(45))=(-sqrt3-1)/(1-sqrt3(1))=(-sqrt3-1)/(1-sqrt3)`

The rationalized answer is `sqrt3+2.`

How does Steinbeck present ideas about the good and bad in people Of Mice and Men?

Steinbeck’s ideas of the nature of good and bad is told best by a character in another of his books (The Grapes of Wrath) as “just what people do.” There is no standard definition, independent of a person’s conscious being or intention, yet there is a system that will impose its ideas on others’ actions, especially those of the innocent and helpless. An example in Of Mice and Menis Lennie, the mentally...

Steinbeck’s ideas of the nature of good and bad is told best by a character in another of his books (The Grapes of Wrath) as “just what people do.” There is no standard definition, independent of a person’s conscious being or intention, yet there is a system that will impose its ideas on others’ actions, especially those of the innocent and helpless. An example in Of Mice and Men is Lennie, the mentally handicapped companion of George. Lennie has very little notion of good and bad. He just knows what he likes. He likes to pet soft things, but he has no idea of how this affects people who see it as aggression. The petting is what Lennie does; the aggression is what people view it as. Lennie’s actions often result in death (the mice, the puppy, Curley’s wife), but this death is not seen as a crime by Lennie or George, even though they may call it a “bad thing". It is just what happens when Lennie’s actions are too overwhelming. In this context, it is the result, not the intention or the person himself, who is considered “good” or “bad".

What impact did British Colonialism/Imperialism have on Kenya?

In 1888, the British East Africa Company (BEAC) received a charter to develop trade in Kenya from the Sultan of Zanzibar. In 1895, after the financial collapse of the BEAC, Great Britain took Kenya over as the East Africa Protectorate and established control over Kenya's economy and opened the highlands for white settlement. To do so, the British built the Uganda Railroad linking Mombasa with their territory in Uganda. As a result, many British people...

In 1888, the British East Africa Company (BEAC) received a charter to develop trade in Kenya from the Sultan of Zanzibar. In 1895, after the financial collapse of the BEAC, Great Britain took Kenya over as the East Africa Protectorate and established control over Kenya's economy and opened the highlands for white settlement. To do so, the British built the Uganda Railroad linking Mombasa with their territory in Uganda. As a result, many British people arrived in Kenya as farmers and missionaries, and Indians came to Kenya to carry out the labor to build the bridge. The British wanted to establish a market economy with crops such as coffee, a change from the traditional practice of growing subsistence crops.

The British began a campaign to eradicate local practices, including the practice of native religions (including local beliefs in witchcraft) and slavery. In addition, the British tried to modernize agricultural techniques, which met with local resistance. Local tribes such as the Maasai and Kikuyu were often displaced as a result of European settlement.

Kenya was ruled by a legislative council that, particularly after Kenya was made a Crown Colony in 1920, left native Kenyans (and other people such as Indians and Arabs) largely out of the political process. At this point, Kenyan nationalism developed, as the European settlers did not allow locals to grow coffee. Europeans also established a hut tax that drove many local Kenyans, who were landless, to the cities in search of employment. After World War II, Kenyan nationalism developed with intensity (including during the Mau Mau Uprising of 1952 to 1960), and the colony became independent in 1964. 

The legacy of British colonialism in Kenya is in part the economic strength of the country in comparison to its neighbors in East Africa. However, there are still very strong tribal rivalries that occasionally erupt, particularly after elections in Kenya. The British did not unite the country but instead left long-standing divisions that still surface in the country's political process. 

chapter by chapter summary of the story of Christian theology by Roger Olson

Let us begin by exploring the full title of this wonderful book that won the Gold Medallion award from Christianity Today! in the year 2000. Seeing as the book is called The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition & Reform, we can expect that this book talks a lot about how Christianity is a story that began two thousand years ago (twenty centuries) and is full of tradition and change. The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition & Reform, has quite an organization actually with nine different parts (delineated by roman numerals) which are divided into thirty-five separate chapters.

Directly before Part I is the introduction which discusses Christianity precisely as “a story.”

While history seems as dry as dust to many modern readers, a story is always eagerly welcomed and greeted with interest.

This is precisely the reason why Olson presents Christianity as a “story” as opposed to painting it it a simple history. Part I is specifically about the second century (100-200 years after Christ) and discusses different visions and trajectories of the new religion: Christianity. Chapter 1 is about the critics of the religion and the opposing members of cults that attempted to prevent its spread. Chapter 2 discusses some of the first apostles of Christ (that is those who were originally “sent out” to spread the word) and how they proclaimed Christ as the “Way” as well as “the Truth and the Life.” For example, Saint (and bishop) Polycarp, Clement, Ignatius, and Barnabas and their struggles against different heresies are discussed at length. Then Chapter 3 attempts to discuss the apologists who attempted to combat those same heresies by defending the Christian faith. Finally, Chapter 4 of Part I is about Iraneus exposing the truth behind heresies like Gnosticism. Irenaeus, of course, was the eventual saint who was quite severe in proclaiming that there was no salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church.

Part II continues Olson’s idea of Christianity being a “story” in that it is about the plot of the story thickening specifically in the third century. The different chapters of this part attest to this. Chapter 5 talks a lot about philosophy and how it often has been shown to contradict Christian thinking, especially in the early spread of the religion to North Africa. Chapter 6 is about how the philosopher Origen nixed the concept of reincarnation by proclaiming “one mortal bodily existence” and the interesting idea of “ultimate, universal reconciliation for all creation,” even including Satan. Chapter 7 is about Cyprian from the city of Carthage, who took it upon himself to unify Christians, while Chapter 8 is about how that unity (inspired by Cyprian) truly brought the early Christian church together.

Part III discusses the Church’s first great crisis: the concept of the Trinity (and how it was explained and resolved, especially by the Council of Nicaea). Chapter 9 speaks of the concept of Trinity (there being one God with three parts: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) and the fact that the Alexandrians contested the second part of the Trinity (the Son). Chapter 10 is about the response to that problem: the Council of Nicaea. The Nicean Creed is still recited in many churches, even today. Chapter 11 is about Athanasius, who continued the faith adamantly, while Chapter 12 is about the Cappadocians who finally concluded the Church’s first crisis.

Part IV is about the Church’s second crisis: the specific issues of the second person of the Trinity (the Person of Christ). Chapter 13 is about how Alexandria and Antioch butted heads about the person of Christ (in their differing opinions of the Son of God). Nestorius and Cyril bring the crisis to the forefront in Chapter 14 while Chalcedon proclaims Christ being the Son of God as a “mystery” in Chapter 15. The final chapter is about the fact that this never-ending crisis continues to have a “fallout.”

In Part V is about the Great Schism: the division between East and West in regard to the Christian Church. Chapter 17 focuses on Saint Augustine, the famous saint who went from a life of licentiousness to holiness, and talks about the glory of the one true God and how humans are gravely flawed. Chapter 18 and 19 respectively talk about how the Western Church becomes Roman Catholic while the Eastern Church becomes Eastern Orthodox. Chapter 20 discusses this as the particular “Great Schism.”

Part VI covers new ideas of science and how they have to do with the formation of the church. Chapter 21 discusses the skepticism of Abelard and Anslem in regard to how the new science conflicts with church teaching. Chapter 22 is fully about Saint Thomas Aquinas, a famous Roman Catholic Academic, who wrote about Christian Truth, including the concept of the “Just War.” Chapter 23 groups Humanists, Reformers, and Nominalists together in one chapter in their attempt to justify the Faith.

Part VII talks about what Olson calls the “new twist”: the Protestant Reformation. Chapter 24 speaks of Martin Luther and how his “theses” divided the Church once and for all, halting the spread of a unified Christianity. Chapter 25 is about how Protestant thought was cemented by both Calvin and Zwingli. Chapter 26 is about the frustration of the Anabaptists (and specifically how they attempted to get back to Christian roots through simplicity). Finally, Chapter 27 attempts to explain the parallel teachings of Canterbury and Rome as the two separate schools of Protestant and Catholic thought.

Part VIII is about the diversity of Protestantism and how it broke the Faith apart even more through its many religions. Chapters 28-31 discuss these differing Protestant religious groups respectively: Armenians, Pietists (Lutherans), Puritans, Methodists, and Deists. Each religion has its own specific teachings, which are a bit too detailed to discuss at length here. This part, more than any other, reveals the problems that arise when there is not one authority on religious thought.

Finally, Part IX concludes the “story” by discussing the modern schism of liberal and conservative Christian thought. Chapter 32 is about modern culture and how to “marry” it with Christian tradition. Chapter 33 is about conservatives bouncing back against those “liberals” discussed in the previous chapter. Chapter 34 discusses the new orthodox ideas (deemed “Neo-Orthodoxy”) that try to bridge the gap between the two. In its final chapter, Chapter 35, Olson’s The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition & Reform discusses at length the Christian struggle with diversity (both of culture and thought) while touching on such ideas as abortion and gay marriage. Olson ends with firmness about how the Christian “story” is truly never ending and is, in fact, still being written even today.

Which word best describes Mrs. Lapham? Generous, kind, practical, or religious?

In the book Johnny Tremain by Esther Forbes, Mrs. Lapham acts as a practical character throughout the story.  This is seen in numerous examples; however, it is especially seen in her treatment and communication with Johnny Tremain.

Throughout the beginning of the book, Mrs. Lapham relies on Johnny to work diligently in the silversmith shop. Although he has only been there for two years, she encourages him to work hard, even on Sunday (which was...

In the book Johnny Tremain by Esther Forbes, Mrs. Lapham acts as a practical character throughout the story.  This is seen in numerous examples; however, it is especially seen in her treatment and communication with Johnny Tremain.

Throughout the beginning of the book, Mrs. Lapham relies on Johnny to work diligently in the silversmith shop. Although he has only been there for two years, she encourages him to work hard, even on Sunday (which was not socially or religiously acceptable at the time).

After Johnny’s accident, Mrs. Lapham encourages Johnny to leave and find different work because it is not practical for him to stay. Regardless of his past work, Mrs. Lapham believes:

“it is an extravagance for a poor household to keep a boy [Johnny] just for chores.”

Furthermore, she states:

“no business can be run with just a feeble old man and three of the most worthless boys in Boston, eating their heads off.”

As a result, she pushes Johnny to find new work, leave the people he knows, and even suffer from malnourishment because of her emphasis on practicality. Although Johnny is initially very practical and advantageous to the shop, he quickly becomes a burden due to his injured hand. As a result, Mrs. Lapham quickly treats Johnny as worthless and as a burden.

What are some fatal flaws in Happy Loman from Death of a Salesman?

The first fatal flaw of Happy Loman is that he is the son that most closely resembles his father, Willy. 

Happy is over-confident, unrealistic, shallow, and completely clueless about who he is. The reader wonders what is Happy's real role in the play, as his presence neither adds nor takes away from the plot. That is perhaps the entire purpose of Happy: He merely is. He just exists. He is a part of nothing. 

Happy...

The first fatal flaw of Happy Loman is that he is the son that most closely resembles his father, Willy. 

Happy is over-confident, unrealistic, shallow, and completely clueless about who he is. The reader wonders what is Happy's real role in the play, as his presence neither adds nor takes away from the plot. That is perhaps the entire purpose of Happy: He merely is. He just exists. He is a part of nothing. 

Happy (not happy)

There are good reasons for all of the descriptors above. First, Willy never really dotes on Happy the way that he does with Biff. To Willy, Biff (his first born) was the apple of his eye. Being the "runner-up" of the family, Happy overworks himself trying to please his dad. Since nothing that Happy does pleases Willy, Happy has basically decided that nothing that he (Happy) does, will satisfy him either. This is why, even though Happy has been able to hold a job, get a promotion, and move to his own apartment, he cannot make any significant connection with anyone. He is a lonely man. 

Another, very disturbing flaw in Happy is his blindness to the facts. Like Willy, he tries to live life in a formulaic way: Being happy = get the job, get the girl, get the money.

Still, none of these things ever make him sit and contemplate life, or what he has made of it. Happy is simply a living being that has not learned how to truly live. The worst part is that he sees nothing wrong with the way that he has done things. He even perpetuates Willy Loman's ridiculous dream and it is Happy who ends his part in the play by sticking to the idea of starting over in business again the way Willy did. Hence, Happy will continue the vicious cycle created the day that Willy Loman decided to follow the steps of  Dave Singleton, and left everything behind in pursuit of a shallow dream. 

Would the English language be different without Shakespeare's influence?

Yes, the English language would most certainly be different without Shakespeare; however, the English language also wouldn't be that much different.  I do not believe that Shakespeare is some English language pivot point in which the entire direction of the language changed because of the words that he put to paper.  He did contribute to the English language for sure, but not enough to have the English language be unrecognizable had he not existed.  

...

Yes, the English language would most certainly be different without Shakespeare; however, the English language also wouldn't be that much different.  I do not believe that Shakespeare is some English language pivot point in which the entire direction of the language changed because of the words that he put to paper.  He did contribute to the English language for sure, but not enough to have the English language be unrecognizable had he not existed.  

One thing that Shakespeare absolutely did do is coin new words.  Over 1000 new words entered the English language because of Shakespeare.  That's awesome and a big deal.  I don't want to take that away from him, but Shakespeare isn't the only guy in English language history to coin words.  

Another thing that Shakespeare helped do is standardize some basic grammar structures.  That's a huge contribution for sure.  But I also believe that grammar would have been eventually standardized anyway.  So yes, English would be different without Shakespeare, but probably not vastly different. 

What are the most prominent attributes of God in Genesis 1 ("The Beginning") and Genesis 2 ("Adam and Eve")?

Almost all scholars of the Bible agree that Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4 onward were written by two different authors and then placed together in the same book at a much later time. The two different authors present creation differently and also present God somewhat differently. They even refer to God with different names: the author of Genesis 1 uses the Hebrew word elohim, which simply means “God,” while the author of Genesis 2 uses God’s proper name Yahweh (which is often translated “LORD”).

The differences do not stop at the names of God, however. In Genesis 1, creation is presented as the triumph of order over chaos, and God is the creator of order. He operates according to a well-structured and well-thought-out plan, by which he creates the world and everything in it in six days and rests on the seventh. God in Genesis 1 is cosmic and all-powerful. He controls the whole universe, and he creates the world by merely speaking. After he has created it, he is pleased by what he has created.

To fully understand how the writer of Genesis 1 was portraying God, it is helpful to look at other ancient creation stories that the author may have read or known about, such as the Babylonian creation myth. Many scholars believe that the author of Genesis 1 is trying to show that the God of the Bible is much more powerful than Marduk, the chief god of Babylon. Marduk is also the champion of order over chaos, but in his case he must fight an epic battle with the monster Tiamat (who is also his grandmother) in order to create order in the world. In contrast, the God of Genesis 1 is completely supreme. There is no challenge to his kingship of the universe or his ability to dictate its events. 

In Genesis 2, God appears much more personal and local. He creates the man and personally commands him to take care of the garden, and not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (verses 7-17). His plan is not nearly as well-considered as that of Genesis 1, since he only thinks to make the woman after he sees that the man should not be alone (verses 18-24). This god is much more a god of the earth than a god of the cosmos. He is close and personal, rather than far-off and removed.

In Shakespeare's Macbeth, consider how Macbeth, in his role of tragic hero, functions as an instrument of the suffering of others.

William Shakespeare created one of his most despicable, yet pathetic, characters with the tragic hero of Macbeth. Tragic heroes have a tragic flaw, a weakness that brings about their downfall. Macbeth's flaw is his failure to understand the consequences of his ambition.

One of the primary consequences of Macbeth's ambition is the misery it causes for others. As Macbeth slips deeper and deeper into his single-minded madness, he becomes less and less concerned about the...

William Shakespeare created one of his most despicable, yet pathetic, characters with the tragic hero of Macbeth. Tragic heroes have a tragic flaw, a weakness that brings about their downfall. Macbeth's flaw is his failure to understand the consequences of his ambition.

One of the primary consequences of Macbeth's ambition is the misery it causes for others. As Macbeth slips deeper and deeper into his single-minded madness, he becomes less and less concerned about the devastation he creates.

The first object of his ambition is, of course, King Duncan. This causes a broad range of misery, as Duncan's sons and subjects all feel sorrow at his death.

Next, he kills the faithful and innocent Banquo, rendering his son fatherless.

Ironically, Macbeth's actions result in the suicide of his wife, Lady Macbeth, who cannot shake the guilt of the plot she originated. She is an unexpected victim, since we saw her behave so ruthlessly in acts I and II.

Although at this point he has already gained the throne, his ambition breeds a paranoia that leaves him feeling threatened and exposed. Macbeth sinks to his deepest point when he orders the killing of Macduff's wife and children. Macduff's suffering at the loss of his family is the most poignant moment in the play, and it underscores how evil Macbeth has become. 

Finally, Macbeth brings misery to himself, as evidenced by his famous soliloquy “Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow,” in which he reveals how pointless his life has become with lines “Life is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

What does Macbeth plan to do in Scene 4 of Act III after Banquo's murder?

At the end of Act III Scene 4, after Macbeth has learned that Banquo is dead but Fleance escaped, then behaved like he was a sandwich short of a picnic when the ghost of Banquo showed up at his banquet, thereby deeply disturbing all the lords in attendance, Lady Macbeth dismisses the guests ("Stand not upon the order of your going / But go at once."). Macbeth, still disturbed by the gory ghost of Banquo (who has left the scene), says, "It will have blood; they say, blood will have blood," then muses about how odd things happen in nature (trying to make sense of what he has seen). 

Macbeth then says: "How say'st thou, that Macduff denies his person / At our great bidding?" That is, "What do you think of the fact that Macduff, who was invited to the banquet, didn't show up?"

Lady Macbeth responds oddly, saying, "Did you send to him, sir?" This is an odd question, in my view, because until now, Macbeth has conspired with his wife, but this tells us that she didn't know about his orders to have Banquo killed, which means she didn't understand what he was raving about at the banquet. She must have been as freaked out as his guests. 

Macbeth responds, "I hear it by the way; but I will send," meaning he's heard rumors of why Macduff didn't attend, but he'll check into it. This is again odd. Why doesn't he tell his wife, who started this trail of bloodshed, about his orders to have Banquo and Fleance murdered? But he keeps the facts close to his chest. He merely responds, "There's not a one of them but in his house / I keep a servant feed," meaning that he has spies in every great house in his kingdom. 

What does he plan to do next? Go back to the weird sisters, of course. He is now "bent to know / by the worst means, the worst. For mine own good, / All causes shall give way: I am in blood / stepp'd so far that, should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er. / Strange things I have in head, that will to hand; / Which must be acted ere they may be scann'd."

This marks a deep psychological change in a man who was, in the beginning, "too full of the milk of human kindness / To catch the nearest way" to the crown. Macbeth, without consulting his wife, let alone being coerced by her to commit evil deeds, has decided that he will return to the witches (understood to be against nature and God's law, so he's daring hell here) to find out what lies ahead for him, and he will know, no matter what he has to do. He has realized at this point that he has gone so far that it doesn't matter if he slaughters a few more people; he's already a murderer, so what's a few more murders in the grand scheme of things? He resolves to act on his plans (to retain his crown) before he has a chance to think about them from here on out. He has shut off his conscience now. 

Why do you think the Giver finally decided that "things must be changed"?

The Giver has been the holder of memories and emotions for a long time.  Jonas is not the first receiver of memory to be chosen by the Giver.  The previous receiver was a girl, and she couldn't handle the massive influx of knowledge and emotion that she was getting.  Rosemary asked to be released from her duty (and life).  When she died, her memories flooded into the community, and the people couldn't handle it.  It...

The Giver has been the holder of memories and emotions for a long time.  Jonas is not the first receiver of memory to be chosen by the Giver.  The previous receiver was a girl, and she couldn't handle the massive influx of knowledge and emotion that she was getting.  Rosemary asked to be released from her duty (and life).  When she died, her memories flooded into the community, and the people couldn't handle it.  It was disastrous.  Since that time, ten years have passed.  The community felt that it was time to try again with Jonas.  But the Giver has had ten years to think about whether or not the current system and the sameness is appropriate.  I think he genuinely disagrees with the Receiver of Memory system, and he wants it gone.  There is too much risk to the community if the memory keeper suddenly dies and the community is flooded with all of the emotions and memories at the same time.  If the community went back to a "normal" system, then the people would have time to get used to emotions and bad memories at a slower more appropriate pace.  That is what I think the Giver wants to see.  He wants the community to learn how to handle stuff as a community.  Not a single person doing that job.  

What was the exact date of the snowfall in Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird?

In Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird, while we are never told the exact date that snow fell in Maycomb, we can deduce the approximate day.One thing we know is that Tom Robinson was arrested on November 21st in the 1930s. We know the date of his arrest based on the testimonies during the court case. For example, Sheriff Tate is the first to confirm that the incident with Mayella...

In Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird, while we are never told the exact date that snow fell in Maycomb, we can deduce the approximate day.

One thing we know is that Tom Robinson was arrested on November 21st in the 1930s. We know the date of his arrest based on the testimonies during the court case. For example, Sheriff Tate is the first to confirm that the incident with Mayella Ewell happened on "November twenty-first" (Ch. 17). We also know that the snow fell before Christmas since Christmas is described in Chapter 9 whereas the snowfall is described in Chapter 8. We also know that it is starting to get very, very cold; Maycomb is having the coldest winter it has had since 1885. Scout describes that, at the beginning of winter, they had "two weeks of the coldest weather since 1885" (Ch. 8). We also know that three weeks passed between the snowfall and Christmas time. We know the length of time passed based on Scout's statement that she remained on her best behavior, refraining from getting into a fight with Cecil Jacobs, for three weeks until Christmas time:

I felt extremely noble for having remembered, and remained noble for three weeks. Then Christmas came and disaster struck. (Ch. 9)

Three weeks prior to Christmas Day is December 4th. December 4th is also two weeks just after November 21st. Therefore, we can deduce that the weather turned cold after Robinson's arrest, between November 21st and December 4th. Hence, we can also deduce that the snow fell on December 4th of the 1930s.

It should also be noted that we know the book is set in the 1930s because we know the citizens of Maycomb are going through the Great Depression.

Can you think of a situation where it would be right to break the law?

"One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”--Dr. Martin Luther King

There are many instances when it would make sense to break a law.  Some of the greatest social changes have occurred as a result of people breaking unjust laws.  An example of this is when citizens deliberately violated Jim Crow laws during the Civil Rights Movement in the United States.  This is a heroic example and one that may not be confronted by...

"One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”--Dr. Martin Luther King

There are many instances when it would make sense to break a law.  Some of the greatest social changes have occurred as a result of people breaking unjust laws.  An example of this is when citizens deliberately violated Jim Crow laws during the Civil Rights Movement in the United States.  This is a heroic example and one that may not be confronted by the average citizen.  

From a more practical standpoint, decisions of whether to break a law are complicated. Everybody understands the importance of law and order in a civilized society.  Morally speaking, it would be fair to say that breaking a law should be weighed against the consequences of following the law.  If your wife cut her wrist by accident and was severely bleeding, it would seem reasonable that obeying speed limits on the way to the hospital would be foolhardy. Would you immigrate to a country illegally if it could provide your family with better health and economic benefits?  If your children were starving to death, it would not seem immoral to steal bread for them.

It is reasonable to discuss the issue of breaking a law in the context of who would be harmed by following the law, and how many people would be harmed by breaking it.    

In the book To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee, what of some examples of Atticus Finch being patient?

Atticus is unfailingly patient. When Scout begins to use obscene language in the hopes that he'll realize that she's learning it at school and thus will let her stop going to school, he ignores it and explains to Uncle Jack, "Don't pay any attention to her, Jack. She's trying you out. Cal says she's been cussing fluently for a week, now." He suspects (and it probably right) that it's a phase she's going through and/or...

Atticus is unfailingly patient. When Scout begins to use obscene language in the hopes that he'll realize that she's learning it at school and thus will let her stop going to school, he ignores it and explains to Uncle Jack, "Don't pay any attention to her, Jack. She's trying you out. Cal says she's been cussing fluently for a week, now." He suspects (and it probably right) that it's a phase she's going through and/or she's just trying to get attention, and when she figures out that it doesn't work, she'll stop. 

When Mrs. Dubose accuses Atticus of "lawin' for niggers and trash" to Jem and Scout (and Jem destroys her camellias), Atticus says to Jem, "I have no doubt that you've been annoyed by your contemporaries about me lawing for niggers, as you say, but do something like this to a sick old lady is inexcusable." No matter what people say about him, Atticus keeps his head. 

After the trial, when Mr. Ewell spits on Atticus in public and says, "Too proud to fight, you nigger-lovin' bastard?", Atticus merely responds, "No, too old." No matter what happens, it seems, Atticus is patient and collected. 

Is a text-to-speech option available ?

I doubt the site itself has text-to-speech abilities, but your Windows version should (assuming you have Windows of some sort). In your Windows version: 

1. Click Start, click Control Panel, and then double-click Speech.


2. Select the Text-to-Speech tab.


3. Move the Voice speed slider to change the rate of the Text-to-Speech voice.


4. Click Preview Voice to hear the currently selected voice at the new rate.

One of the problems you may run into is that it will...

I doubt the site itself has text-to-speech abilities, but your Windows version should (assuming you have Windows of some sort). In your Windows version: 

1. Click Start, click Control Panel, and then double-click Speech.


2. Select the Text-to-Speech tab.


3. Move the Voice speed slider to change the rate of the Text-to-Speech voice.


4. Click Preview Voice to hear the currently selected voice at the new rate.

One of the problems you may run into is that it will read everything on the Windows page. An easy fix for that is to highlight the text itself, copy it (right click, then copy), then paste it into a Word document, then activate text-to-speech. 

If you use some other interface than Windows, just tell me what it is and I'll give you tips to work around it. Best of luck!

Who is the protagonist in the story "Raymond's Run"?

Protagonist is a literature teacher word for "leading character."  In the short story "Raymond's Run," Hazel Elizabeth Deborah Parker is the protagonist.  She is also known as "Squeaky."  I like describing "protagonist" as the "central character."  The reason I like the word "central" is because it makes me think of a pivot point that turns or that things can revolve around.  Thinking of a protagonist in this way really highlights his/her central importance to the...

Protagonist is a literature teacher word for "leading character."  In the short story "Raymond's Run," Hazel Elizabeth Deborah Parker is the protagonist.  She is also known as "Squeaky."  I like describing "protagonist" as the "central character."  The reason I like the word "central" is because it makes me think of a pivot point that turns or that things can revolve around.  Thinking of a protagonist in this way really highlights his/her central importance to the entire story.  It also shows how a protagonist can turn/change.  That's definitely true of Hazel.  She begins the story as an aloof and tough girl.  She cares most about herself and intentionally distances herself from her peers.  She sees other girls as competition to be beaten.  But by the end of the story, she has taken on a softer persona.  She begins coaching her disabled brother and realizes that other girls are not always there to be competed against.  

And she nods to congratulate me and then she smiles. And I smile. We stand there with this big smile of respect between us. It’s about as real a smile as girls can do for each other, considering we don’t practice real smiling every day, you know, cause maybe we too busy being flowers or fairies or strawberries instead of something honest and worthy of respect . . . you know . . . like being people.

What does Dylan Thomas mean in line 17 of "Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night?"

The speaker of the poem (Thomas) implores the reader to fight and resist death even if it is inevitable. "Wise men" and philosophers will rage against death because their wise words may not have had the effect they had wished. Good men rage against the "dying of the light" (death) because even though they had been good, their lives were not as exciting as they could have been. Wild men rage because they had lived...

The speaker of the poem (Thomas) implores the reader to fight and resist death even if it is inevitable. "Wise men" and philosophers will rage against death because their wise words may not have had the effect they had wished. Good men rage against the "dying of the light" (death) because even though they had been good, their lives were not as exciting as they could have been. Wild men rage because they had lived full lives, had not worried about death, and were therefore not prepared or ready to die. Blind men see death perhaps more acutely than those with sight. They have some experience with the darkness associated with death. Thomas's father was blind and this is significant here. 

In this last stanza, Thomas is addressing his father particularly. He notes that his father is on a "sad height" - on the precipice of death. He also wants his father to rage against death. This is not necessarily because of regret or being unprepared. He simply wants his father to fight. So, he wants his father to curse (fight) and bless him (making him feel better) with fierce tears. In crying fierce tears, he shows that he is fighting (fierce) against his own sorrow (tears). Thomas will feel blessed that his father is also raging against the dying of the light. To rage against death is to show one's love for life and reluctance to leave his loved ones. 

How does Shakespeare make Act 3, Scene 2 in The Merchant of Venice particularly dramatic and full of emotion?

This is the scene where Bassanio wants to take his chances with the caskets to win Portia's hand in marriage. Portia begs him to wait a month or so because she's having a great time with Bassanio as it is, and if he fails by choosing the wrong casket, they must say good-bye. However, Bassanio argues that he feels as if he is being tortured by not being able to marry her. Portia relents and allows him to take his chance. This creates dramatic and emotional tension because Bassanio and Portia truly love each other, but if Bassanio chooses the wrong one, he must leave immediately, never see Portia again, and never ask any other woman to marry him as long as he lives.

In order to suspend the tension, Bassanio analyzes each of the caskets, the riddle, the metal, and the philosophy behind each one. He doesn't choose the gold box because gold brings trouble, just as it did for Midas. He doesn't choose silver because it is too commonly used and praised. Therefore, he chooses the lead box because it doesn't make any lofty claims or promises, its looks are not deceiving, and "Thy paleness moves me more than eloquence" (III.ii.106). It is within the lead box that Bassanio finds Portia's picture, which proves he has won her hand in marriage.

The scene then becomes even happier, because just as everyone is rejoicing for Bassanio and Portia, Graziano steps up and tells them that he loves Portia's lady-in-waiting, Nerissa, and wants to marry her. Just as everyone is feeling joyful about two happy couples and future weddings, Salerio shows up with a letter from Antonio informing him that all of his ships have been lost at sea. This is bad news because that means he will lose a pound of his flesh to Shylock, to whom he owes three thousand ducats. Bassanio must flee from Portia's side just as they are experiencing happiness and run to help Antonio.

The characters and the audience experience a rollercoaster of drama and emotions during this scene. The whole scene is intense because Bassanio risks losing his Portia, but just as he wins her, he must also leave to save Antonio. The plot with Shylock thickens as Antonio's ships are all lost and he cannot repay his creditors. Fortunately, Bassanio now has Portia's wealth to draw from in order to try to save Antonio. Portia offers double the amount to pay for Antonio's life and Bassanio leaves, with her permission, to offer six thousand ducats to Shylock.

`tan^2(2x)cos^4(2x)` Use the power reducing formulas to rewrite the expression in terms of the first power of the cosine.

It is known that

`cos^2(y)=(1/2)(1+cos(2y))`  and

`tan^2(y)=(1-cos(2y))/(1+cos(2y)).`

Repeating the first formula we obtain

`cos^4(y)=(1/4)(1+2cos(2y)+cos^2(2y))=`

`=(1/4)(1+2cos(2y)+(1/2)(1+cos(4y))=`

`=(1/8)(3+4cos(2y)+cos(4y)).`

Finally, for `y=2x` 

`tan^2(2x)*cos^4(2x)=(1-cos(4x))/(1+cos(4x))*(1/8)(3+4cos(4x)+cos(8x)).`

It is known that

`cos^2(y)=(1/2)(1+cos(2y))`  and

`tan^2(y)=(1-cos(2y))/(1+cos(2y)).`

Repeating the first formula we obtain

`cos^4(y)=(1/4)(1+2cos(2y)+cos^2(2y))=`

`=(1/4)(1+2cos(2y)+(1/2)(1+cos(4y))=`

`=(1/8)(3+4cos(2y)+cos(4y)).`

Finally, for `y=2x` 

`tan^2(2x)*cos^4(2x)=(1-cos(4x))/(1+cos(4x))*(1/8)(3+4cos(4x)+cos(8x)).`

What does Scout learn in Chapter 11?

In Chapter 11, as Jem and Scout pass Mrs. Dubose's house, she hurls insults at them. Mrs. Dubose says, "Your father's no better than the niggers and trash he works for!" (Lee 135) Jem is upset and loses his temper by smashing Mrs. Dubose camellia bush. Scout learns that even Jem can lose his temper under extreme provocation.Atticus explains to Scout that she must learn to conduct herself appropriately when the "chips are down,"...

In Chapter 11, as Jem and Scout pass Mrs. Dubose's house, she hurls insults at them. Mrs. Dubose says, "Your father's no better than the niggers and trash he works for!" (Lee 135) Jem is upset and loses his temper by smashing Mrs. Dubose camellia bush. Scout learns that even Jem can lose his temper under extreme provocation. Atticus explains to Scout that she must learn to conduct herself appropriately when the "chips are down," and is told that Tom's case is something that "goes to the essence of a man's conscience" (Lee 140). Towards the end of the chapter, Scout learns that Mrs. Dubose was terminally ill, and her last wish was to "kick" her morphine addiction. Scout learns that Jem's reading took her mind off the pain in between her doses, and she eventually beat her addiction. After Mrs. Dubose dies, she leaves a candy box with a white camellia in it as a gift for Jem. Atticus explains that it's her way of saying that everything is okay between them. This is an important lesson in Scout's moral development. Scout witnesses the duality of human nature when Atticus explains Mrs. Dubose's courage and integrity. Scout learns that people can have both good and bad qualities.

Does Romeo truly love Juliet and why?

In Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, the love affair between the two teenagers is not meant to signify a story of true love, but a story of silly family rivalry that has driven a well-matched couple into such desperate straights that they kill themselves. So, no, Romeo did not truly love Juliet, but simply loved the idea of a beautiful woman he might marry.

The first time we see Romeo is when he is pining...

In Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, the love affair between the two teenagers is not meant to signify a story of true love, but a story of silly family rivalry that has driven a well-matched couple into such desperate straights that they kill themselves. So, no, Romeo did not truly love Juliet, but simply loved the idea of a beautiful woman he might marry.

The first time we see Romeo is when he is pining over the loss of Rosaline to "Dian's wit." While many English teachers seem to suspect this has something to do with Rosaline choosing a life of service to the church, there is no evidence of this. Instead, it seems as if Rosaline rejected Romeo's sexual advances and he says that this is due to some vow of chastity she made.

With Shakespeare's early indirect characterization of Romeo in mind, the next real glimpse at him is at the Capulet's party when he sees Juliet. While Romeo has no idea who she is, his view of her from afar causes him to pine after this girl who has "Beauty too rich for use, for part too dear." And then he stands and watches her. In his very first conversation with her, Romeo does not attempt to know her as a person and, thus, fall in love. Instead he asks her, "My  lips, two blushing pilgrims, ready stand to smooth that rough touch with a tender kiss."

This infatuation Romeo has with Juliet is aided by two adults—Friar Laurence and Juliet's nurse—who encourage the marriage between the two children. The friar specifically states that this marriage could "turn your households' rancour to pure love." 

It is worth noting that Romeo's passion for Juliet, including his suicide, indicate some level of love. However, this is love that is not based off actual knowledge of Juliet, but love that is based off teenage sexual desire and Friar Laurence's  manipulation of him for his own political purposes. 

In To Kill a Mockingbird, what does Jem notice about the way Calpurnia speaks at church?

In Chapter 12, Calpurnia takes Jem and Scout to First Purchase African M. E. Church. It is the first time the children visited an African American church, and they gain valuable insight into the black community of Maycomb. Later on the chapter, Calpurnia explains how she taught her son Zeebo to read using Blackstone's Commentaries. Jem is awestruck because Blackstone's Commentariesis a very challenging book to read. He says to Calpurnia, "That's why...

In Chapter 12, Calpurnia takes Jem and Scout to First Purchase African M. E. Church. It is the first time the children visited an African American church, and they gain valuable insight into the black community of Maycomb. Later on the chapter, Calpurnia explains how she taught her son Zeebo to read using Blackstone's Commentaries. Jem is awestruck because Blackstone's Commentaries is a very challenging book to read. He says to Calpurnia, "That's why you don't talk like the rest of 'em...Rest of the colored folks. Cal, but you talked like they did in church..." (Lee 167) Jem and Scout both notice that Calpurnia speaks differently around her community members. Calpurnia speaks informally and uses a Southern African American dialect that is typical of that region during the early 1900's. Scout mentions that Calpurnia lived a "modest double life" and has "command of two languages." Calpurnia explains to the children that if she talked formally then her neighbors would think she was "puttin' on airs to beat Moses." (Lee 167) Calpurnia tells Scout that it's not lady-like to tell people all you know, and that people don't like being around others who know more than they do. Scout and Jem learn important lessons in manners and human relations on their visit to Calpurnia's church. 

At the beginning of "The Interlopers," what is Ulrich's wish? Does it come true? What's ironic about this?

Ulrich's wish is to meet Georg in a deserted spot in the forest and end Georg's life. Half of his wish comes true, as he does indeed meet Georg "man to man" and "face to face." He does not kill him, though. The irony is that (1) while Georg loathes interference from interlopers, he encounters interlopers originating in the forest and that (2) while both men want to kill each other, they are crushed by the forest and confronted with killers from the forest.

What Is Ulrich's Wish?

On this night of violent storm and disturbed creatures in the "forest lands of Gradwitz," Ulrich von Gradwitz stood guarding against the poacher Georg Znaeym. Georg is the son of a poacher who was the son of a poacher who disputed the legal ownership of the forest lands and took his dispute to the "Courts" to be settled by a "famous lawsuit." The Znaeym family never "acquiesced in the judgment of the Courts," and the courts were the original interlopers in the conflict over the forest, the first "cursed interlopers [who] come between us." The Znaeyms began an earnest campaign of poaching from the forest lands of Gradwitz. Now, when Ulrich thirsts for the other's "blood," he wishes that—on this wildly stormy night, with no witnesses around, deep in his own forest and separate from his men for a few minutes—he might meet Georg "man to man," end his life and, with it, Georg's poaching from Gradwitz forest. 

[Ulrich] wandered far down the steep slopes amid the wild tangle of undergrowth, peering through the tree trunks and listening through the whistling and skirling of the wind and the restless beating of the branches for sight and sound of the marauders. . . [That] he might come across Georg Znaeym, man to man, with none to witness—that was the wish.

Half of Ulrich's wish comes true. He steps "round the trunk of a huge beech" and comes "face to face" with Georg. Both enemies glare at each other "for a long moment," each with a rifle in hand. They are civilized men, not used to shooting another man in cold blood, never having had to defend "hearth and honor." Neither shoots. In that moment between them, bred of shared civilization, nature proves itself a second interloper in the matter of the forest: a branch of the "huge beech" falls on both men with a "splitting crash" in a "fierce shriek of the storm." Ulrich's wish is to be "man to man" with Georg and, in an unwitnessed moment, to kill him. The first part comes true: he meets George "face to face." Yet nature's beech tree interloper prevents either man from descending from their civilized impulses into murder, as this is what they both wish to do, even from their youth: "as boys they had thirsted for one another's blood." Consequently, the second part of Ulrich's wish does not come true; in fact, he changes his mind about what he wants and asks Georg to be his friend.

What is ironic is the role of the interlopers in the story. Interlopers are individuals who intrude themselves into matters that are not their own, where they are not wanted, and where they are seen as not belonging. The Znaeyms considered the judges of the "Courts" who ruled against them to be interlopers, which is why Georg—ironically—tells Ulrich that they will fight the matter of the forest out between themselves without interlopers interfering:

"Good," snarled Georg, "good. We fight this quarrel out to the death, you and I and our foresters, with no cursed interlopers to come between us."

It is ironic that, while Georg's family for three generations have railed against the interlopers of the "Courts," who put the forest into the hands of Ulrich's family, it is now the forest itself that plays the interloper and crushes both men beneath a massive beech branch. It is ironic that while life was strong and the will to live strong—for three generations, in both families—the will to rail against interlopers was stronger, causing families to dream of blood, not peace. Yet, ironically, here they are, trapped—in danger of a wintry death—by nature's own forest interloper. It is ironic that once they decide to view each other as unique human beings with feelings, bone and blood, pain and suffering, and to become friends and share life together on correct social and legal terms, nature sends other interlopers through the forest to finish the issue once and for all. Ulrich and Georg decide for life and friendship, while nature decides for interlopers who kill. Nature sends interlopers that are hungry, running, "making all the speed they can, brave lads": wolves.

How did Hoover recover the economy?

Herbert Hoover was unable to improve the economy once the Great Depression began. President Hoover came into office while we were experiencing great economic growth. Everybody expected this to continue, but when the stock market crashed in October 1929, so did the economy. At first, President Hoover did very little to deal with the economy. He believed in a philosophy known as laissez-faire. This means the government tends to stay out of economic issues. Thus,...

Herbert Hoover was unable to improve the economy once the Great Depression began. President Hoover came into office while we were experiencing great economic growth. Everybody expected this to continue, but when the stock market crashed in October 1929, so did the economy. At first, President Hoover did very little to deal with the economy. He believed in a philosophy known as laissez-faire. This means the government tends to stay out of economic issues. Thus, when the economy collapsed, President Hoover took few actions. He believed things would work themselves out. However, when the economy got worse in 1930 and 1931, President Hoover reluctantly took action.

In 1931 and 1932, there were three significant things President Hoover did. In 1931, the National Credit Corporation was created. This program was designed to help banks that were struggling to be able to lend money to their communities. People believed that if there were significant investment in the economy, the economy would grow again. In 1932, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation was created. This program gave over $200 million in loans to banks, railroads, and farming institutions. Finally, in 1932, the Emergency Relief and Construction Act gave billions of dollars for public works programs and millions of dollars in loans.

Unfortunately, the economy had slipped into a severe depression, and these programs were not successful in ending it. The economy was a big factor in President Hoover’s defeat in 1932. When President Roosevelt took office, he launched the New Deal. These New Deal programs heavily involved the government into the economy to work to end the depression. These programs had some success dealing with the depression, but it was really the arrival of World War II that got us out of the Great Depression.

What specific evidence did Atticus Finch use in the courtroom to prove Tom Robinson's innocence?

Atticus first gets Heck Tate's testimony from the investigation he did on the night in question. Tate reports that Mayella Ewell was "all bunged up" on the left side of her face. Atticus asks whose left, and Tate says his left, meaning it was on the right side of Mayella's face. Next, Bob Ewell, Mayella's father, takes the stand. Atticus asks him if he agrees with Tate's description of Mayella's condition, and he agrees. Then...

Atticus first gets Heck Tate's testimony from the investigation he did on the night in question. Tate reports that Mayella Ewell was "all bunged up" on the left side of her face. Atticus asks whose left, and Tate says his left, meaning it was on the right side of Mayella's face. Next, Bob Ewell, Mayella's father, takes the stand. Atticus asks him if he agrees with Tate's description of Mayella's condition, and he agrees. Then he asks if he can read and write; when Ewell says yes, he has him write his name in the full view of the court, thus demonstrating that Ewell is left-handed. When Mayella identifies Tom Robinson as her attacker and Atticus has him stand, the court sees that his left arm is shriveled, a full twelve inches shorter than his right. Reverend Sykes explains to Jem that he'd gotten the arm caught in a cotton gin when he was a boy and had been disabled since. 

Is it private information that gives an advantage for insider trading? Who benefits from insider trading?

It is private or confidential information that confers an advantage in insider training, and the person who sells or buys stocks on the basis of that private information makes money he or she should not be entitled to make. The idea is that stocks and bonds are traded on a level playing field, with buyers and sellers all having access to the same information, making their decisions on the basis of information that is available...

It is private or confidential information that confers an advantage in insider training, and the person who sells or buys stocks on the basis of that private information makes money he or she should not be entitled to make. The idea is that stocks and bonds are traded on a level playing field, with buyers and sellers all having access to the same information, making their decisions on the basis of information that is available to everyone.  This keeps the stock market fair and allows it to be a legitimate measure of value.  

Let us suppose I work for a technology company that is on the verge of some major technological breakthrough, for instance, the ability to hold millions of gigabytes of memory on some device no bigger than a dot.  This is not public information, and it is likely to be confidential information, which I have agreed to keep confidential as a condition of employment, a fairly standard requirement.  The stock of my company is so-so, perhaps trading at $25.00/share.  I call you up and tell you about this breakthrough. You buy 100 shares of the stock, investing $2500.  The announcement of the breakthrough comes, and the shares are now trading at $50.00/share. You can now sell this stock at the current rate and will have doubled your money.

The problem is that you have reaped the benefit of information that is not accessible to everyone, just to you, because I have called you to tell you about the breakthrough coming. Not only that, but also, I have breached my employment contract, discussing confidential information with an outsider.  This is completely unfair to all the buyers and sellers in the stock market, since the whole market is premised on the idea of the level playing field. If insider training were not prohibited, our ability to trade and make money would be based more on whom we know than on any acuity we have to judge what to buy and sell.  Our faith in the stock market as a true evaluation of the worth of publicly traded companies would be completely eroded, and we would probably all go back to hoarding gold or stuffing our money in our mattresses.  

How does Briggs try to discredit Henry's testimony?

Lorelle Henry, a retired librarian, testifies that James King was one of the men who was robbing Aguinaldo Nesbitt. James King's attorney, Asa Briggs, cross-examines Lorelle Henry by asking her how many photographs of possible suspects she was shown by the police. Henry says that she does not recall and admits that there were moments when she felt unsure about her decisions. Briggs then asks Henry whether or not she remembers who asked Nesbitt where...

Lorelle Henry, a retired librarian, testifies that James King was one of the men who was robbing Aguinaldo Nesbitt. James King's attorney, Asa Briggs, cross-examines Lorelle Henry by asking her how many photographs of possible suspects she was shown by the police. Henry says that she does not recall and admits that there were moments when she felt unsure about her decisions. Briggs then asks Henry whether or not she remembers who asked Nesbitt where the money was located. Henry again admits that she does not remember. Briggs then asks Henry if she was able to identify James King out of a lineup. Henry responds by telling Briggs that she was able to identify him out of a six-person lineup.

Asa Briggs attempted to discredit Lorelle Henry's testimony by getting her to admit that she was unsure when she identified James King as the person involved in the robbery. Briggs made it seem like the police gave Henry a few photographs and encouraged her to identify James King by placing him next to five suspects. He essentially tries to convey to the jury that Lorelle was forced into picking James King from a limited lineup.

Often in plays, the setting is not just "where the story happens," but includes the geographical, historical, social, economic, or philosophical...

Shakespeare sets the beginning of the play in Venice, which was a major Mediterranean seaport at the time. It was the city of cities—the place to be. Venice was, because of its position and its status, a cosmopolitan city and a hive of industry and social activity. It had become the economic hub of Italy, the focus obviously being on maritime trade and, as such, it attracted traders from all over the known world. In this regard, then, Venice had become a meeting place in which people from a variety of cultures, religions, and social contexts made contact with one another.

Venice had also gained prominence for its incredible wealth in art, literature, architecture, painting, music, and the many other art forms which flourished at the the time of the Renaissance. Venice, however, was a contradiction: on the one hand it presented an image of civilized behaviour, wealth, and prosperity, but on the other, it became a victim of immoral and corrupt action at all levels.

Furthermore, being an advanced society, liberal thinking flourished and even though women still did not have the same rights as men in this largely paternalistic society, they had more open-minded views about their role and felt more comfortable in expressing them. The inhabitants were exposed to different ideas and perspectives from around the world and obviously accepted or adapted those to their perceptions.

Within such a vast cornucopia of cultures, religions, and ethnic groups, it was natural for prejudice and bias to rear their ugly heads and it seems as if the Venetians, for the most part, disliked and even despised the presence of foreigners in their venerable space, especially if such persons had acquired positions of authority and power. They saw such individuals as an imposition and a threat to what should have been naturally theirs. This much becomes apparent at the beginning of the play during Iago and Roderigo's conversation and is later emphasized by Brabantio's reaction to their pernicious lie.

This setting, therefore, tells the audience that the characters they will encounter will be complex. The issues that these characters will have to deal with will be very involved and will depict the religious, social, moral, and political norms of the time. If the audience members understand the context, they will appreciate the nuances and suggestions conveyed by the characters' actions and their words and will understand the playwright's purpose with greater clarity. 

What are the characteristics of the president within the executive branch?

The Constitution of the United States explains the characteristics of the president within the executive branch. First, there are requirements that the president must satisfy before even being elected. These requirements include being a native-born, thirty-five-year-old. The presidential candidates are chosen by the respective political parties, and if elected, become the leader of the political party. Presidents serve four-year terms, which was innovative at the time the Constitution was written.

The president is the head...

The Constitution of the United States explains the characteristics of the president within the executive branch. First, there are requirements that the president must satisfy before even being elected. These requirements include being a native-born, thirty-five-year-old. The presidential candidates are chosen by the respective political parties, and if elected, become the leader of the political party. Presidents serve four-year terms, which was innovative at the time the Constitution was written.

The president is the head of the executive branch and is expected to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” In doing this, he has a number of departments at his disposal (i.e. Department of Education, Department of Transportation, and Department of State. ) According to the Constitution, the president is given the power to nominate individuals to run these departments. Despite appointing secretaries to govern the departments, the president still has authority over all the departments. The president is also given the responsibility of governing the armed forces as commander-in-chief. In total, the president is the commander of around 3.5 million people within the executive branch.

The president enjoys broad powers within the federal government. As president, he can issue rules, regulations and instructions called executive orders, which have the binding force of law upon federal agencies and do not require congressional approval.

What does the allusion to Charles Darwin mean in the book Fahrenheit 451?

At the end of Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, the main character, Montag, is being chased by the Hound as war is breaking out around him. His illicit storing of books has been revealed, and the Hound will find him and kill him unless he escapes. He eventually follows a river to a wilderness where he senses Clarisse has been before, and he finds a group of people gathered by a fire. They and their leader, Granger, welcome Montag and give him a fluid that will change his perspiration so that the Hound can no longer track him. He then sees the Hound devour an unidentifiable man (identified as Montag) on the portable viewer, so Montag knows he will no longer be tracked. 

Granger then introduces the members of this group, each of whom has memorized a book and then burnt it. Granger introduces Montag to the other members of the group: "I want you to meet Jonathan Swift, the author of that evil political book, Gulliver's Travels! And this other fellow is Charles Darwin, and this one is Schopenhauer..." (page 151). Members of the group have memorized books and become their authors. In this passage, Bradbury includes allusions, or references to several famous authors, scientists, philosophers, and others in history. 

Charles Darwin is a particularly interesting allusion because he developed the theory of evolution through natural selection, later referred to as "survival of the fittest," through his observations of birds on the Galapagos Islands. Survival of the fittest means that those individuals who are best suited to their environment survive and have offspring and pass along their advantageous traits to their offspring.

Granger and his group are the members of Montag's society who are able to survive, as a bomb is dropped that disintegrates the city in which Montag used to live. Therefore, Granger's group are those who will pass along what they have to the future world. Granger says, "We'll pass the books on to our children, by word of mouth" (page 153). Therefore, Granger, Montag, and the rest of their group will pass along their memory of books to the future, just as the creatures who have the most advantageous traits pass them along to their children as part of the "survival of the fittest" or natural selection in Darwin's work. 

Which conflict does Ulysses experience in the poem "Ulysses"?

I'd like to focus on two main conflicts in Lord Tennyson's "Ulysses": responsibility vs. the thirst for adventure, and ambition vs. old age.

Let's start with old age. Tennyson's Ulysses is an aged king long past his prime. He's old and (presumably) infirm, far removed from his days of warfare and adventure. Despite these qualities, Ulysses still has ambition to travel to far-off lands and perform courageous deeds. Ultimately, ambition trumps old age, as Ulysses...

I'd like to focus on two main conflicts in Lord Tennyson's "Ulysses": responsibility vs. the thirst for adventure, and ambition vs. old age.

Let's start with old age. Tennyson's Ulysses is an aged king long past his prime. He's old and (presumably) infirm, far removed from his days of warfare and adventure. Despite these qualities, Ulysses still has ambition to travel to far-off lands and perform courageous deeds. Ultimately, ambition trumps old age, as Ulysses ends the poem by setting off for unknown territory.

Additionally, there's the conflict of responsibility vs. the thirst for adventure. Ulysses is a king, and so he has a responsibility to stay in Ithaca and provide for his subjects. Furthermore, he's a husband and a father, and so he has familial duties on top of his political concerns. However, Ulysses clearly resents these responsibilities, as they hold him back from fulfilling his love of exploration. Adventure proves to be more important for Ulysses than his many responsibilities in Ithaca, and some readers might argue that this fact makes Ulysses an unlikeable and selfish character by the end of the poem. Such an opinion would certainly be justified.

What type of poem is the "The Collar?"

Like most of George Herbert’s poems “The Collar” is a metaphysical poem. The poem, written in the early seventeenth century, discusses thoughts on life and religion. In general, metaphysical poetry uses strong images as it delves into the topics of love or religion. In this case, Herbert is dealing with a religious matter as indicated by the title of the poem. “The Collar” refers to the stiff neckwear worn to indicate that a person has...

Like most of George Herbert’s poems “The Collar” is a metaphysical poem. The poem, written in the early seventeenth century, discusses thoughts on life and religion. In general, metaphysical poetry uses strong images as it delves into the topics of love or religion. In this case, Herbert is dealing with a religious matter as indicated by the title of the poem. “The Collar” refers to the stiff neckwear worn to indicate that a person has devoted his life to religious pursuits, often giving up other ambitions. The narrator expounds on all that he has lost or wasted in his life.

What I have lost with cordial fruit?

Sure there was wine

Before my sighs did it; there was corn

before my tears did drown it.

He rages on about how his life was unencumbered but describes with vivid imagery everything he lost and his realization that life is not equal for all. However, the poem ends on a quiet note as he hears his calling from God, and he answers, “My Lord.” He accepts “The Collar” as his calling in life.

Why do we credit Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson with the beginning of our two party system?

Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson are credited with beginning our two-party political system because they were the leaders of these parties that had different views on issues. Despite President Washington’s warning in his farewell address to the nation about avoiding political parties, the country was moving in this direction because the needs of the North and the South and of the people were different. As a result, they had differing opinions on various policies.

Alexander...

Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson are credited with beginning our two-party political system because they were the leaders of these parties that had different views on issues. Despite President Washington’s warning in his farewell address to the nation about avoiding political parties, the country was moving in this direction because the needs of the North and the South and of the people were different. As a result, they had differing opinions on various policies.

Alexander Hamilton led the Hamiltonians, which also was called the Federalist Party. This party had the support of business people in the Northeast. They believed in a loose view of the Constitution, having a strong federal government, establishing a national bank, and being friendly with Great Britain. John Adams was also closely tied to this party.

Thomas Jefferson led the Jeffersonians, which also was called the Democratic-Republican Party. This party had support in the South. They believed in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, having a weaker national government that would be small in size, wanted low taxes, and opposed the national bank. They wanted to be friendly with France. James Madison was also closely tied to this party.

Because of these different viewpoints, and because these men were leaders of the people supporting these viewpoints, they are credited with starting our two-party political system.

Why does Romeo at first refuse to fight Tybalt?

Romeo does not want to fight Tybalt because he has just married Juliet, and even though he has to keep their marriage a secret, he now looks at Tybalt as his own family. Romeo ends up killing Tybalt after Tybalt kills Mercutio, Romeo's best friend. At the end of Act III, Scene 1, Romeo blames his love for Juliet, lamenting that he tried to make peace instead of killing Tybalt outright when Tybalt first insulted...

Romeo does not want to fight Tybalt because he has just married Juliet, and even though he has to keep their marriage a secret, he now looks at Tybalt as his own family. Romeo ends up killing Tybalt after Tybalt kills Mercutio, Romeo's best friend. At the end of Act III, Scene 1, Romeo blames his love for Juliet, lamenting that he tried to make peace instead of killing Tybalt outright when Tybalt first insulted him. 

"O sweet Juliet,
Thy beauty hath made me effeminate
And in my temper soft'ned valour's steel."

Tybalt's death results in Romeo's banishment. With Romeo fled to Mantua, Juliet is left to face her parents' concern. Believing her to be grief-stricken over Tybalt's death and in need of distraction, they arrange a hasty marriage to Paris—which Juliet then fakes her death to escape. On hearing the news, Romeo rushes to Juliet's tomb to kill himself. Juliet, waking to see Romeo dead, then kills herself. In short, by causing Romeo's banishment and separating the lovers, Tybalt's death precipitates the story's tragic conclusion.

What is a simile that describes Calpurnia from To Kill A Mockingbird?

I’m not sure if you are asking for an original simile that describes Calpurnia or how Scout describes her in the book.  So, I’ll help you out with both!  In the novel, Scout describes Calpurnia as,

“She was all angles and bones; she was nearsighted; she squinted; her hand was wide as a bed slat and twice as hard.  She was always ordering me out of the kitchen, asking me why I couldn’t behave as...

I’m not sure if you are asking for an original simile that describes Calpurnia or how Scout describes her in the book.  So, I’ll help you out with both!  In the novel, Scout describes Calpurnia as,

“She was all angles and bones; she was nearsighted; she squinted; her hand was wide as a bed slat and twice as hard.  She was always ordering me out of the kitchen, asking me why I couldn’t behave as well as Jem when she knew he was older, and calling me home when I wasn’t ready to come.  Our battles were epic and one-sided.  Calpurnia always won, mainly because Atticus always took her side.  She had been with us ever since Jem was born, and I had felt her tyrannical presence as long as I could remember.”

In this quote, the main simile is, “her hand was wide as a bed slat and twice as hard.”  It is a simile because Harper Lee is comparing two different things—a hand to a bed slat—and that comparison uses the word, “as”.  Similes use “like” and “as” to show a comparison between two things that are not alike.

So as I think about other possible similes for Calpurnia, I’m going to use other descriptions from the quote to help me out. 

For example,

Calpurnia is as tyrannical as a Russian czar.

Calpurnia is like an army sergeant ordering new recruits.

Calpurnia is as bossy as a mother hen.

Calpurnia is like an Olympic gold medal winner whenever she fights with Scout.

Calpurnia is like a cardboard Halloween skeleton, all angles and bones.

I hope this helps!

What is the proper government response to an economic crisis such as the Great Depression? Use evidence from the text to support your answer. ...

If the text in the link is all we have to go on, there is very little evidence as to the correct way for a government to respond to an economic crisis like the Great Depression.  We can infer that “welfare capitalism” is the correct response, but there is no clear evidence that this is the case.  We can also say that governments should not engage in protectionism in response to crises.

The first paragraph...

If the text in the link is all we have to go on, there is very little evidence as to the correct way for a government to respond to an economic crisis like the Great Depression.  We can infer that “welfare capitalism” is the correct response, but there is no clear evidence that this is the case.  We can also say that governments should not engage in protectionism in response to crises.

The first paragraph of the text is evidence that it is bad to engage in protectionism.  It tells us that countries raised trade barriers against one another.  You might think that this would be good because it allows countries to keep more jobs in their domestic economies (instead of supporting other countries’ economies by importing).  However, the text says that global trade dropped by 30% and it implies that this harmed people all over the world.  Thus, one lesson that we can draw from this is that governments should continue to allow free trade.

The next four paragraphs talk about political responses to the Depression.  These paragraphs imply that the proper response to such an economic crisis is welfare capitalism.  By instituting welfare capitalism, countries like Britain, France, and the US prevented themselves from falling under military dictatorship, communism, or fascism.  Since all of these three systems are terrible, we can infer that the best response to an economic crisis is to institute a system of welfare capitalism.

Of course, this does not tell us what a government should do if it already has a system of welfare capitalism when it is hit by an economic crisis.  There is no evidence in the text that can tell us the proper response for such a situation.

Give some examples of sonotrophism.

Sonotropism is the movement or growth of an organism in response to sound. This type of motion is generally used for plants and not animals, since animals are capable of physical movement in response to a sonic stimulus. An example of sonotropism is the germination and growth of beans, on exposure to ultrasound. It has been found that beans grow more rapidly when exposed to ultrasound. This has been attributed to enhanced activity of the...

Sonotropism is the movement or growth of an organism in response to sound. This type of motion is generally used for plants and not animals, since animals are capable of physical movement in response to a sonic stimulus. An example of sonotropism is the germination and growth of beans, on exposure to ultrasound. It has been found that beans grow more rapidly when exposed to ultrasound. This has been attributed to enhanced activity of the enzyme alpha amylase in beans.

Some of the other tropisms include, phototropism (due to light), gravitropism (due to gravity), thigmotropism (due to touch), etc. One can experiment on tropisms. For example, a given plant can be subjected to different sounds and its growth can be compared to a plant not subjected to any additional sound (other than what it was receiving naturally).

Hope this helps.

Why is the Ghost of Christmas Past described as a child and an old man?

In the first stave of A Christmas Carol, the Ghost of Christmas Past appears to Scrooge. He is described as "like a child: yet not so like a child as like an old man." It is likely that Dickens deliberately describes the ghost in this way for two reasons. 

First of all, it adds to the supernatural element of the story. A Christmas Carol may be a festive story but, let's not forgot, that it...

In the first stave of A Christmas Carol, the Ghost of Christmas Past appears to Scrooge. He is described as "like a child: yet not so like a child as like an old man." It is likely that Dickens deliberately describes the ghost in this way for two reasons. 

First of all, it adds to the supernatural element of the story. A Christmas Carol may be a festive story but, let's not forgot, that it is a ghost story too. By giving the ghost the characteristics of both a child and an old man, Dickens is tapping into the unexplainable and fantastical elements of the supernatural.

Secondly, the ghost's physical description is a visual representation of Scrooge's journey. The first image shown to Scrooge is of his childhood: of being at boarding school and being taken home by his sister. Next, he sees himself as a grown young man with Mr Fezziwig, before he revisits the painful recollection of his engagement to Belle. The ghost is, therefore, representative of all of these experiences which, over time, transformed Scrooge into a cold and calculating miser.