Tuesday, April 30, 2013

What kind of experience did Helen have in Plymouth?

Helen's always been fascinated by the ocean and so jumps at the chance to visit Plymouth by steamboat. Once there, as well as visiting Plymouth Rock, she goes to the beach, where she loves the sensation of the tiny grains of sand as they run through her fingers. But more than anything else, she loves the motion of the ocean waves as they swirl about her. Joy soon turns into horror, however, as Helen bangs her foot against a rock. The next thing she knows there's a huge wave crashing over her head. It's a pretty scary situation.
Despite this potentially traumatic experience, Helen's still deeply fascinated by the ocean. But from now on, she'll enjoy the sensation of the sea from a safe distance, at the water's edge.


When Helen Keller was in Boston, she had the opportunity to visit nearby Plymouth. She was overall excited to be there, but reports a mixed experience. On the positive side, to get there she took her first trip on the ocean, traveling to Plymouth by steamboat. At the same time, she mistakenly thought the "rumble" of the steamboat's machinery was thunder, and so she started to cry, because she was worried that a planned picnic would be rained out.
In recalling the visit to Plymouth, she contrasts her childhood experience with her adult perspective. As a child, she enjoyed touching Plymouth Rock because it made the achievements of the Pilgrims more real to her. She had an idealized view of them as brave and good people who wanted to bring freedom to everyone. As an adult, however, that childhood adulation was tempered by knowledge of their "acts of persecution," which made her "tingle" with shame even as she remembered "the courage and energy that gave us our 'Country Beautiful.'"

What conclusion can one draw by listening to the song "Sick Boy" by The Chainsmokers through the psychoanalytical lens? How could this be written in one sentence?

A conclusion in one sentence: The "I" in "Sick Boy" by The Chainsmokers stands for the American psyche, which the speaker critiques as filled with narcissistic projection and hysteria that desensitizes, feeding on individuals like the speaker while, ironically, labeling them as "sick"—but we can resist the disease. (This is a suggested conclusion: please work with this conclusion to make it your own.)
To look at a piece of literature through a psychoanalytic lens means to analyze it using the tools of modern psychology. This song lends itself to that method of interpretation because it uses words from psychology, such as "narcissism," "projection," and "hysteria."
In psychological terms, a narcissistic person is extremely self-centered, has an inflated sense of his or her own importance, and harbors an excessive need for flattery and approval. Projection, another term the writer uses, means assigning one's own feelings, especially unwanted feelings, to another person. Hysteria means having violent emotional outbursts and the symptoms of a disease with no underlying physical cause.
When the singer speaks of others projecting narcissism and hysteria onto people like him, he is saying that people with an inflated sense of importance take their own sickness and attribute it to people like him. He also says they desensitize others through hysteria or excesses of violent emotion.
In the fourth stanza, the singer states, "And they call me the sick boy." He says this ironically (irony is stating the opposite of what you mean). In other words, he is saying that the people who really are sick because they "spin lies into fairy dust," "feed" themselves with his "life's work" (are selfish parasites), and are indifferent to what happens to others project these traits onto him and call him "sick."
Although the part of America which is sick with narcissism and hysteria tries to project this onto others, the songwriter advises them—and himself—not accept the label. This assertion of a healthy self occurs in the fifth stanza, where the singer states:

Don't believe the narcissismWhen everyone projects and expects you to listen to 'em

The singer is saying we live in a sick society which tries to project its sickness o to us, but we can resist this. He ends on a note of bitter irony, singing:

Yeah, they call me the sick boy

In Christian iconography, what did the Latin cross represent?

The Latin cross consists of what's called a stipe, or an upright post, and a patibulum, which is a horizontal beam inserted at right angles. The cross symbolizes the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, whom Christians believe to be the Son of God. The Latin cross is also known as the Western cross, to distinguish it from the representation of the cross in Eastern Orthodox iconography, where the cross typically consists of three horizontal beams, the lowest one of which is slanted.
As with all crosses in Christian iconography, the Latin cross symbolizes Christ's suffering and sacrifice, which provides meaning to his death and subsequent resurrection. Most Christian denominations, whatever their differences, display crosses in their places of worship. However, some of the stricter Protestant churches, in keeping with their much simpler forms of worship, prefer to use simple crosses without the adornment of Christ's body. (Such crosses are known as crucifixes). This is to ensure that the focus of the worshipper remains firmly fixed on the crucifixion and its meaning rather than any ornamental frills.

Explain why functionalists think deviance and crime provide a number of societal benefits. Then, explain why you agree or disagree with this perspective, providing examples to support your position.

Functionalists argue that all parts of a society serve a purpose and are necessary for each society to function. This is true for both crime and deviance of all kinds.
To a functionalist, crime serves the purpose of showing the law-abiding what the boundaries of a society are and what is deserving of punishment. Crime also provides employment and purpose for those dedicated to stopping, capturing, punishing, and rehabilitating its perpetrators, namely police, judges, lawyers, prison guards, social workers, and probation and parole officers. Those functions and boundaries can change over time. For example, we no longer punish those who blaspheme against religion. We do punish marital rape, though two generations ago, that was not considered a crime in the eyes of the law.
To a functionalist, deviants serve a similar purpose, though the deviants' punishment may not be by legal means but through social pressure and condemnation. Again, what is regarded as an acceptable boundary can change over time. Homosexual behavior used to be regarded as deviance, and it was even criminalized only two generations ago. Today there are openly gay public figures, even politicians, and gay marriage is legal.

Monday, April 29, 2013

What chapters in the book contain the beginning, rising action, climax, falling action, and ending?

Freytag’s pyramid is a structural device that divides a plot into five sections: exposition (beginning), rising action, climax, falling action, and denouement (ending). The expository section of Hannah Tinti’s The Good Thief introduces readers to Ren, a one-handed orphan boy tended by the Brothers of Saint Anthony’s. It begins with chapter one and continues until Benjamin Nab arrives in chapter four, insisting that Ren is his brother. Ren’s adoption is the novel’s inciting incident, the point where the rising action begins.

Tinti’s New England is dark and absurd, a Dickensian world filled with deprivation and uncertainty. Ren learns that he has not found his family, as he’d hoped, but a trickster and a crook. With little hope for better, he remains with Benjamin and the other misfits as they swindle and steal. This rising action continues through chapter 23, when the plot reaches its climax. The group has been caught by the novel’s principal antagonist, and he wants something that Ren isn’t able to give: his father’s name. The climax lasts until chapter 32, when Ren lies about his father’s identity (or at least believes he lies). The falling action takes place entirely in chapter 33 as the conflict that began in the climax is resolved. Chapters 34 and 35 contain the denouement. The tension of the climax is gone and the characters are able to return to their lives.

People often classify literary works as comedies or tragedies based on whether the main character is better or worse off in the denouement than they were in the beginning. What do you think? Is Ren better or worse for having left Saint Anthony’s?

Why does Banquo's murder not happen offstage?

Although Shakespeare has Duncan murdered offstage and Macduff's family also murdered offstage, he enacts the murder of Banquo onstage because he wants the audience to see with their own eyes that Banquo is really and truly dead. This will assure the audience that it is Banquo's ghost who appears at the banquet scene in Act 3, Scene 4. Otherwise some spectators could get the erroneous idea that Banquo, albeit somewhat tattered and bloody from the assault, has somehow managed to survive and put in an appearance. Shakespeare also has one of the Murderers appear at the door to the banquet hall to verify that Banquo is unquestionably dead. The actual murderous assault convinces the audience that Banquo is dead, but the Murderer must convince Macbeth, who only knows about it from hearsay.
Notice that the three murderers apparently all attack Banquo. They do not consider Fleance a problem. But this gives Fleance, probably played by a boy about twelve years old, a chance to run for his life, which is what his father encourages him to do. Once the boy starts to run, the murderers have no chance of catching him because they are too involved with Banquo, and also because they probably couldn’t catch a young boy who was running for his life.

Sunday, April 28, 2013

What are the two sides of Victor Frankenstein's creation (the monster)? Show two main presentations of his monster, such as "good and evil," "monstrous and civil," or "simple and intelligent." Provide three pieces of text evidence for each side (meaning six total pieces of evidence).

Frankenstein's creature has a very complex personality. He can show tenderness and love and yet turn vengeful and enraged. A perfect example of the creature's tenderness is displayed through his interactions with a family he begins to observe and to which he becomes emotionally attached. He comes to know this family because when he is seeking shelter, he finds a simple "hovel" that is joined to the family's cottage. He hides in his hovel and secretly observes the family as they go about their daily life. His tenderness is displayed when he sees that the family is poverty-stricken. He notes that the children, Agatha and Felix, give up their food to feed their father, De Lacey. Touched by their acts of sacrifice even in the midst of their own suffering, the creature stops stealing their food. He also cuts wood to warm the family and places it outside their home. Whenever he can, he helps by performing anonymous acts of kindness for this family to which he has become emotionally bonded.
However, the creature's feelings of alienation and his continued rejection by the very people from whom he seeks love make him bitter. He shows his true anger and desire for revenge when he asks Victor to make him a companion who will not reject him and who will provide him the love and acceptance he so desires. He says that if Victor refuses his request, he will "glut the maw of death, until it be satiated with the blood of [Victor's] remaining friends." When Victor finally decides not to create a partner for the creature, the creature shows his anger and violent nature by killing Victor's best friend, Henry Clerval. Shortly after, the creature kills Victor's bride, Elizabeth, on the couple's wedding night.
Just as every human changes in response to their life experiences, the creature's growing cruel and vindictive nature is a product of society and how its shallowness and insensitivity to the feelings of others can turn a kind and loving being into something far more sinister.

Why is the news of the marriage important in The Bride Comes to Yellow Sky?

The news of Jack Potter's marriage is important to the people in Yellow Sky because he is the town marshal, quite a prominent public personage in the town, and they have no idea that he was going to San Antonio is order to find a bride. Jack feels "the shadow of [the] deed weigh upon him like a leaden slab." He feels guilty for not even giving people a heads up that he has married because he "knew full well that his marriage was an important thing to the town." Jack is certain that he will be met with "amazement, glee, and reproach" when he steps off the train with a wife. He is wrong, of course, because Scratchy Wilson has gotten drunk and is roaming the town in search of a fight, so everyone has gone into hiding. The news of Jack's marriage turns out to be quite important when he and his new bride happen upon Scratchy near Jack's house; Scratchy has come looking to confront Jack, who has no weapon, and Scratchy ends up backing off, lowering the gun he has pointed at Jack's chest, when he learns that Jack has come home a married man.

Compare scrooges character at the beginning and at the end of a Christmas carol

At the beginning of the text it is said of Scrooge that

No warmth could warm, no wintry weather chill him. No wind that blew was bitterer than he, no falling snow was more intent upon its purpose, no pelting rain less open to entreaty.

Scrooge is so mean and unpleasant and lacking in compassion for his fellows that even seeing-eye dogs for the blind recognize him and pull their masters away from him. Scrooge likes to be alone because other people irritate him, and he likes the darkness and cold because they are cheaper than sitting warm in the light.
In the end of A Christmas Carol, after the visitations of the three ghosts, Scrooge describes himself, saying:

I am as light as a feather, I am as happy as an angel, I am as merry as a schoolboy. I am as giddy as a drunken man. A merry Christmas to everybody!

He has become generous and caring. He "frisk[s]" around his apartment, laughing heartily. He buys a giant turkey for the Cratchits, and he is generous to the man that he sends to purchase it for him. Scrooge even has trouble shaving because he can't stop dancing around. He gives plenty of money to the men who were collecting for the poor the day before, and he even goes to his nephew's house for Christmas dinner rather than keep to himself.

Why does Fred say, "I'll keep my Christmas humour to the last"?

What Fred actually says is the following:

I am sorry, with all my heart, to find you so resolute. We have never had any quarrel, to which I have been a party. But I have made the trial in homage to Christmas, and I’ll keep my Christmas humour to the last. So A Merry Christmas, uncle!

This statement follows Fred's invitation to Scrooge early in the story. Fred comes around the day before Christmas to invite his uncle to dine at his house on Christmas Day. Scrooge responds in a very hostile way to the invitation, telling his nephew that Christmas is a waste of time and that it has never done his nephew any good. Scrooge also opines that people who say Merry Christmas should be boiled in their own Christmas puddings.
Fred argues forcefully for the worth of Christmas as a holiday that brings people together in a feeling of common humanity. He says he doesn't care that there is no monetary profit in it.
When Scrooge persists in being extremely rude to Fred, Fred says, in the quote above, that he is sorry that Scrooge is so determined to avoid his Christmas dinner. He implies there is no reason for the refusal, as he and Scrooge have never quarreled. Then he says he has done his part to reach out and will not let Scrooge bring him down. All of this shows that Scrooge's misery cannot penetrate his nephew's happiness.

Saturday, April 27, 2013

Among the themes and topics most prevalent in Southern literature are the significance of family, a sense of community and one’s role within it, and the land and the promise it brings. Using the two novels we have studied thus far (Their Eyes Were Watching God and Absalom, Absalom!) and discuss how these two works incorporate two or more of the aforementioned themes/characteristics.

Absalom, Absalom! focuses on the contradictions of family through the lens of race and class. The Sutpen family has European and African members, but Thomas Sutpen vehemently rejects the idea of having black relatives, even regarding this news as a betrayal. The mixed-race environment of the Caribbean likewise did not suit him, and he becomes determined to conquer the land and make his fortune in Mississippi. Creating a dynasty along with a plantation connects the themes of family and community. However, he can tame the land only with enslaved people, who constitute a different community. Thomas’s racist attitude passes down to his son, Henry, who destroys his own family by killing Charles. Thomas’s efforts to further ingratiate himself into the larger community lead to his death. The dynasty is symbolically destroyed along with the burned-down house, and the survivor is the African American descendant Jim Bond, who loses his sanity.
In Their Eyes Were Watching God, the themes of family and community are depicted in Janie and her husbands, and her location in and attitude toward two places. Through each successive marriage, Janie feels that she is moving into a deeper, more honest relationship. This could not occur with Logan because it was not her choice. Jody is connected with community as much as with family through his determination to make Eatonville progress. With Teacake, Janie’s move to the Everglades takes her away from her community; taking care of him places her in a loving family even though he does not respond in kind. Through his death and the ordeal of the trial, Janie realizes that her community is in Eatonville.

How is Sanger Rainsford an example of an English gentleman adventurer?

Sanger Rainsford, the main protagonist in Richard Connell’s short story “The Most Dangerous Game,” is an example of the quintessential Victorian era big game hunter, a category of humanity with its origins in 19th century British colonialism. The “sport” of big game hunting – the pursuit of large, often-exotic game not for the purpose of attaining food for survival but for entertainment and prestige – was a product of that era with the British conquest of territories in South and East Asia as well as in Africa.
In her 2015 study Hunting Africa: British Sport, African Knowledge and the Nature of Empire, Professor Angela Thompsell relates the history of big game hunting in Africa during the latter-half of the 19th century, when English gentlemen exploited the British Empire’s conquests for their own amusement and out of an interest in confronting the challenge of stalking and killing in often-hostile and uncharted territories. As Thompsell writes in this regard:

“Hunting narratives . . . fed contemporary desires for stories of exotic adventures, manly enterprise and colonial conquest, but they could so because the depletion of game along Africa’s coastlines meant that hunting necessarily took place on and, indeed, beyond the colonial frontier where imperial power was in the making and the tentacles of civilization, as the British understood it, did not constrain the actions of white gentlemen.”

So, how does Connell’s protagonist fit into this? Simply put, Sanger Rainsford is the embodiment of the proper English gentleman/big game hunter and adventurer. In the story’s opening dialogue between Rainsford and his friend and partner Whitney, as the two sail down the coast of South America, the topic of discussion is, unsurprisingly, big game hunting, which both men agree is the “best sport in the world,” as Rainsford describes it. Rainsford is a proper English gentleman whose passion for big game hunting has led him to the site where he will finally be confronted with his own mortality and, more importantly, with the sensation of being the one stalked by a skilled, remorseless hunter such as himself. His earlier scornful rejection of Whitney’s expression of empathy for the targets of their adventures has been thrust into his face as General Zaroff turns the hunter into the prey for his own warped sense of self-gratification. All that aside, Rainsford is an example of the English gentleman adventurer. He is English, is of the Victorian era in which this phenomenon was created and defined, and he is an adventurer.


Sanger Rainsford's adventurous nature is revealed at the beginning of the short story in his conversation with Whitney. He is on his way to "Rio" to enjoy a "few days" of "some good hunting" in the Amazon. His love of hunting takes him to faraway and exotic locales - South America is far from his native New York City. He could claim to be a gentleman on account of his motives for hunting: he hunts not out of necessity for sustenance but for entertainment. Indeed, Sanger claims that hunting is "the best sport in the world." The author Richard Connell develops this characterization of Rainsford as a gentleman when he writes, "Rainsford, reclining in a steamer chair, indolently puffed on his favorite brier." Connell creates a portrait of a man who has the money to indulge in life's pleasures and is supremely confident in his abilities and education. As General Zaroff notes, Rainsford displayed more sophistication than most of the other men who came to Ship Trap Island. His impressive knowledge of the obscure Malay mancatcher demonstrates this quality.


In the 1920s it was not the United States of America that was the most important country in the world but Great Britain. The British Empire extended all around the world and included huge areas of land such as Canada, Australia, India, and almost half of the African continent, including Egypt. They controlled huge parts of Asia and the Middle East as well as countless islands all around the world, and the British Navy bragged that Britannia ruled the waves, which it did. They were the world superpower until World War II nearly bankrupted Britain and brought the USSR and the USA into the ascendancy. The most popular type of hero in escapist fiction such as "The Most Dangerous Game" was not American but English. Sherlock Holmes was a prototype. Probably the most typical English hero was Bulldog Drummond, who was often described as a "gentleman adventurer" and a "soldier of fortune." Those were the things many men fantasized about being: "gentlemen adventurers" and "soldiers of fortune." The English hero had the whole world to roam in because so much of it was part of the British Empire. A latter-day version of the English gentleman adventurer is the very popular James Bond, who is intelligent, handsome, well-educated, impeccably dressed, sophisticated, at ease in any social situation, chivalrous, totally fearless, always neat, well-tailored, and correctly dressed for whatever occasion. Bond is gainfully employed as a secret agent, but he is working independently almost one hundred percent of the time, so he qualifies as a "soldier of fortune." Many men in America and Europe admired the British because for such a small country they had built a vast empire largely through the activities of upper-class, resourceful men such as those idealized in stereotypical characters like Bulldog Drummond and James Bond. Robert Wilson, the English big-game hunter in Ernest Hemingway's story "The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber," is another example of the cool, intrepid English hero. Another, of course, is Lawrence of Arabia. Daniel Dravot aspires to be part of that tradition in Rudyard Kipling's "The Man Who Would Be King."
Sanger Rainsford's nationality is not specified in "The Most Dangerous Game," but he is the stereotypical English gentleman adventurer. He even smokes a pipe, which was a sort of trademark of English gentlemen adventurers and soldiers of fortune. Or at least he did until he let it fall overboard. His chief characteristic is that he is always cool under pressure. Nothing fazes him. He is totally at ease when he meets the maniacal General Zaroff, and he keeps telling himself not to lose his nerve when he is being hunted. That is what is most important to the English hero—to keep a stiff upper lip, to remain cool. And that was what was most admired by other men. Sanger Rainsford is at a huge disadvantage on Zaroff's island, but he proves himself to be calm, cool, courageous, and resourceful, in the best tradition of the English hero. He also has upper-class tastes. He enjoys sleeping in Zaroff's luxurious bed, perhaps after treating himself to a drink and then a long hot bath.

How successful was Medicaid in the 1960s and 1970s?

Medicaid was signed into law as Title XIX of the 1965 Social Security Act, along with Medicare.
At its heart, Medicaid covers a set of mandatory healthcare services for the elderly (who are the primary recipients of this aid), the disabled, and low-income families with dependent children.
Unlike Medicare, Medicaid is administered by the states. However, it is funded by both the federal and state governments.
In the 1960s and 1970s, Medicaid also allowed states to offer optional coverage for Intermediate Care Facilities (ICFs). ICFs primarily catered to individuals with mental disabilities. In 1972, Medicaid allowed states to provide optional coverage for children under twenty-one in psychiatric hospitals.
The next year (1973), Medicaid permitted states to let recipients of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) return to work and retain their Medicaid benefits.
By the numbers, Medicaid was largely successful in providing healthcare coverage to the indigent in the 1960s and 1970s. When the Medicaid program began in 1966, four million people enrolled in the program.
In the first year Medicaid went into effect, twenty-eight states participated in the program. By 1973, Medicaid enrollment rose to seventeen million people. All in all, Medicaid enrollment expanded exponentially in the first six years of the program.
The success of the Medicaid program was effectively facilitated by the increase in both mandatory and supplemental (optional) coverages.
By extension, health spending in the United States rose from 1966 to 1973. Specifically, between 1966 and 1973, overall health expenditures rose from 10.2 percent to 13.5 percent.
To summarize: an increase in healthcare access by previously marginalized populations was responsible for rising Medicaid enrollment and federal healthcare expenditures.
So, Medicaid was successful in the 1960s and 1970s in that it lowered the ranks of the uninsured among the elderly, low-income families, and the disabled.
https://aspe.hhs.gov/basic-report/understanding-medicaid-home-and-community-services-primer

https://www.cms.gov/About-CMS/Agency-Information/History/Downloads/Medicare-and-Medicaid-Milestones-1937-2015.pdf

https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/Downloads/HistoricalNHEPaper.pdf

The Eat-well Guide was developed in response to growing concerns about the rise in diet related and preventable chronic diseases which relate to poor quality eating patterns. Explain with the use of examples the reasons and importance of current dietary guidelines

According to the CDC, sixty percent of adults in the United States are now living with one or more chronic diseases. These diseases include cancer, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes. Heart disease and cancer are also the two leading causes of death in the US in 2019. Furthermore, a recent report assessed that approximately half of all deaths from heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes in the US could be due to unhealthy diets.
One of the best ways for people to improve their health is through a better diet and eating nutritious foods, which is why it is important for people to follow current dietary guidelines. Based on the majority of feedback, it seems like the main changes in diet that need to be made deal with eating less processed meat, less added sugar, and more fruits and vegetables.
Specifically, cutting down the amount of processed meat that is consumed has been shown in studies to decrease chances of cancer and heart disease, while consuming less added sugar cuts down on chances of type 2 diabetes. Although diabetes may not necessarily be a killer, it is also associated with obesity, stroke, high blood pressure, eyesight issues, and other health issues. Finally, eating more fruits and vegetables (especially those that are organic and unprocessed) cuts down on heart disease, cancer risks, and obesity. So, in the end, following the recommended dietary guidelines can literally save your life—or at least add years to it.
Works Cited
"Chronic Diseases In America." Centers For Disease Control, 2019.
"Delivering on the Dietary Guidelines." Union of Concerned Scientists, 2019, https://ucsusa.org/food-agriculture/delivering-on-dietary-guidelines.
Micha, Renata et al. "Association Between Dietary Factors and Mortality from Heart Disease, Stroke, and Type 2 Diabetes in the United States." JAMA, vol 317, no. 9, 2017, p. 912. American Medical Association (AMA), doi:10.1001/jama.2017.0947.
https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/infographic/chronic-diseases.htm

How does the ozone layer protect life on Earth?

The ozone layer protects life on Earth by absorbing the ultraviolet radiations generated by the Sun and thus protects us from cancer, sunburns, and damaged eyesight.
Ozone is a molecule comprised of three atoms of oxygen and is present in our stratosphere (10–40 km or 6.2–24.9 miles above us). When the harmful ultraviolet radiations from the Sun reach this zone of our atmosphere, the ozone molecules absorb them. This causes the ozone molecule to break into an oxygen molecule and a free oxygen atom. The free oxygen atom readily combines with an oxygen molecule and regenerates the ozone molecule. This constant cycle ensures that the ozone continues to protect us against the ultraviolet radiations.
Recently, it has been found that a number of chemicals we are using, including the refrigerants, are causing a reduction in the amount of ozone in the stratosphere, thus putting the human beings at risk. Efforts are being made worldwide to protect the ozone layer and to ensure that this protective shield continues to protect us.

What is federalism? How is this idea related to the Constitutional Convention?

Federalism is the division of powers between the states and the federal government under the United States government, established by the Philadelphia Convention of 1787. Prior to this convention, the United States struggled with a number of urgent concerns that were difficult to resolve under the Articles of Confederation, which proved a weak national government with few coercive powers over the states. The Constitution that emerged from the debates at the Philadelphia Convention was intended to address these issues without completely negating the powers of the states (or, for that matter, individual liberties.) The system developed through a number of debates at the Convention has become known as "federalism." Under this system, the national government is supreme. This is established clearly in the Constitution. The national legislature is given such powers as printing and coining money, entering into treaties, and many others that were deemed essential for the new nation to function as a unified country. The states were denied these powers. At the same time, many powers were shared—the power to tax, for instance, was given to both levels of government. These powers have become known as concurrent powers. States also reserved powers not granted to the federal government. So within this system, the supreme federal government has powers delegated to it, and the states have their own powers. Later certain powers of the states were protected under the Bill of Rights, which placed restrictions on the power of Congress. This, in short, is the system known as federalism. Debates over the relative extent of these powers have always been, and remain, central to American politics.
https://constitutioncenter.org/learn/hall-pass/federalism

Friday, April 26, 2013

Where do Tree-ear and Crane-man live for most of their ten years?

Tree-ear and Crane-man have spent the better part of ten years living under a bridge. They are both very poor and have nowhere else to live. Without money, the young orphan and his protector are forced to scavenge food wherever they can. (Even if it's from a garbage heap). But one thing they won't do is steal: for Crane-man, this would be a shameful thing to do, no matter how hungry they might get.
In the time and place where the story is set—twelfth-century Korea—it was all too common for orphans like Tree-ear to find themselves forced to live on the streets. There was no government provision for the poor, no welfare system that could act as a safety net to protect people from the worst effects of poverty. Even children didn't receive any help. For orphans like Tree-ear, life could be very bleak. If they weren't lucky enough to have a relative who would agree to take them in, they were pretty much on their own. Thankfully, Tree-ear has Crane-man to look after him, even though he's still homeless and has to live under a bridge.

In Robert Frost's "The Mountain," what pivotal modernist and traditional themes are incorporated in the poem? How can the poem be used in the context of the North of Boston collection as a whole?

We don’t see many modernist themes in this poem; Frost leaned more toward the traditional ones. Modernist poets followed Ezra Pound’s command to “make it new,” but in Frost’s poems, including “The Mountain,” we see no experimentation in form. Rather, we typically see an adherence to the blank verse format, which signifies traditionalism. “The Mountain” has a very regular rhythm and meter; you can see how the text of the poem forms a neat, thin rectangle running down the page, and it’s this regularity, this adherence to well-established forms and conventions of poetry, that marks “The Mountain” as more of a traditional poem, something that resembles, at a quick glance, a page by Shakespeare or Milton.
Modernist poetry appears to us as jagged, full of experimentation with language and meter, and touching on dark themes of dissonance and dissociation within the mind. It also tends to portray a sense of personal disillusionment and meaninglessness, which often makes it difficult to read. On the contrary, “The Mountain” is easy to read. It’s a story about two men talking; it’s easy to picture it, as Frost gives us the visual detail that helps us easily imagine the calm mountainside scenery in which the poem’s action takes place, and the allusions in the poem are clear or at least unobtrusive. Reading “The Mountain” is easy. Reading modernist poems (like T. S. Eliot’s “The Waste Land”) is hard.
Still, we think of Frost as a “concealed Modernist,” someone whose works do show glimmers of Modernist themes. In typical Modernist poems, we see metaphors and similes all over the place, as if these were the favorite strategies of Modernist poems. But in “The Mountain,” Frost includes some figurative language (“The mountain held the town as in a shadow,” “to see [the stream] steam in winter like an ox’s breath,”), only to challenge the very idea of figurative language itself:

"Warm in December, cold in June, you say?”
“I don’t suppose the water’s changed at all.You and I know enough to know it’s warm.Compared with cold, and cold compared with warm.But all the fun’s in how you say a thing.”

Depending on how you interpret the poem, we do see one major Modernist theme in “The Mountain,” which is the idea of insurmountable barriers that prevent people from connecting meaningfully with each other. If you interpret the mountain in the poem as a kind of barrier that the narrator struggles to overcome, if you interpret the “scattered farms” as a failure of the people to form a meaningful community, if you see the failure of the narrator to understand the oxcart man’s explanation of the stream as a kind of breakdown in communication, and if you see the poem’s ending as an abrupt failure for their conversation to come to a meaningful conclusion, then you’ll come away with a modernist reading of “The Mountain.”
So, although the poem doesn’t neatly fit in either the traditionalist or modernist category of poetry, it does fit with the other poems in Frost’s North of Boston collection. How? It’s rife with natural imagery and includes some Biblical allusions, and it portrays regular people speaking to each other conversationally, the rhythm of their speech meshing into the rhythm of the poem. Similar to the other characters whose conversations dominate other poems in the North of Boston collection, the narrator and the man with the oxcart act out a kind of dramatic dialogue, a conversation full of tension and drama. As readers, we sense the urgency of the conversation, knowing that the narrator is eager for information and that the man with the oxcart is eager to continue on his way. The whole North of Boston collection is known as Frost’s “book of people,” and in “The Mountain,” the two people—narrator and oxcart man—seem to come alive through their conversation.

How does the depiction of Julius Caesar in Shakespeare's play differ from the actual events, as far as we know from Plutarch, in terms of Andrea Andreani's (1598) painting of Caesar receiving the crown from an angel?

The Greek writer Plutarch (ca. 46–120 CE) wrote biographies of many famous Romans and Greeks. His work Parallel Lives was William Shakespeare’s main source for Julius Caesar and the other Roman plays. Shakespeare almost certainly used the 1579 English translation by Thomas North, which was in turn based on Jacques Amyot’s French translation of the 1560s.
Plutarch’s views of the character of the Romans who ended up being conspirators to kill Caesar strongly influenced Shakespeare. Some of Shakespeare's text closely echoes the North translation, such as Antony's descriptions of Caesar’s generosity. According to Plutarch, when Caesar returned from his successful African campaigns, he spoke to the people about his victories and made them numerous gifts. In this oration, Caesar

greatly praised and commended this his last victory, declaring unto them that he had conquered so many countries unto the Empire of Rome, that he could furnish the commonwealth yearly with two hundred thousand bushels of wheat, and twenty hundred thousand pound weight of oil . . . [H]e very liberally rewarded his soldiers: and to curry favour with the people, he made great feasts and common sports.

The Renaissance fascination with the classical world, which extended throughout Europe, was very strong in England. The Italian artist Andrea Andreani produced a set of woodcuts in 1598 to 1599, collectively known as The Triumphs of Caesar, which were adapted from paintings with the same title made a century earlier. The paintings by Andrea Mantegna were commissioned by the a duke of Gonzaga family for their palace. Caesar on His Chariot, plate 9 of the prints, like the original painting, depicts an angel placing a laurel crown on Julius Caesar’s head as a man reaches a staff bearing another crown toward him, amidst crowded streets. The depiction of the angel, associated with the Judeo-Christian tradition, is one element linking ancient Rome to modern Italy.
Plutarch also refers to the widespread support to crown Caesar king and how the actions in favor of this also roused the opposition, who wanted Brutus at their head.

Caesar's flatterers . . . beside many other exceeding and unspeakable honours they daily devised for him, in the night time they did put Diadems upon the heads of his images, supposing thereby to allure the common people to call him king, instead of Dictator . . . Now when Cassius felt his friends, and did stir them up against Caesar, they all agreed and promised to take part with him, so Brutus were the chief of their conspiracy.

Plutarch also describes how Antony, in his funeral oration, showed the people Caesar’s bloody robe—the specific image that Shakespeare uses.

When Caesar's body was brought into the market place, Antonius making his funeral oration in praise of the dead, according to the ancient custom of Rome, and perceiving that his words moved the common people to compassion: he framed his eloquence to make their hearts yearn the more, and, taking Caesar's gown all bloody in his hand, he laid it open to the sight of them all, shewing what a number of cuts and holes it had upon it.
https://archive.org/stream/shakespearesplut02plutuoft/shakespearesplut02plutuoft_djvu.txt

https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/plutarch-shakespeares-plutarch-vol-i-containing-the-main-sources-of-julius-caesar

Thursday, April 25, 2013

What reactions emerged from the theory of Absolutism?

In government, Absolutism was/is the belief in the power of the monarch to make all decisions regarding social life, law, morality, foreign affairs, and questions of the state. Many European monarchs claimed to rule by 'divine right," which implied that they had been specifically ordained by God to watch over their people, and that their decisions were in reality a reflection of God's will being executed through the king.
The idea of absolute monarchy was especially salient in the seventeenth century, specifically in Western Europe, where the consolidation of state institutions (such as the church and the king's army) and the publication of pro-monarchical philosophic treatises cultivated a milieu in which the authority of the king was unquestionable. The most notable example of absolute monarchy in this period was the Bourbon dynasty of the French state, which exerted its most lasting influence from 1589 to 1792.
For example, the French political thinker Guillaume Du Vair, speaking to king Louis XIII in 1621, was quoted saying:

Do you not consider that in Your Majesty consist the entire salvation of your state, do you not understand that many millions of men who surround you only breathe by your lungs, and that if this light is extinguished, we will all live in the darkness of confusion, of misery, and of inestimable ruin.

In France, the spirit of absolute monarchy was apotheosized under the rule of Louis XIV, perhaps the most powerful man ever to sit on the French throne.
Other European states in the early modern period embodied the ideals of absolute monarchy as well. In the Russian empire, for example, the Russian tsars from Peter the Great to Nicholas II enjoyed the unquestioned obedience of both the nobility and the common people, who were collectively referred to as their "servitors."
Beginning in the eighteenth century, the European Enlightenment and Scientific Revolution began to cast doubt on the legitimacy of divine right as a justification for rule. Furthermore, the squalid conditions that ordinary citizens were forced to endure in the major European capitals—the lack of food, poor sanitation, dangerous work conditions, insufficient housing, and much else—became increasingly insulting when compared with the lavish lifestyles of the nobility and imperial court. French aristocrats, for example, staged massive spectacles at the celebrated Palace of Versailles, filled with performances and sumptuous feasts.
Aristocratic detachment from the sufferings of the common person was probably most egregiously encompassed by the infamous (and alleged) comment made by Marie Antoinette, wife to the French kind Louis XVI. When asked how to address the pervasive problem of hunger in Paris due to a lack of wheat, she notoriously quipped: "Let them [the peasants] eat cake!" (there is no direct evidence ever linking her to this statement).
Bourgeois sentimentality of Europe's elite classes, aristocratic arrogance, and rising social unrest eventually spelled the end for absolutism as a justifiable principle of rule. In 1789, French citizens, revolutionary leaders, and parliamentarians overthrew the monarchy in what is known as the French Revolution. In 1792, representatives of the French National Assembly declared France a Republic, and one year later the French king Louis XVI was executed.
In the Russian Empire, the tsars faced similar threats to their rule. In 1825, for example, members of the Russian intelligentsia calling themselves the Decembrists revolted, denouncing the accession of tsar Nicholas I and demanding the publication of a Russian constitution. Alexander II was assassinated in 1881 by political radicals. Nicholas II was similarly required to give up pretensions to absolute monarchical authority after the 1905 Revolution, in which he was forced to recognize the existence of political parties in Russia and give them voice by creating a quasi-representative assembly called the Russian Duma.
In all of these cases, the Russian monarchs (like the French) were forced to abandoned any pretensions they may have had to absolute rule. Throughout the nineteenth century, similar revolts challenging the authority of the sovereign occurred throughout Europe, in places such as Spain, Italy, Greece, and Poland.
Absolutism, then, helped generate the conditions for its own downfall. By cultivating an aloof, high-minded, pretentious aristocratic class that unabashedly lauded royal prerogative at the expense of the well-being of ordinary people, absolute monarchies across Europe suffered social backlash. Once the French Revolution set a precedent for the overthrow of such regimes, successive absolute governments fell like dominos, ushering in the age of nationalism.

What does Antonio think of Prospero's library in Shakespeare's The Tempest?

For Caliban, Prospero's library full of magic books is the source of his power. But for Antonio, Prospero's scheming brother, it's the exact opposite: it's a source of weakness. Prospero spends so much time in his library that he neglects his duties as Duke of Milan. This allows Antonio to get involved in a dastardly scheme to usurp Prospero and have him banished to a remote island.
It's somewhat ironic that Prospero's spending all that time with his magic books didn't ultimately save him from being sent into exile. Surely he could've rustled up a magic spell or two to send his greedy, scheming brother and his co-conspirators packing? In any case, Prospero will put the fruits of his learning to good effect later on when he'll use his magic powers to whip up a gigantic storm to bring Antonio and his partners in crime to his remote island home.

What were the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, and how were they resolved in the new Constitution? What would be the comparison between the Federalists’ vision for the United States and that of their Republican opponents during the 1790s?

According to our text, the Articles of confederation experienced multiple problems. The main problems with the articles were that the articles failed to include power to tax, authority to train armies, the power to adjudicate law cases, and the power to repel invasions. This is acknowledged as the weakness of the central government, having neither enforcement powers and judiciary authority, hence making governing in this regime impossible. These shortcomings led to the constitutional convention of 1787, which authorized various powers to the central government which the Articles of Confederation had failed to do. The constitution took advantage of creating relationships between the states. Actually, in the Articles of Confederation, there was no effective policy, nor army, to secure the federation, except what had been agreed by the states to contribute towards a specific military cause (Jonsen, 2004).
Another problem experienced by the government under the Articles of confederation was that revolutionary soldiers were not paid bonuses as well as the back pay promised to them for redeeming bonds to finance wars.
Differences between the Government under the constitution and the articles of confederation
The Articles of Confederation was more of a treaty compared to a real governmental framework. The articles proved to be a weak body with limited powers. Upon the introduction of our constitution, a much stronger governing body was created with a federal government run by presidential offices, Congress and countrywide judges (Madison, 1787).
According to the Articles of Confederation, each state had sent members to a congress which was a single judiciary house without powers to force the states to act according to their wishes. When the government under the Constitution was introduced, to be effective, its writers compromised heavily by finally coming up with two different houses of Congress, with a high amount of powers still staying with the States. Additionally, in the Articles of the Confederation, there was no interstate body, causing each individual state to enact laws to settle or reconcile their own disputes. On the other hand, the Constitution's authors came up with the idea of forming a strong federal or central government with various powers such as the right to tax, raise armies and also control domestic and international trade.
ReferencesJonsen, M.( 2004). The article of Confederation: An interpretation of the social-constitutional History of the American Revolution, 1787. Univ of Wisconsin Press.
Madison, J. (1787). Federalist no. 10. November, 22(1787), 1787-88.
Keene, J., Cornell, S., & E. O’Donnell (2013). Visions of America a history of the U.S. (2nd ed) Boston: MA. Pearson


The first set of laws in the United States were the Articles of Confederation, which were drafted and approved by the Continental Congress in November 1777. These rules were loosely based on how the government had been functioning for two years. The biggest weakness with the document was that it did not provide a strong branch of government to enforce it.
The Articles of Confederation were ratified by all the states by 1781, two years before Great Britain conceded defeat in the Revolutionary War. The Articles gave Congress control over international relations, printing money, and resolving disputes between states. Congress was also responsible for the formation of the Continental Army. But the central government was limited in its power and could not force states to comply with requests for soldiers. Each state was in charge of its own militia.
Congress operated as one governmental body back then, as there was no senate, executive or judicial branch. At the time, each state had one vote when it came to federal legislation. Nine out of thirteen states were required to pass a law affecting all states. Additionally, it took unanimous consent among the states to change any of the Articles.
One of the most significant weaknesses of the Articles was that they did not call for any method of collecting taxes or other revenue. Congress could only ask states to provide the money to operate a government. Consequently, the central government went bankrupt in 1780.
The United States Constitution strengthened the central government is several ways. Three branches of government were established, and congress was granted the power to tax and make laws affecting interstate trade. Prior to the Constitution, states were allowed to create their own currency. The Constitution clarified a stronger central government and monetary system.
Federalists such as George Washington, John Adams and Alexander Hamilton believed in a strong federal government, whereas Republicans such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe believed in minimal federal powers, with much of government rule-making given to the states.
https://www.history.com/topics/early-us/federalist-party

https://www.ushistory.org/us/14b.asp

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

What does Starr think about gated neighborhoods in The Hate U Give?

On the way to school in Chapter 5, Starr passes by Uncle Carlos's gated neighborhood and wonders whether gates are supposed to keep people out or in. This is important because Starr herself feels caught between worlds. In one, she is part of an African American neighborhood that sometimes struggles. She learns that an old friend of hers is dealing drugs because he has few other choices in life; she's also at a party when gunshots ring out. In her other world, she is one of the few African Americans at her school and constantly feels that she has to change who she is so that no one will think she's "too black."
Another reason this reflection is important is because it sets up the contrast in philosophies between Carlos and Maverick. Carlos lives in this different, gated neighborhood and works as a police officer to try to change his old neighborhood. And Maverick doesn't believe in moving and wants to try to change the culture from inside the neighborhood.
Caught between this conflict, Starr sees the gate as a metaphorical and literal barrier between the two worlds.

How does the author guide our understanding of the ending in Woman's World by Graham Rawle?

Graham Rawle spends much of the book setting up a striking contrast between the "man's world" of public, practical reality and the "woman's world" of private, frivolous fantasy. While the reader can easily progress through the plot unsuspecting of the author's devious intentions, once the plot twist is revealed, one could decipher clues along the way.
Once it is revealed that Roy and Norma are two aspects of the same person—regardless of the explanation the author offers or does not offer—then the probability increases that one of them must go. Will Roy be able either to effect a full transformation into Norma, will he suffer a breakdown and seek therapy, or will he be unable to survive without her and end his life?
By conveying that an earlier Norma existed in Roy's life, killed by an automobile, Rawle sets up the new Norma's demise. Also, as the novel uses many of the conventions of older realist fiction, the errant woman must pay for her behavior. Norma resembles the fashion-obsessed Emma Bovary, who ended in suicide. In taking her life by moving vehicle, she also calls to mind Anna Karenina, who also led a double life that was exposed.

Should writing about the ability of slaves to escape slavery be written in the present tense?

If the inquiries in question are strictly focused on Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl and the slavery that was taking place within the book, then it would be best to provide answers that evaluate the opportunities slaves may or may not have had in that particular context.
Since Linda, the main character, was born in North Carolina as a slave, you would want to specifically address the slavery that took place in the Americas during the 1800s. In the event that you take this particular route, answers should be written in past tense, as this particular form of slavery no longer exists in the United States.
However, it may be important to note that slavery still exists in the world today. Neo-slavery, or modern slavery, may not be a perfect match for the slavery described in Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl, but it is still a very real and very serious human rights issue that impacts an estimated 21 to 70 million people around the world.
Modern slavery can take many different forms. Issues such as child labor, human trafficking, forced marriage, debt bondage, and forced labor are among the most prevalent forms of modern slavery that take place today.
Though there are some differences, modern day slaves are very similar to the ones described in Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl. In addition to being traded and treated like property, modern day slaves are often forced to work against their will and often do so under inhumane conditions. There are still elements of control and fear as well, which often keeps them in bondage and makes escaping from their dire situation quite difficult.
If the questions that need to be answered are not specific about the slaves they are referring to, or you simply wish to add additional information about slavery, answers could be written in present tense as they pertain to modern-day slavery.
https://www.antislavery.org/slavery-today/

In Candide, what is it about Voltaire's critique that qualifies it as "enlightened"?

When we speak about the intellectual and literary trends of the eighteenth century, we largely speak in terms of the Enlightenment, or the Age of Reason (in which Voltaire is usually featured prominently). The Enlightenment was characterized by a mindset championing rationalism and human progress. It attacked superstitions and irrationalities present within Early Modern Europe. This is the source of its moniker the "Age of Reason": one might understand the Enlightenment as being shaped by a vision in which social and political progress could only be achieved through the use of the intellect.
Where things get trickier, however, is this: while we have a tendency to view the Enlightenment in terms of a unified movement, it was, in reality, far more fractal in nature. Enlightenment thinkers were not in lockstep with each other. There was no unified doctrine tying it all together. Indeed, consider that, with its representation of Pangloss on one side and Martin on the other, Candide seems to lampoon the very notion of abstract philosophy altogether. It is worth asking if this attitude might be in tension with the philosophical inquiries of a David Hume (even if they were both defenders of empiricism and of science, one can just imagine Voltaire scoffing at something like Hume's Problem of Induction) or of an Immanuel Kant.
That being said, I think Voltaire's Enlightenment credentials are quite clear. Candide is an attack on the irrationalities of Early Modern Society and also on the irrationalities of religion. Moreover, throughout Candide, there is a far deeper (and more subversive) criticism of traditional Christianity than can be found even in his attacks against the Church. Voltaire was a deist, and in this he broke with the most fundamental assumptions that define Christianity altogether: Christianity states that God is good and personally active within the world. If one looks across the entire arc of Candide, and all of Candide's miseries and sufferings, one will observe that Voltaire is very much concerned with the Problem of Evil: how can God possibly be good if there is so much evil and suffering present in the world? Voltaire's answer to this quandary was to reject the traditional Christian picture of the cosmos for a deistic vision in which the universe was created, but its Creator would play no part after setting things in motion. This notion was quite popular among Enlightenment-era intellectuals, and Voltaire was one of its adherents.
Candide is a work of satire, raging against the hypocrisies and absurdities of Early Modern Europe. There is a deep pessimism at its core, but even so, one can hopefully see the ways in which it reflects the larger currents of what one might call the Enlightenment to see why Voltaire is often counted among the most famous champions of the Age of Reason.

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

What did Thomas Paine’s "Common Sense" influence the founding fathers to do?

Not long after he had arrived in the United States from his native England, with the help of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine unleashed a stunningly eloquent seventy-seven word pamphlet, titled "Common Sense", in January of 1776. It would serve as a clarion call to the American colonies to free themselves from the yoke of British tyranny, rather than merely seek to negotiate improved terms of subjection to the rule of King George III, which still remained the goal of a large number of fence-sitting colonists.
The pamphlet's plain-spoken message of individual empowerment spread like wildfire throughout the colonies, being read aloud wherever people gathered: in taverns, in public halls, and on street corners. George Washington ordered Paine's words read aloud to his frozen, exhausted troops, as a source of inspiration. And no less than than John Adams, while demurring from the radical tenor of many of Paine's ideas, readily acknowledged that, "Without the pen of the author of 'Common Sense', the sword of Washington would have been raised in vain."
This momentum for independence continued to grow in the few months leading to the appointment of the Committee of Five by the Second Continental Congress, including Adams, and Paine's prescient patron, Franklin, in June of 1777, to draft a resolution of independence from Great Britain. This resolution, written by Thomas Jefferson, is known as the Declaration of Independence.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/10/16/the-sharpened-quill


In early 1776, Thomas Paine, a recent English immigrant living in Philadelphia and working as a journalist, anonymously published a pamphlet called “Common Sense.” In it, he argued that the American colonies should declare their independence from Great Britain, whose system of government (based on the monarchy and Parliament) Paine saw as hopelessly flawed.
“Common Sense” became an instant bestseller in the American colonies. Before its publication, many colonists, and even members of the Continental Congress, had assumed that reconciliation with Britain was the ultimate goal of the armed rebellion that had begun in Massachusetts in the spring of 1775. “Common Sense” helped to convince the public, as well as the founding fathers, that America needed to declare its independence from Great Britain altogether.
Within seven months of the publication of Paine’s pamphlet, the Continental Congress had appointed a committee including Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and others to draft a document stating the colonists’ grievances against King George III and declaring their independence from Britain. This Declaration of Independence, written by Jefferson, was presented to the entire Congress for debate on June 28, 1776, and adopted six days later, on July 4.

What are the purpose, value, and limitation for the speech given by HenryCabot Lodge in August l9l9 addressing the issue of the League of Nations?

In 1919, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge gave a powerful speech in which he opposed President Wilson's League of Nations. After World War I, a distinctly isolationist mood came over the United States. To many it seemed that America, having helped win the war, should no longer involve itself deeply in foreign affairs. The prevailing attitude was that other countries should sort out their own problems instead of expecting the United States to bail them out.
That being the case, there was inevitably widespread opposition to Wilson's League of Nations proposal, and Senator Cabot Lodge was one of its leading voices. The main thrust of his famous speech was that the League of Nations would impede America's sovereignty as an independent nation. Cabot Lodge invokes American exceptionalism in support of his argument, claiming that what made America great—its long-standing tradition of liberty—would be threatened by involvement in other countries' affairs:

The United States is the world's best hope, but if you fetter her in the interests and quarrels of other nations, if you tangle her in the intrigues of Europe, you will destroy her power for good and endanger her very existence. Leave her to march freely through the centuries to come as in the years that have gone.

Cabot Lodge believes that the best way for the United States to serve humankind is not through joining some well-meaning, but fatally flawed international organization, but by continuing to be a beacon of liberty: strong, generous, and confident. The tried and tested ideal of American liberty is always to be preferred to the undoubtedly noble, yet risky vision of international peace and concord that inspired the founding of the League of Nations.
The value of Cabot Lodge's speech lies in its eloquent articulation of the anti-League position. In giving his speech, Cabot Lodge presents his arguments, not as a knee-jerk reaction, but as a rational, thoughtful reply to Wilson's proposals, a considered response that is steeped in the finest traditions of American liberty.
The main limitation of the speech lies in its complacency. Cabot Lodge appears to think that insisting on the value of American liberty and keeping out of other countries' affairs is somehow enough to ensure a safer, more peaceful world. His whole approach to the issue of establishing peace in the post-war world shows a certain lack of understanding of the complexities involved. He fails to see that world peace is something that has to be constantly worked for, something that can only really come about through an active involvement with international affairs and building firm alliances with other countries to keep their common foe at bay.
In short, Cabot Lodge doesn't offer any constructive or meaningful alternative to the League of Nations. And although his arguments against the League specifically may be persuasive in many respects, they do not, in and of themselves, constitute a compelling case for disengaging from world affairs in general.

What is the theme of “Mid-Term Break”?

There are a number of themes at work in Seamus Heaney's sadly autobiographical "Mid-term Break." Like the narrator of the poem, Seamus Heaney lost his brother in a car accident when the child was only four years old. Because of this, the thematic concepts of death and loss are prevalent in the poem and are used to color even the potentially joyful moments that Heaney provides as he moves toward his themes. One theme that is present in the work is that death diminishes potential happiness. This emerges after the reader understands the poem but is hinted at in the first stanza:

I sat all morning in the college sick bay
Counting bells knelling classes to a close.
At two o'clock our neighbours drove me home. (1–3)

The poem begins with what seems to be a fairly common occurrence. The midterm break is coming up, and someone is in a sick bay. One many think that perhaps the narrator is trying to skip out on the last day of classes. However, the language used in line two shifts the reader away from any happy expectations through the description of the "knelling" of the counting bells. Normally, the bells that signal the ends of classes would be a welcome sound, particular on the day before a break. Here, though, the use of "knelling" suggests something foreboding, as a death knell. As the poem continues, the feeling of dread expands as Heaney presents the reader with more moments where happy occurrences have been tainted. The narrator is headed home, which should be a happy event. He meets his father on the porch, and his father is crying, but not out of happiness at the reunion, as he may have had a tragedy not occurred shortly before. Instead the father is crying for the family's loss: one of the youngest children, a four-year-old younger brother, has been hit by a car and killed. The sadness of the reunion continues as the narrator sits and holds his mother's hand as she "coughed out angry tearless sighs" (13). Again, under different circumstances, this contact may have consisted of happy, tearless signs of relief and reunion, but the tragedy has taken away that possibility.Finally, the narrator's reunion with the four-year-old brother is also filled with sadness. The narrator hasn't seen his younger brother in a month and a half, but instead of surprising the child by waking him from sleep upon the narrator's return, the narrator can only sit beside his younger brother as the child is lying in wake:

Next morning I went up into the room. Snowdrops
And candles soothed the bedside; I saw him
For the first time in six weeks. Paler now,

Wearing a poppy bruise on his left temple,
He lay in the four-foot box as in his cot.
No gaudy scars, the bumper knocked him clear.

A four-foot box, a foot for every year. (16–22)


Throughout the poem, a number of reunions have been diminished due to the tragic death of a child. For most people, a break from schooling is a welcome change, a chance to rest, and an opportunity to catch up with family. For the narrator of "Mid-Term Break," the break instead represents a fracturing of family and a reunion that will never occur.

What is the origin of Roderick's gloom in "The Fall of the House of Usher"?

I think that "The Fall of the House of Usher" is one of those stories which is open to some degree of interpretation as to the nature of Roderick's affliction and what caused it. My own reading of it runs something as follows.
The first thing that stands out to me is the house itself: the house is described as oppressive, and I think that living under these kinds of conditions (both from the oppressive gloominess of the house as well as from the isolation) would exact a heavy toll.
Exacerbating an already miserable situation is the mysterious illness of his sister, Madeline, who is described within the text as "his sole companion for these long years—his last and only relative on earth." The progression of her illness has had a powerful impact on Roderick's own mental health.
I think it's in the combination of these two factors (the oppressive isolation of life within the house, along with the experience of his sister's illness) that is responsible for Roderick's own deterioration.

What factors led to the Greek polis emergence?

The Greek city states were in large part sharp by their geographical context. Greece is very mountainous, and the soil is of poor quality. Therefore, there were always limitations in terms of the populations these cities could support, a challenge which led to the establishment of colonies. At the same time, this geography proved a significant barrier to internal communications. The Greeks relied upon the sea, and Greek civilization was spread out across the Mediterranean world. These geographic realities, however, made large-scale political unification extremely difficult. This resulted in the rise of various competing city states.
In addition, you should look towards the larger historical context, involving the collapse of the earlier Mycenean civilization and its larger consequences for Greek history. This resulted in the Doric Age, where Greek civilization largely had to be rebuilt. To quote historical experts, "from 1200 until 800 B.C., writing disappeared from Greece; the country's population shrank and was isolated from the wider world" (Ian Morris & Barry B. Powell, The Greeks: History, Culture, and Society, Pearson Education, Inc: Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: 2006, 4). It was in this context that Classical Greece was shaped.

What aspects or ideas of discovery are covered in "This Lime-Tree Bower My Prison"? Please use quotes.

In this poem, Coleridge is left behind due to a foot injury from going on a hike with his friends in the countryside. He is unhappy to be left sitting in a bower of lime trees near his house, feeling imprisoned. He had especially wanted to spend time with his good childhood friend Charles Lamb. Unlike Coleridge, who had wealthy benefactors providing him with an income, or Wordsworth, who had a small inheritance to live on, Lamb had to work for a living. As Lamb explains in his essay called "The Superannuated Man" (written after he retired), he worked fifty-one weeks a year, six days a week, for the East India Company and received only one week of vacation annually. Clearly, he is spending this precious time in the country, and Coleridge must be especially frustrated at being apart from him, given how short Lamb's stay is.

Nevertheless, Coleridge discovers he can be happy even without accompanying his friend, because he can be with him in imagination and think with joy about what Lamb must be seeing and doing.



Coleridge thus discovers that sometimes it is better to be disappointed so that we can imagine joys we cannot share: there is joy in that too. He writes,




sometimes'Tis well to be bereft of promis'd good,That we may lift the soul, and contemplateWith lively joy the joys we cannot share.



Along with this, Coleridge moves to realizing—discovering—that it is not so bad to be in a lime bower. As he expresses in the quote below, there are beauties there. The light shines through the transparent foliage, and Coleridge has enjoyed the dancing play of sun and shadow:






A delightComes sudden on my heart, and I am gladAs I myself were there! Nor in this bower,This little lime-tree bower, have I not mark'dMuch that has sooth'd me. Pale beneath the blazeHung the transparent foliage; and I watch'dSome broad and sunny leaf, and lov'd to seeThe shadow of the leaf and stem aboveDappling its sunshine!

In the end, Coleridge discovers he can make peace with a day that has not turned out as he had wished by exercising his imagination and also by being content with the beauties that exist where he is.


Samuel Taylor Coleridge's "This Lime-Tree Bower My Prison" contains numerous characteristics that illustrate the concept of discovery. The first line, "Well, they are gone, and here I must remain," illustrates the first example of discovery. The speaker begins the poem by openly admitting that he (gender assumed for clarity) has realized that his situation "is what it is." This illustrates discovery because the speaker seems to have just come to this realization. In the next stanza, the poet opens with another adverb ("well" begins the first stanza). The use of these adverbs illustrates information about time, manner, and certainty. The use of the word "now," in this stanza, compounds the idea that the speaker is present in the moment. He is sharing his thoughts with the reader. By doing this, the poet is illustrating the state of discovery the speaker is present in. Another example of discovery happens in the third stanza: "A delight / Comes sudden on my heart." This example shows another moment where the speaker come to discover something more about the situation he is in. Finally, the poet's use of exclamation marks throughout the poem illustrates discovery. The speaker's excitement about all of the new discoveries explodes through his dialogue. He cannot contain himself, and all of the exclamation marks offer the proof that he cannot contain his emotions.

Monday, April 22, 2013

Analyze the "Axis of Evil" speech.

In the end, one of the lasting legacies of the "Axis of Evil" speech is how government is empowered during times of crisis. The September 11 Attacks and thus the War on Terrorism had gripped American consciousness. In his speech, President Bush articulated a vision of the world where the enemy is everywhere and nowhere simultaneously. He constructed a vision of terrorism as representing the absolute embodiment of evil that a perceived democratic government such as the United States must unilaterally commit itself to fighting at all times. In this construction, the fight against terrorism featured two supposed realities, both of which justified centralized governmental action. If the terrorists were defeated, the War on Terror was working; if the terrorists were not defeated, it only speaks to the furthering commitment needed in the War on Terror. Either way, the vision that President Bush articulated in his "Axis of Evil" speech bolsters the centralized notion of governmental authority.
The lasting legacy of this vision is that citizens have to be vigilant in terms of their government. While acting on what seemed to be credible intelligence at the time, it later emerged that there were no stockpiles of "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq. The public believed what was told as truth. The President's speech casts geopolitical reality as a moralistic tale of "good vs. evil." The reality was far more complex. The Iraq campaign was a muddle, at best. While Saddam Hussein was removed from power, there is a very compelling debate that emerges in terms of whether Iraq is better off today. The "Axis of Evil" was a loaded phrase that convinced the American public of the need to adopt the Bush Doctrine. Eternal vigilance lacking, the United States committed itself to a worldview where there is real question as to whether the world is safer today. The embrace of eternal vigilance is one of the most poignant lessons to emerge from the Bush Doctrine as outlined in the "Axis of Evil" speech.

How does Macbeth feel about being king but knowing Banquo's children will be kings after him?

It's an interesting and critical question because Macbeth ultimately betrays and murders Banquo, revealing much about the nature of his ambitions and his opinions concerning the prophesy regarding Banquo. For Macbeth, Banquo and his family line represent a threat, which he tries to eliminate through murder.
When speaking about Macbeth, we tend to discuss the subject of ambition (one of his defining character traits, and the source of much of the play's tragedy), and this ambition plays a critical role in his betrayal and murder of Banquo. As we find out in act 3, scene 1, Macbeth is unsatisfied with merely being King. Rather, he wishes to pass the crown down to his children. However, Banquo represents a threat to those ambitions (a factor which Macbeth himself is well aware of). Thus, in order to protect the interests of his own lineage, Macbeth orders the attempted assassination of Banquo and his son in the hopes of eliminating this threat to his own descendants.

Select one basic idea from "Death Be not Proud" by John Done, and then find quotations in the poem, which prove that what you are saying about it is correct.

This assignment requires a student to select a significant idea from John Donne's Holy Sonnet "Death Be not Proud" and then use quotations to support some interpretation of that idea. It is part of a sequenced series of assignments; although the eventual paper will use three quotations, at this particular stage, the student simply needs to select the basic idea or thesis that will underlie the paper and locate one supporting quotation.
A good choice of central idea would be that Donne considers Death a "slave" to Fate. This terminology and Donne's account of various forms of death, would recall to educated readers of Donne's period the Boethian distinction between Providence (God's overarching plan) and Fortune or Fate (how humans see the events of the world). The important quotation for this is:

Thou art slave to Fate, Chance, kings, and desperate men,
And dost with poyson, warre, and sicknesse dwell

This suggests that Death lacks autonomy and thus should not be respected. In these lines, not only rulers but also "desperate men" (criminals, pirates, mercenaries) are shown as having control over the moments when people choose to die, and thus Death is subservient to their whims.

What's the dealio

"Dealio" is a neologism, with a meaningless "-io" attached to a real word, "deal." It is used as slang, most commonly in a sentence such as "What's the dealio?" "Deal" in this sense refers to specific situation. It could be some type of negotiation—in this case, the question would mean, what am I (or we) going to get, and what do we have to give up? Or it could refer to a general situation, meaning that the question would express "what's happening?" or "what are we going to do?"
Adding the ending, which makes it seem as if "deal" is derived from Latin or Greek (instead of Anglo-Saxon) likely gives the speaker a sense of faux sophistication. The suffix might also be a way for a speaker to signal informality, asking a serious question in a kind of lighthearted manner, as if they are not too anxious to know the answer.
English speakers sometimes add nonsensical endings, or endings borrowed from another language, to common words. For example, "-ito" and "-ita" are Spanish suffixes that signal something is small or young. If someone wants to indicate their home is tiny, they might say, jokingly, "my houseita." Typically such invented words do not become neologisms and enter the language, or if they do, it is as obscure slang.
"Dealio" is not in common English usage, though there are examples of it dating back at least two decades. In 2010, a singer named Missy Elliott recorded a song called "What's the Dealio," and the same line was used in a popular 2004 comedy movie, Napoleon Dynamite.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dealio

Does Lou truly love Will in the book Me Before You? How do you know this?

It seems that Lou truly loves Will in the novel "Me Before You," more so than he cares for himself. Early in the events of the book, Lou learns of Will's desire to commit assisted suicide, and of his pact with his mother to live for another six months.
Lou attempts, from then on, to encourage Will and help him learn to love his life in spite of his disability and confinement. Her actions throughout the story to improve his standard of living and give him reason to continue persevering in spite of his dissatisfaction with his life show that she deeply cares for him. In the end, she shows how much she disapproves of his decision to end his life, hoping to convince him one final time not to do so. While he may be in pain and hates his life, she still tries to convince him to go on, and this, in my opinion, shows how much she does love him.

How does Great Expectations reflect the Victorian era?

Charles Dickens is known for the ways in which he incorporates social issues and makes his readers conscious of the problems he saw in Victorian London. In Great Expectations, the main social issue Dickens presents is the gap between social classes. Pip, though he is the stepson of a blacksmith and is expected to apprentice to him, wants to rise in social class, partly so he can be Estella's equal. In trying to rise above his circumstances, Pip learns valuable lessons, such as gratitude for the sacrifices and love of Joe. When Pip matures, he realizes he has been somewhat inadvertently cruel and insensitive to Joe in an attempt to distance himself from his working-class background.
The novel also highlights problems with the justice system and the prisons of London in the Victorian era through the character of Magwitch. This character also teaches Pip a valuable lesson about how appearances can be misleading. All in all, the novel depicts a more realistic view of Victorian London than we get in many other works of the period that focus on the domestic and romantic lives of upper-class characters. Dickens instead raises the social consciousness of his readers while telling a classic tale of a young man's coming-of-age.

Sunday, April 21, 2013

How is Gertrude blind to her marriage to Claudius in Hamlet?

Gertrude does not seem to suspect any foul play in her former husband's death, nor does she seem to perceive any evil in Claudius's character. From the glimpses we receive of her relationship with Claudius, the two appear happily married, openly discussing Hamlet's alleged madness together and, from what Hamlet says anyway, enjoying a healthy sex life. She seems too enthralled with her new husband to even be willing to notice any defects in his character.
Of course, not everyone agrees with this interpretation. Some stagings of the play imply Gertrude might have been having an affair with Claudius even before Hamlet's father was murdered (hence, the two marrying less than two months after King Hamlet's funeral). Some even suggest she might have been complicit in his murder. It all depends on one's individual reading of the play or the interpretation of the cast and crew putting on the play for an audience.
Depending upon how the text is presented, Gertrude can also either come off as a guileless fool regarding Claudius's character throughout the whole play, not realizing until her poisoning that Claudius is a bad man, or she can be given some insight later on. Famously, Laurence Olivier's 1948 film version suggests Gertrude finally sees through Claudius's treachery in her last scene. Realizing Hamlet's drink has been poisoned, she consumes it first so her son will not be killed and so that the court will realize Claudius is a murderer and political schemer.

What roles have ulama and Sufis played in the history of the Muslim world, and what significance should we attach to them?

Learned men have played important roles in Islamic society from the early years of the religion's establishment. The ulama traditionally interpreted religious teachings as theologians, attorneys, and professors, and they conducted rituals. They also served as members of advisory or official governing councils. In modern times their influence has waned considerably and they infrequently feature in state governance except in the more conservative countries that have religious Muslim leadership.
Sufi is the Westernized version of an Arabic word for those following a mystical orientation to understanding existence. As a mystical arm of Islam, Sufism is an ascetic, anti-materialist approach. They have contributed significantly to creative interpretation through art, music, dance, and literature. Sufis still play an educational, even missionary role in spreading the word of Islam.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Sufism

https://www.britannica.com/topic/ulama

Prepare a review on the book Animal Farm by George Orwell, clearly mentioning its motive.

I'll start by saying that there is no single, definitive way to write a book review. Various book reviews are likely to share similarities, but some teachers or editors want to see plot summaries while others do not. Similarly, some readers will want your flat out opinion, while other readers do not want that; therefore, my first suggestion is to consider your reader and shape the review around what he or she expects.
Another thing to consider is your attention-getting hook. A good book review is going to grab reader's attention right from the start. If it doesn't, the reader is either going to skip to your concluding paragraph or stop reading altogether. For a book review, I recommend one of three hooks. Use a quote from the book, ask your reader a question, or make a very bold claim that begs for further explanation.
After the introduction, it is fairly standard to walk your reader through a basic plot summary. The key is to keep it relatively short. This will move your reader quickly through the most key components of the plot, the setting, and the characters. Avoid spoilers as much as possible, and definitely don't give away the ending. You want your readers to have a similar experience with the book as you had with it.
After the plot summary, move toward critically examining the quality of the text. There are likely things that the author did well and things that the author struggled with. Highlight those things. Maybe you found a particular character extremely well-written, or maybe you found a particular section of the book that really bogs down due to needless details. Explain those instances.
For the conclusion, don't introduce new concepts, ideas, and thoughts. Reiterate what you have said, and steer your reader toward some kind of action. For a book review, this action is likely one of two directions. Steer the reader toward getting a copy of the book and reading it, or steer the reader to pass on this particular text.

Saturday, April 20, 2013

Which two things are the children compared to at the beginning of the story "All Summer in a Day"?

As the story opens, the children are first compared to roses and weeds, intermingled, looking out a window. They are anxious for a glimpse at the sun that has not been out on Venus for seven years. As Bradbury puts it:

The children pressed to each other like so many roses, so many weeds, intermixed, peering out for a look at the hidden sun.

This is an apt simile (comparison using the words like or as) because, as we shall see, the children have divided themselves into two groups: the roses—the popular children, like William—and the weeds, the unpopular children, like Margot. It is also an appropriate simile because, like growing plants, children need and yearn for sunlight.
Later, as the sun begins to emerge, the children are likened to "a feverish wheel, all tumbling spokes." That is, they are all responding as one except for Margot, who stands apart from the group. This foreshadows how the rest of the children, jealous because she has already seen sunshine, lock her in the windowless closet when the sun comes out.

To what extent does To Kill a Mockingbird challenge ideas about social exclusion, and what are some examples of this?

To Kill a Mockingbird takes a stand against social exclusion on several levels. Social exclusion can be defined as the marginalization of people based on economic, political, religious, or cultural differences or affiliations. It can happen on a small scale, as in the social sphere of family; a medium scale, such as on a community level; or a large scale, such as a national ideology.
In this novel, the social marginalization that is rooted in racism is enmeshed in the very fabric of the community. It is behind the segregation of groups in social settings. For instance, when Calpurnia takes the Finch children to her all-black church, one woman does not accept them, and if the children are accepted in this setting, it seems to be because Atticus is their dad—he is representing Tom Robinson, which gives him an "in" with the black community.
Social marginalization also determines what jobs people can and cannot have. Most of the black people in the novel have labor- or service-related jobs; most, like Calpurnia, are not formally educated. Social marginalization also strongly influences how people treat one another. When Atticus takes the Tom Robinson case, his children are bullied by members of their own community, by both children and adults.
Experiencing social exclusion means being an outsider. The "contrary" affiliations that marginalized people have that qualify them to be ostracized is often viewed as a threat to society. Whether political, economic, religious, or cultural, these differences are perceived as a threat to the "norm."
For example, Mr. Dolphus Raymond experiences social marginalization because he is in an interracial marriage. His love for a black woman is a threat to the "norm" of social segregation that permeates all aspects of life. Mixing races therefore threatens a societal structure that is rooted in racism; if the races mix, then who can be educated? Where will people go to church? How does one treat a child with both white and black blood, since one is supposedly superior?
When almost everyone is gathered in the courthouse, Mr. Raymond must remain outside. He knows he is not welcome. His white community treats him—and speaks of him—as if he is an evil man. Scout thinks that he is an alcoholic because he carries around a brown bag that he drinks from. However, she eventually finds out it is not liquor, but Coca-Cola. When she asks Mr. Raymond why he pretends to be a drunk, he says:

Some folks don't—like the way I live. Now I could say to hell with 'em. I don't care if they don't like it. I do say I don't care if they don't like it right enough—but I don't say to hell with em, see? . . . I try to give 'em a reason, you see. It helps if they can latch onto a reason. When I come to town, which is seldom, if I weave a little and drink out of this sack, folks can say Dolphus Raymond's in the clutches of whiskey—that's why he won't change his ways. He can't help himself, that's why he lives the way he does . . . It ain't honest but it's mighty helpful to folks. Secretly, Miss Finch, I'm not much of a drinker, but you see they could never, never understand that I live like I do because that's the way I want to live.

In this excerpt, the novel is taking a stand against social marginalization. Mr. Dolphus Raymond is shown to be exceptionally understanding of why society has rejected him. He knows that the white community is so indoctrinated to a racist perspective that some things are beyond their comprehension—such as how he fell in love with a black woman and chose to build a family with her. He also shows himself to be merciful to those who exclude him, in that he pretends to be an alcoholic so they can rationalize his choice. He does not wish to "shake-up" the worldview that is so integral to how their society functions.
Atticus, on the other hand, does take a stand that "shakes-up" people's worldview. By giving a black man fair representation in court, he is also threatening the societal norm which inherently assumes the guilt of black men—most especially when against the word of a white person.

How does Mr. Oakhurst know Tom Simson?

In "The Outcasts of Poker Flat," Mr. John Oakhurst and Tom Simson met while gambling before meeting again on the trail.
After Mr. Oakhurst and the others are kicked out of Poker Flat, they head to a new settlement. On the way, they come across Tom Simson, whose nickname is "The Innocent of Sandy Bar." He seems to be a nice young man who almost got more involved in gambling.
Mr. Oakhurst and Tom met across a gambling table. Mr. Oakhurst won $40 from Tom, which was the entire amount the young man owned. After things were done, Mr. Oakhurst returned Tom's money to the young man and told him not to gamble again. He told him that he wasn't a good gambler.


Mr. Oakhurst, right from the beginning of the short story "The Outcasts of Poker Flat," which is written by Bret Harte, (Harte, 1869), Oakhurst is one of the leading outcasts of the town of Poker Flat in California. The town of Poker Flat decided to kick four people out of town after Poker Flat was losing a lot of money in those times, plus falling into moral decay due to these four people, which also included a woman involved in prostitution named Mother Shipton, someone was allegedly a criminal, a young lady that worked in an alcoholic bar called The Duchess, a commonly known drunk around Poker Flat named Uncle Billy, plus as mentioned before, Mr. Oakhurst who was a good gambler.
As the four outcasts of Poker Flat were journeying out of the town and took a rest, they came across Tom Simson, a young man known in the book as "the innocent" repeatedly, as well as his young girlfriend Piney woods who in the book is 15-years-old. Simson was in great admiration of Mr. Oakhurst because Mr. Oakhurst had won a gambling match with Simson and Simson had lost a lot of money, however, Oakhurst was honest enough to return the money to Simson, most likely because he's a young man, and taught him the lesson to not ever gamble again. Since Simson was in great admiration of the Poker Flat outcast Mr. Oakhurst, Simson and his 15-year-old girlfriend journeyed along with Oakhurst and the three other outcasts of Poker Flat.
Therefore, Mr. Oakhurst and Tom Simson had actually met twice in the short story of "The Outcasts of Poker Flat." The first time that met was at a poker match where Mr. Oakhurst won the match, yet, returned the money to Tom Simson and warned him not to gamble again because he is a bad gambler. The second time that Mr. Oakhurst and Tom Simson met in the short story of "The Outcasts of Poker Flat," was when by this time, Mr. Oakhurst had been thrown out of Poker Flat with three other individuals who were deemed to be decreasing the moral value of the town of Poker Flat, however, the irony in this situation is that Mr. Oakhurst showed himself to also have redeeming qualities with his actions towards Tom Simson of returning the money that he had won from him in a poker game and to warn him against gambling in future because he did have a knack for it.


Years before the story takes place, John Oakhurst, a professional gambler, had met Tom Stimson while comprehensively beating him in a game of poker. Oakhurst is an expert card player, and he made a small fortune off Tom, who is not nicknamed "The Innocent" for nothing. But Oakhurst took pity on Tom and gave him the money back while advising him not to play poker again, as he is clearly a bad player. For this reason, Tom is rather in awe of Oakhurst, believing him to be a truly great man. As a result, he is rather pleased when he and his young lover, Piney Woods, stumble across the legendary gambler along with the other outcasts. They are on their way to a camp over the mountains and have decided—against Oakhurst's wishes—to rest a while before resuming their journey.

Where did the King meet the hermit?

In Tolstoy's fable "Three Questions," the King already knows of the Hermit and where to seek him out in the woods, and it is outside the Hermit's solitary hut that the King finds the man digging with a spade. Though the King asks the Hermit his questions, the Hermit doesn't respond, and instead the King decides to help him with his work, taking up the digging for him. It is only the King's doing this—giving aid to the Hermit—that enables his questions to be answered. Because the King has lingered with the Hermit, a wounded man comes running out of the wounds, a man who is later revealed as an enemy of the King and who had intended to assassinate him. When the King helps this man also, dressing his wounds, the Hermit reveals that the King through his actions has answered his own questions: that 1) the most important time to begin or to do anything is now, 2) the most important man to ask advice of is the one you are with at any time, because you never know if you will meet anyone else, and 3) the most important thing to do is to do good because for that purpose alone was man sent into this life. The King, in stopping to help the Hermit, did all three of these things, and thus saved himself from the attempt of the would-be enemy on his life (and also made a friend of him).
Tolstoy devoted the latter part of his career to a focus upon ascetic living and religious contemplation, and he came to believe that true literature should consist of parables of a simple, scaled-down form in which a moral, or religious message, is conveyed directly to the reader. These works, such as "Three Questions" and "What Men Want" often have a childlike, fairy-tale atmosphere about them, though like Tolstoy's fiction for which he is best known from earlier in his career they are serious works and are intended for adults. It is interesting that the last line of "Three Questions," "the most important thing to do is, to do good, because for that purpose alone was man sent into this life," is quoted at the end of the 1968 Russian film of Tolstoy's War and Peace, as if to sum up the meaning of that story and of all of Tolstoy's work.

Where did Werner and Jutta's father die in All The Light We Cannot See?

Werner and Jutta's father died in Pit 9, which is the largest of the coal pits in Zollverein.
Zollverein is a coal-mining settlement outside of Essen, Germany. It's three hundred miles to the northeast of Paris. It's there, in the largest mine, that their father died and left them orphaned.
Werner sometimes takes Jutta there to watch the men work and the coal elevator run. When they're done with lessons, he walks there and pulls a cart that she sits in. He made it himself from abandoned pieces. They play all over the mining area, even climbing up on old machinery. Then they watch the bright lights coming from Pit Nine as the men enter it with their lunch pails, and he reminds her that inside the mine is where their father died.

In higher education, is homeschool better than an Ivy League education, or is an Ivy League school better than homeschool?

In the United States, degree-granting university programs must generally be approved by an accrediting authority authorized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, which sets standards that include access to owned libraries, a minimum number of faculty with terminal degrees, and so forth. As such, it is essentially impossible for a home school to be accredited to grant a university degree. In other words, homeschooling does not exist in higher education.
Homeschooling and education in an Ivy League institution are not, generally, comparable. They represent different phases of the educational experience.
Homeschooling occurs, almost exclusively, at the K–12 level, or kindergarten through 12th grade. It terminates with the awarding of a high school diploma or its equivalent. This is called primary (K–8) and secondary (9–12) education.
The eight Ivy League institutions in the United States are universities, meaning their course of study is geared toward the awarding of a bachelor's degree or higher. Admission requires a high school diploma or its equivalent. This is called tertiary education.
A homeschool student, upon completing a course of study leading to a high school diploma or its equivalent, could advance to enrollment in a university program, potentially including one at an Ivy League University (Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Cornell, Pennsylvania, Dartmouth, Princeton, or Brown).

Friday, April 19, 2013

What is Carlson's story?

Steinbeck intended to write about the harsh lives of the itinerant farm workers in California, a subject he knew about from personal experience. Whenever a writer has to deal with a number of characters of the same sex and social station, he has a problem of differentiating them enough so that the reader can tell them apart. Carlson's chief distinguishing feature is that he is surly and unsociable. He is one of the older men. He owns a German Luger, which becomes important at the end. He is not friendly with the other men because he doesn't want to accept the fact that he is one of them. He takes his bitterness out on Candy's dog as well as on poor Candy. Slim explains to George that most of the bindlestiffs are loners. Perhaps many of them are like Carlson in not wanting to accept reality, in not wanting to accept their present existence as their final fate. This might explain why they are always on the move: they are hoping to find a better life somewhere else. As Slim tells George:
You know how the hands are, they just come in and get their bunk and work a month, and then they quit and go out alone. Never seem to give a damn about nobody.
They are mostly uneducated and semi-literate. They can't see the bigger picture--that they are only little units in a vast army of unskilled and unwanted millions of bedraggled, downtrodden, homeless men wandering blindly all over America. These are the "mice" referred to in Steinbeck's title. His book and the play into which it was made were startling at the time because they gave the readers and audiences a glimpse into a world they scarcely knew existed.

Admiral Raymond Spruance (US Navy) preferred a defensive battle at the Battle of Philippine Sea and invasion of the Marianna Islands until the invasion was secure. Was he right?

The Battle of the Philippine Sea (June 19–20, 1944) was one of the greatest American victories of the war. It has been argued that it could have been an even greater victory if Admiral Raymond Spruance had been more aggressive. Spruance was the victor in the decisive battle of Midway in 1942, and criticism of his conduct in the battle two years later is unfair. In fact, after Midway, the Battle of Philippine Sea ranked as his greatest triumph.
Spruance knew he had to protect the landing at Saipan. He did that and dealt a crippling blow to the Japanese at the same time. Had he pursued the Japanese and suffered a reverse, the whole landing could have been jeopardized. Spruance won praise for his role. Indeed, the outcome was so decisive that it was called a "turkey shoot." Tojo Hideki, head of the Japanese government, resigned after the defeat.

What is the theme of the chapter Lead?

Primo Levi's complex probing of the Holocaust, including his survival of Auschwitz and pre- and post-war life, is organized around indiv...