How would I find the domain and range of: k(x)= (1/(4-x^2)+sqrt(x-1)?

Find the domain and range for
`k(x)=1/(4-x^2)+sqrt(x-1)`
.

(1)The domain is the set of all
possible inputs. Generally you assume that the domain is all real
numbers (unless the problem involves discrete objects like the number of people) and
then find any restrictions. The restrictions include, but are not limited to, not
dividing by zero and not taking even roots of negative
numbers.

So in this case we check for division by zero; if
x=2 then the fraction has a zero in the denominator, so x=2 is
not in the domain.

We also
check for taking even roots of a negative number: if class="AM">`x<1` then we are taking a square root of a negative
number which we cannot do in the real numbers.So x<1 is not
in the domain.

Thus the domain is class="AM">`x>=1,x!= 2`,or class="AM">`[1,2)uu(2,oo)` .

(2) The range
is the set of all possible outputs. It helps to look at a graph. type="image/svg+xml"
src="/jax/includes/tinymce/jscripts/tiny_mce/plugins/asciisvg/js/d.svg"
sscr="-7.5,7.5,-5,5,1,1,1,1,1,300,200,func,1/(4-x^2)+sqrt(x-1),null,3,1,0,5,black,1,none"/>

Notice
that as x approaches 2 from the left, the function grows without bound. This is because
for 1.75<x<2, 4-x^2 is smaller than one and approaching zero, so the
reciprocal gets arbitrarily large (goes to positive
infinity).

As x approaches 2 from the right, for
2<x<2.23 4-x^2 is negative and smaller than 1 in absolute value, so the
fraction gets arbitrarily small (goes to negative
infinity).

As x gets large, the fraction gets close to
zero, but the square root grows without bound.

So the range
of the function is all real numbers; the function takes on every value for y at some
point.

Thus the domain is class="AM">`1<=x<2 uu x>2` and the range is all
real numbers.

What is the central message that Harper Lee is conveying to the reader in To Kill a Mockingbird?

Harper Lee's central message in To Kill a
Mockingbird evolves around the primary themes of prejudice, intolerance and
innocence. Atticus' advice to Scout in Chapter 3 best sums up the author's
intent:

"You
never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view--until
you climb into his skin and walk around in
it."

It is a message about
the importance of tolerance: how an individual's actions and beliefs may differ from
your own, and how they should be considered and respected before formulating an opinion.
The message of tolerance goes hand in hand with that of prejudice, and how many
characters are prematurely judged by the color of their skin (Tom Robinson), from gossip
and rumor (Boo Radley), and from their eccentric nature (Dolphus Raymond). The theme of
innocence is also explored in the novel, both from the aspect of the falsely accused
(Tom, Boo) and the loss of innocence experienced by Jem, Scout and
Dill.

Please give an explanation of the following lines from "My Last Duchess" by Robert Browning.Or there exceed the mark”—and if she let Herself be...

You have managed to select the heart of this poem, and
some of the most disturbing lines ever written in literature, in my opinion. These lines
tell us the fate of the poor last Duchess, and how her completely indifferent husband
had her murdered because of his own arrogance and inability to compromise. Looking at
these lines in context, we can see that the Duke is such a proud man that he considers
it beneath himself to discuss with his wife what was annoying him about her actions and
his own jealousy. His refusal "Never to stoop" indicates that he believes he is such an
important man that he thinks he should have his wants anticipated and met without ever
having to "stoop" to ask for anything or to express his
discontent.

It was the inability of the last Duchess to do
this that led her to carry on "smiling" and offending her husband, which in turn led to
the vague "commands" of her husband, which resulted in her death. The Duke is clearly
presented as a man who will not brook any opposition to his powerful will, and as a
tyrannical individual.

Explain the following quote : "She hath good skill at her needle, that's certain,' remarked one of the female spectators; 'but did ever answer a...

The ladies, or gossips as Hawthorne calls them, have
already expressed their displeasure with Hester's punishment- even before she has walked
out of the prison.  They believe she should be deported, branded, or even killed and
think her beauty has blinded those who have sentenced her to such an easy punishment. 
They are livid when she walks out of the prison with such a bold A embroidered on her
dress.  They admit that is shows skill, but they feel that his bold statement is a slap
in the face, and that they were right all along- she has not learned from her sins and
may make the same mistake again.

Dialysis Technologist are employed to solve practical problems using scientific knowledge .Dialysis Technologist are employed to solve practical...

readability="4.5">

src="http://d2hej51cni6o0x.cloudfront.net/images/user_icons/Educator_Female_Small.png"
class="profilePic" alt="wannam's profile pic"/>
src="http://d2hej51cni6o0x.cloudfront.net/images/core/educator-indicator_thumb.png"
class="premium-indicator"/>

A Dialysis
Technician is in a very specialized field. He or she will be in charge of overseeing the
process of dialysis in patients. While they understand their particularly specialty very
well, they must still be under the supervision of a doctor or nurse. A dialysis
technician is not a type of doctor or nurse, but rather another position in the medical
profession. As such, they still need supervision because they do not have the same
training, education, or expertise as a doctor or nurse. The dialysis technician oversees
this one specific aspect of a patient's treatment, but the patient will still need more
overall care as well. A doctor will need to prescribe and monitor the dialysis
treatment, while a nurse will need to supervise some of the more minor aspects of
treatment.

class="rating-thumb ss-icon up upvote disabled" data-id="358461"
data-method="/api/2.0/qa/rateAnswer">
like
itemprop="upvoteCount" id="upvoteCount-rateAnswer-358461">1


data-id="358461" data-method="/api/2.0/qa/rateAnswer">
dislike

id="downvoteCount-rateAnswer-358461">0

In "Miss Brill," why does Miss Brill think of the fur as a "little rogue"?

The description of the fur that Miss Brill swathes herself
with in the first paragraph of this excellent story gives us vital clues about the
character of this poor, lonely lady and the half-life that she somehow manages to eke
out every day. The affection she feels for her fur and the pride and excitement she has
in donning it again only serves to emphasise the kind of empty life she leads and how
much time she spends fantasising over how she imagines herself to be perceived by both
herself and others. Consider the description that we are given in the first
pargraph:

readability="21">

Miss Brill put up her hand and touched her fur.
Dear little thing! It was nice to feel it again. She had taken it out of its box that
afternoon, shaken out the moth powder, given it a good brush, and rubbed the life back
into the dim little eyes. "What has been happening to me?" said the sad little eyes. Oh,
how sweet it was to see them snap at her again from the red eiderdown! . . . But the
nose, which was of some black composition, wasn't at all firm. It must have had a knock,
somehow. Never mind–a little dab of black sealing-wax when the time came–when it was
absolutely necessary . . . Little rogue! Yes, she really felt like that about it. Little
rogue biting its tail just by her left ear. She could have taken it off and laid it on
her lap and stroked it. She felt a tingling in her hands and arms, but that came from
walking, she supposed. And when she breathed, something light and sad–no, not sad,
exactly–something gentle seemed to move in her
bosom.

The sad fact is that
Miss Brill is shown to have more of a relationship with her "little rogue" of a fur than
she does with her fellow human beings, who, it is clear, only look at her as a sad,
lonely old woman and an object of ridicule. The affection she feels towards the fur, an
inanimate object, is exemplified through her addressing it as a "little rogue" and the
way that she imagines it being real and alive. This act of fantasy is of course
paralleled at many other points in this short story, when Miss Brill constructs her own
elaborate fabrication of her life to endow it with importance and
purpose.

What are some differences between the book version of "The Odyssey" and the movie version?

There are two major screen versions of Homer's
The Odyssey:

The 1955 Italian film
Ulysses with Kirk Douglas, 115
minutes;

The 1997 American TV Miniseries The
Odyssey, 176 minutes.

Because the 1955 film is
better known, I assume that is the one you are referring
to.

Ulysses was filmed in 1955 in
Italy, and almost every actor except Kirk Douglas speaks Italian; the original English
dubbing is famous for being quite bad and mismatched. At the time,
Ulysses was one of the most expensive movies
ever made, and due to budget concerns, they had to shorten and modify the
story.

Three major scenes are
cut:

(1) Ulysses's 7-year stay
on the island of Calypso

(2)
Aeolus's bag of wind blowing Ulysses's ship away from the shores of
Ithaca

(3) The attack of
Scylla and Charybdis at sea.

Otherwise, the film is
considered to be very faithful to the source material, if a bit dramatized and
dumbed-down so as not to bore the audience. Most reviews mention the strong presence and
charisma of Kirk Douglas, and the expensive and technologically superior (for the time)
special effects. A great deal of the narrative and repetition is excised, as well as the
three scenes mentioned above; they were likely cut for time and expense, as well as
being the most superfluous to the plot.

Why does Piggy dissuade Ralph from giving up his position as chief?

In chapter five, "Beast from the Water," Ralph briefly
considers giving up his role as chief:

readability="8">

"'If you give up,' said Piggy, in an appalled
whisper, 'What 'ud happen to me?'"
(93).

Piggy is adamantly
against the notion of Ralph stepping down from being the chief.  He reasons with Ralph
that Jack respects him more.  Piggy's own well-being is his central interest in
persuading Ralph to remain as the chief of the boys.  Piggy fears what Jack might do
without Ralph to stand in his way. 

readability="6">

"He can't hurt you: but if you stand out of the
way he'd hurt the next thing.  And that's me" (93). 

Piggy may have his own best
interests at heart, but both he and Simon concur that Ralph is the better chief because
his main focus is being rescued, whereas Jack only cares about hunting.  Simon also
understands that with Jack as chief, "he'd have all hunting and no fire.  We'd be here
till we died" (93).  The two boys convince Ralph that he must try to stay strong in his
position of leadership for as long as possible, fearful of the dark potential within
Jack Merridew.

Meaning of lines 46-50 "When old age shall this generation waste,Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou say'st.'Beauty is truth, truth...

 Generation after shall come to live on this beautiful
world. Each generation will have its unique shortcomings and problems. Ageing is a
natural phenomenon and all human beings will perish one day( unlike the characters
immortalised on the urn, like the singers and lovers who sing and run after maidens
respectively). However, this "unravished bride of quietness" and the foster chilf of
silence and time will always act as a friend of
humanity.

This urn which is a living example of immortality
of art will prove to the world that Beauty and Truth are two sides of teh same coin.
What is beautuful has to be true and what is true has to be beautiful. This is all that
the human beings need to know and this alone  will serve them in
life.

One must also remember that indian mythology also
stresses on the same aspect through the statement, SATYAM,  SHIVAM, SUNDARAM. i.e, what
is true is shiva, what is shiva is beautiful.

In Sophocles' Oedipus the King, besides the predictions of Teiresias, what other foreshadowing of the shepherd's revelation does the play contain?

Throughout Sophocles' Oedipus the
King, the playwright gives the audience several glimpses and recollections
that Oedipus has, indeed, killed his father and married his
mother.

Early in the play, before Teiresias arrives, Creon
recalls for Oedipus what he knows about the death of Laius. Oedipus learns from Creon
that Laius' death was murdered, that Laius was on his way to Delphi when it happened,
and that only one person from Laius' entourage escaped death. According to that person,
however, Laius and company were attacked by multiple robbers and not one
person.

Also, before Teiresias arrives, Oedipus questions
the old men of Thebes (i.e., the Chorus) about Laius' death. They also report that
"Laius was killed by certain travellers" (Ian Johnston
translation).

Later, when Oedipus accuses Creon of
conspiring against him, Creon reveals that it has been many years since Laius' murder
occurred, thus providing another clue that would link Oedipus to the
crime.

When Jocasta comes on stage to calm the dispute
between Creon and Oedipus, she provides further information about Laius' death.
Jocasta's information about the murder occurring "at a place where three roads meet"
provides an additional detail that causes Oedipus to become quite worried. Furthermore,
she specifies that the murder occurred just before Oedipus became king of Thebes. She
also adds additional detail about the number of men Laius had with him at the time of
his death.

After Oedipus hears Jocasta's account of Laius'
death, he recalls his own bloody encounter with a man and his entourage at "a spot where
three roads meet". Still, Oedipus is not completely certain that he was Laius' killer
because of the persistent report that Laius was killed by multiple persons and not one
solitary person.

So, other than the comments by Teiresias
and prior to the arrival of the two shepherds, Sophocles provides the audience with
plenty of indications that Oedipus is Laius' killer. In fact, it appears that each
person that comes on stage with Oedipus provides him with some bit of information about
Laius' death. Oedipus' only stumbling block to piecing together the mystery is the
account that Laius was killed by multiple attackers.

Does Tom experience internal conflict or external conflict?Jack Finney's "Contents of the Dead Man's Pocket"

Tom Benecke of Jack Finney's "Contents of the Dead Man's
Pockets" experiences both external and internal
conflicts:

external conflicts - man vs.
environment

When the yellow sheet containing
Tom's assiduously collected data blows out the eleventh-story window, he climbs out to
retrieve it and finds himself in danger on the ledge as he risks his life to regain it. 
When he does grasp the paper, Tom learns that he faces another challenge from his
environment as the window from which he climbed has now slammed shut.  He must risk
death by punching the window's glass as hard as he can without losing his balance so
that he can return to safety.

internal
conflicts - man vs. inner self

Tom's wife
desires that he accompany her to the movies, but his tremendous yearning for success in
the business world causes Tom to submerge his personal relationship; he tells his wife
that he must finish his calculations so he can submit his report on Monday, but he will
meet her later.  However, when he finds himself in the life-threatening situation on the
ledge, Tom's inner conflict begins to resolve as in his effort to break the glass of the
closed window, he cries out, "Clare!"  Once safely inside, Tom pulls his overcoat from
the closet so he can leave to meet his wife at the movies, and when he opens the door,
the draft from this door again blows the yellow sheet out the window.  This time,
however, Tom laughs as he understands the insignificance of the yellow sheet compared to
his life and his love for his wife.

Eugene O'Neill's "Long Day's Journey into Night" is a modern tragedy. CommentPlease answer in detail

a modern tragedy features ordinary people in tragic
situations , all central characters die or destroyed in the
end.

so, long day's journey into night best fitted for this
tragical definition. there rises stern evidence and sorrow in each character of this
family . every one of them is clouded with a marked sadness , disappointment,
heoplessness outcome of which is a rigid and thick first-rate frustration and tragedy.
whether it is Tyron, Mary , Edmund or Jamie each character is destroyed in the end as a
consequences of pasimoniousness, drug-addiction, consumption, debauchery and
prostitutary. By going through the story we can go in detail for lenghtening this brief
and comprehensive answer.

``shakespeare was not of an age but for all time`` How shakespeare adaptated to suit our contemporary society?

The essential question that Shakespeare explored in his
plays is, "what does it mean to be a human being?"  The genius of Shakespeare is that he
manged to show us ourselves in every conceivable light.  It really doesn't matter when
the plays were written since they are about the human condition which is
timeless.

Shakespeare was an incredible observer of his
fellow human beings.  We, as human beings, may dress differently or have more technology
than people in Shakespeare's day but we are still motivated by the same desires and have
the same feelings.

The themes of his plays are as universal
as his characters.  For example, in his history plays, he explores the question of power
and how to govern.  His examples show men who govern poorly (Richard
II), who take power (Henry IV parts 1 & 2), who
who don't desire power but live up to the challenge (Henry V), who
mean well but are ineffective (Henry VI parts 1, 2 & 3),
and who becomes a tyrant (Richard III).  Each of these lessons, he
draws from English history but can be applied throughout history right up to the present
day.  We still good leaders, bad leaders, ineffective leaders, and tyrants.  Macbeth is
another example of a tyrant who takes power by forces.  All we have to do is read a
daily newspaper to see the contemporary nature of
Shakespeare.

The relationships between men and women in
their various relationships are also explored.  A feud and forbidden love and how it
affects a society is explored in Romeo and Juliet.  Today we have
racial and religious differences which can divide a society.  Teenagers identify with
the characters in this play which is why it is taught in high school.

Parental relationships are also explored in his plays as
well as family relationships.  There are numerous examples, particularly in the Late aka
the Romance plays.  But the comedies also show us sibling relationships, like Kate and
Bianca in The Taming of the Shrew or Don Pedro and his brother Don
John in Much Ado About Nothing.

These
are only a handfull of examples but it is easy to see that Shakespeare managed to
capture mankind in all his glory and all his shame and everything in between.  This is
the reason that he is for "all time".

What is the mental state of the masquers proior to the enterance of the uninvited guest (the masked stranger)?

In Edgar Allan Poe's story "The Masque of Red Death",
Prince Prospero's goal is to retire with his courtiers away from his fashionable court
into a Palazzo situated far away from the center of the
city.

His purpose is to segregate himself and his courtiers
from the Red Death, which had come to their land to ravage the population. Prince
Prospero, as his name indicates, has everything in his power to make their move both
comfortable as well as entertaining. He takes this pilgrimage as an adventure, rather
than a necessary step to safety. As a result of Prince Prospero's attitude, his
courtiers appeared just as confident and free of
problems:

The story
reads,

The
courtiers, having entered, brought furnaces and massy hammers and welded the bolts. They
resolved to leave means neither of ingress or egress to the sudden impulses of despair
or of frenzy from within. The abbey was amply provisioned. With such precautions the
courtiers might bid defiance to contagion. The external world could take care of itself.
In the meantime it was folly to grieve, or to
think.

As you can tell, they
basically felt that bolting themselves away and keeping it cool would be enough to
prevent contagion. They took for granted that their social status would protect them
from their human nature. Hence, they were not only over-confident, but arrogant at the
emergency at hand and, in the end, they paid for it all.

What is the plot of Treasure Island?

Robert Louis Stevenson's Treasure
Island includes pirates, buried treasure, a (nearly) deserted island, murder,
revenge and mystery--all of the elements needed for a classic tale of adventure. When
Billy Bones, an old pirate, arrives at the Admiral Benbow Inn, he befriends the son of
the owner, Jim Hawkins. Bones eventually dies, and young Jim discovers a treasure map
among his belongings. He sets off to find the buried gold along with Squire
Trelawney--who finances the trip--and Dr. Livesey. The crew they hire to pilot their
ship turn out to be cutthroats, however, led by the one-legged Long John Silver. The
pirates desert the ship and attempt to find the buried treasure on their own, but Jim
manages to outwit them, and he returns with the squire and the doctor to England as
wealthy men.

Analyse the stage directions at the beginning of Act II. How are they used to convey an impression of the relationship of John and Elizabeth in The...

There are two aspects of the initial stage directions that
we are given at the beginning of this act that indicate that all is not well in the
marriage of the Proctors. Firstly, when John enters his home, notice the way in which he
"halts for an instant" as he hears his wife singing. The sudden effect of her voice on
him and the way that he stops what he is doing suggests that there is something wrong.
Secondly, John's testing of the food that he is going to eat and the way that he is "not
quite pleased" with it, adding salt himself to give it more flavour also perhaps
indicates that there is something wrong, especially in the way that he then goes on to
lie about it to Elizabeth, saying "It's well seasoned."

The
last major clue that we have comes after the dialogue has started. After John tells
Elizabeth that he means "to please" her, we are told that she finds it difficult to
respond. Then, notice the following stage directions:

readability="9">

He gets up, goes to her, kisses her. She receives
it. With a certain disappointment, he returns to the
table.

The way in which
Elizabeth only "receives" her husband's kiss instead of responding more emotionally and
physically, and John's subsequent sense of disappointment clearly conveys the way in
which there is something wrong in their marriage. We have seen John lie to please her
and then Elizabeth's cold response to his physical advances. We are definitely presented
with a marriage that is experiencing some problems.

Is there a strong relationship between the boy and his father in The Road?

Most definitely. The way in which the father commits
himself to looking after the boy and ensuring his safety and survival speaks of a great
and deep love. The way in which the boy looks up to his father and shows his respect and
admiration for him likewise indicates that this is a two way relationship that is
tremendously important to them both. Consider, for example, some of the final words that
the father says to his son at the end of the story:

readability="6">

You have my whole heart. You always did. You're
the best guy. You always were. If I'm not here you can still talk to me. You can talk to
me and I'll talk to you. You'll
see.

Note too the way in
which the boy responds to his father when he sees how exhausted and near death he is
when they reach the place where the father will die:

readability="8">

Herre they camped and when he lay down he knew
that he could go no further and that this was the place where he would die. The boy sat
watching him, his eyes welling. Oh Papa, he
said.

Thus we can see from
these two quotes that the relationship between these two central characters in this
incredible novel is very strong indeed. It is one that endures a hideous setting and one
that is able to triumph over the many problems that beset them.

What is the main conflict in the short story, "American History" by Judith Ortiz Cofer?

I would argue that this excellent coming-of-age short
story is actually centred around an internal conflict within Elena herself, and the gap
between her dreams and hopes and the brute reality that she has to face because of her
ethnicity. This of course also is manifested in the external conflict in the way in
which Eugene's mother treats Elena when she goes to his house, and is foreshadowed by
the way in which Elena's mother warns her daughter about what she is heading
towards:

You
are forgetting who you are, Nina. I have seen you staring down at that boy's house. You
are heading for humiliation and
pain.

Thus it is that Elena's
conflict is between the hopes that she has for herself and her friendship with Eugene
and her ethnicity and the way that it makes her different from others. The death of her
hopes is of course paralleled with the death of JFK, who himself tried to campaign for
equality.

In Neil Gaiman's novel for young readers titled The Graveyard Book, why does Jack need Bod dead?

In Neil Gaiman’s novel The Graveyard
Book, a man named Jack succeeds in killing all the members of a particular
family except the young infant he particularly wants to murder.  This infant, eventually
known as Bod, happens to be absent from the scene of the crime when the killings occur.
He is adopted and raised by the residents of the local graveyard, and only many years
later, in Chapter 7, does he discover why the man named Jack – and indeed a group of
men, all named Jack – want him dead.

In Chapter 7, one of
the “jacks of all trades” reveals to Bod that

readability="12">

Long time ago, one of our people – this was back
in Egypt, pyramid days – he foresaw that one day there would be a child born who would
walk the borderland between the living and the dead. That if this child grew to
adulthood it would mean the end of our order and all we stand for. . . . And we sent
what we thought was the best and the sharpest and the most dangerous of all the Jacks to
deal with you. To do it properly, so we could take all the bad Juju and make it work for
us instead, and keep everything tickety-boo for another five thousand years. Only he
didn’t.

The Jacks, therefore,
tried to kill Bod to prevent the loss of their vast supernatural powers and to protect
their strange and ancient “order.”

Where according Chillingworth, is the one place where Dimmesdale could have successfully escaped him?

At the climax of the novel, Dimmesdale finally suceeds in
overcoming his guilt and shame by standing on the scaffold and professing to the entire
community what he has done. Even though this provides no physical escape, and one would
expect would actually result in a restriction of freedom, it is the only way that
Dimmesdale could have ever escaped Chillingsworth. He had made plans with Hester to find
a physical escape by fleeing with Pearl to England, but we find out that Chillingsworth
had learned of this and had made plans to board the ship with them. Dimmesdale can do
nothing physical to escape Chillingsworth, because Chillingsworth's torment is not
physical! The internal anguish that Dimmesdale feels as a result of his sins is tender
to the evil intent of Chillingsworth, making him an easy target and a passive prey. He
cannot run away, he cannot make his guilt go away, but he can admit his sins, even if it
kills him. Ultimately, death and the release from his torment go hand in hand, and
Chillingsworth cries "You have escaped me!" as Dimmesdale lies on the scaffold, finally
hand in hand with Pearl, dying.

What is the main point to the situation in the story, "Guests of the Nation?"

I think that the main point in the situation of O'
Connor's story is to illuminate a condition of humanity during war.  It is a condition
that in  which critic Patricia Robinson suggests O'Connor suggests that "in war, hatred
and revenge drive out ethical and moral intelligence.’’  In a condition in which people
are supposedly enlightened and endowed with the gift of rational thought, the point in
O'Connor's story is to show that in war, humans do not necessarily embody such a lofty
perch.  Rather, they become creatures that retreat into duty and other domains in order
to evade the personal responsibilty and agonizingly brutal consequences that go with it.
 

For majority of the story, the English captives and Irish
captors seemed to get along quite well.  The animosity of war and the intensity of the
conflict had been kept at bay while both soldiers recognize one another as soldiers and
not partisans.  In the hue of such a condition, the Irish soliders and British soldiers
refer to one another as "pals" and "chums."  Yet, when the order to execute the British
soldiers becomes evident, the Irish soldiers do not take action in the name of
friendship forged.  Rather, they retreat into the cave of duty to evade responsibility.
 The main point of the story is to illustrate the lack of "ethical and moral
intelligence" in war.  No cause is honorable enough to cause such primal elements of
humanity to be abandoned so easily.  Noble objects to the mission, but does nothing
about it.  He digs the holes in the ground for the bodies.  Bonaparte wishes that the
English soldiers would escape, but he also does nothing to act on what he knows is
right.  In the end, the bonds of tenderness and friendship are abdicated in the nebulous
realm of duty.  Both Bonaparte and Noble do not feel honored in what they are to do, but
both do it anyway.  It is this condition, illustrating how there is a lack of "ethical
and moral intelligence" in war, that becomes the main point illustrated in O'Connor's
story.

What is a good thesis statement about the symbol of silence in Night by Elie Wiesel?

Much of this is going to depend on what you wish to prove
or what it is you need to prove.  On one hand, I think that it might really interesting
to examine how God is silent in Wiesel's narrative.  One of Wiesel's most basic claims
is that God remained silent in the face of unspeakable cruelty.  At the same time,
Wiesel plays with this in how human beings treat one another.  There is a silence in how
human beings interact with one another.  Moshe the Beadle comes back to speak of the
difficulty that will be endured by the villagers of Sighet.  He is greeted with scorn
and disregard.  Madame Schachter speaks of the fires and the flames, and she is
ostracized, physically silenced by the other people on the train.  Even Eliezer remains
silent while his father screams in pain and calls out for help.  It is in this where
Wiesel might be making his greatest statement about silence and the human predicament. 
A thesis here might be that the deeper true horror of the Holocaust is not what the
Nazis did, but the behavior that they legitimized as human beings dehumanized one
another with silence and apathy.

What is the probability of the offspring that is a daughter having hemophilia if a man with hemophilia were to marry a woman who is not a carrier...

Hemophilia is a disorder in the way the clotting factor
VIII or IX is made by the body. The genes that control this process are found in the
X-chromosome.

Males have one X-chromosome and one
Y-chromosome while females have 2 X-chromosomes.

If a man
who has hemophilia were to have a female offspring with a woman who does not have
hemophilia, the probability of the girl child having hemophilia is
zero.

As the offspring receives the X-chromosome from her
father which has the hemophilia gene and another X-chromosome from the mother that is
normal, the daughter will be a carrier of
hemophilia.

Carriers of hemophilia can make enough of the
clotting factor to avoid serious bleeding that is associated with hemophilia, though
around 50% of carriers have a slightly increased risk of
bleeding.

What did The Valois Dynasty of France accomplish in the Middle Ages?

The Valois dynasty in the long run created more problems
for France than it had accomplishments. Their policies of religious intolerance and
selling of titles for nobility created enormous
difficulties.

France, finding itself surrounded by the Holy
Roman Empire on each side, had fought against the Empire in the Hapsburg-Valois War. The
war had been expensive, Francis I (who also lavished himself with expensive paintings
and other luxuries) sold titles of nobility to raise money. These "nobility of the robe"
held positions which soon became hereditary. Since he nobility did not pay taxes, the
end result was the reduction of the tax base in France, thus leading to financial
difficulties which would ultimately lead to the French
Revolution.

The Concordat of Bologna, signed by Francis
with the Pope, gave the French crown the right to name French bishops and Abbotts. In
exchange, Francis recognized the supremacy of the Pope over church councils. The end
result was to make Catholicism the official religion of France. This occurred at a time
when many French noblemen were attracted to Calvinism, primarily for political reasons.
These so called Huguenots were bitterly persecuted by the Valois monarchs in an attempt
to eradicate Calvinism from France. The end result however was to actually encourage the
growth of the Huguenots.

On August 24, 1572, St.
Bartholomew's day, Charles IX with the encouragement of his mother, Catherine de Medici
arranged a meeting with Huguenot leaders to discuss peace. The Huguenots were encouraged
to leave their weapons behind as a token of their sincerity. During the night, the
Catholic forces fell upon the Huguenots and slaughtered them in the famous St.
Bartholomew's day massacre.

The last of the Valois line
was Henry III, brother of Charles IX. Henry was openly homosexual and had no heir. The
resulting civil war for control of the French throne was known as the War of the Three
Henries. It ended when Henry of Navarre converted to Catholicism, reputedly after
commenting that "Paris is worth a mass," and was crowned Henry IV.

Compare/contrast radio of the 30's to film of the 30's.

In the 1930s, radio was the primary
means of electronic communication around the world. It had yet to be fully replaced by
telephone networks, and television was far in the future. Radio was both a news source
and an entertainment source. Dozens of entertainment programs aired during the 1930s,
including the first soap operas, melodramatic stories sponsored by
soap and other goods.

In contrast, film was still in its
infancy, but rapidly gaining ground. Silent film had just died off, replaced by
talkies, films with synchronized sound and music. The musical film
became an enormous moneymaker, as did cartoons, which had previously been relegated to
pre-feature status.

In comparing the two, one must be aware
of the Serial Film, a form that has since been replaced entirely by
television. Before TV, studios would film long movies and cut them up into chapters,
which would play at the local theater every week, keeping public interest with
cliffhangers and guest stars. These serials with their special effects and overblown
stories competed directly with radio, which had the financial edge; anything you could
imagine could be provided with sound effects.

Until the
development of television, radio was the cheapest and easiest way to broadcast a
continuing story. Serials died out as feature films became longer and more expensive,
and radio was an easy alternative for families on a budget. Another big draw of radio
was the Fireside Chats of President Franklin Roosevelt, which
started in 1933; he addressed specific concerns over the radio without the usual big
production of a speech and thus connected directly with the voter. Although he could
appear in newsreels before feature films, these lacked the personal
touch of fireside chats.

Essentially, in the 1930s radio
and film were in an uneasy truce, one that would soon be broken entirely by the rise of
television. Radio programming has never been more important than in the 1930s, while
film continues to be a big draw to this day.

What does "How to Tell a True War Story" represent?

Whenever we think of how to convey the brute realities of
war, we must be aware of how difficult this is and how tenuous our understanding of the
"truth" of such experiences can be. This story points towards the profound ambiguity in
war time experiences and the many different versions of the "truth" that can occur
during wartime and how even two contradictory versions of what happens can both be the
truth, thanks to the chaos and distortion of war.

You might
like to consider the role of Curt Lemon's death in this story and how this supports this
distortion. Although O'Brien knows that Curt was actually killed by a rigged round, as
he thinks about what he saw and witnessed, he writes that Curt was killed by the
sunlight and he is lifted up into the tree. Thus it is that there is a distinction made
between what actually happens and what seems to
happen.

Thus the point of this story, or what it
represents, is the profoundly subjective nature of war and how difficult it is to try
and write about it in any objective, meaningful way. Consider the following
quote:

The
truths are contradictory. it can be argued, for instance, that war is grotesque. But in
truth war is also beauty. For all its horror, you can't help but gape at the awful
majesty of combat.

Again and
again, O'Brien points out the many inconsistencies with war, which therefore makes
trying to tell a "true" war story impossible, as you can never give one definitive angle
or reflection on what happens.

Rick Perry and the maker of the HPV vaccine have deep financial ties. What is your response to that?

Sadly, my response to this is that I am not surprised.  I
do not believe that Perry was selling his executive order for campaign donations in any
sort of a direct way.  However, I do believe that the personal and financial connections
between Perry and Merck were sufficient to induce Perry to do them a favor so long as he
did not think that it would cause him any real problems.

I
do not think that our politicians are corrupt enough that their votes (or in this case,
executive orders) are literally up for sale.  However, I do believe that that
politicians can be influenced by personal relationships and by the desire to do favors
for people who may one day be able to help them out financially or otherwise.  I believe
that Perry just didn't really care one way or the other about mandating Gardasil
injections.  I think that he did his former chief of staff a big favor because of their
relationship and because he figured Merck could help him some
day.

How does federalism enable people to particpate in their government?

In any democracy, the people have the ability to
participate in their government.  In a federal system, they simply have more
opportunities to do so.  This is because the government of their state (or province or
whatever the smaller units of government are called) is more accessible to
them.

The national government of a country is typically a
large entity that is based in a faraway city.  Ordinary people have little chance to
participate in it for that reason.  The state government, by contrast, tends to be much
smaller and much closer to home.  The people who represent you in a state government
represent a much smaller number of people than those who represent you in the national
government.  For this reason, you are much more likely to be able to have meaningful
interactions with your state legislator than with someone representing you in the
national legislature.

Federalism, then, gives people more
opportunities to interact with a government that is closer to them.  This means they are
more likely to have a chance to participate in their government in a federal
system.

Why does Proctor say that himself and Danforth are huge sinners?

In Act III, Danforth describes the trial and all that
comes out of it as a "swamp."  This is significant because, by the end of the Act,
Proctor and Danforth are both trapped in a swamp or mire- like condition whereby there
is real significant emotional underpinnings.  Proctor's confession in court is motivated
by a need to end all of the lies and deception that have shrouded the court and its
supposed pursuit of justice and truth.  It is here where Proctor feels that Danforth is
a huge sinner.  Proctor believes that the fraudulent nature of the court is something
for which Danforth has to assume large responsibility.  Danforth's court is nowhere near
the search for truth and justice, as it has empowered people like Abigail to be its
guiding force, with others like Parris looking for opportunities to increase his own
power.  At the same time, people like Francis Nurse and Giles Corey are immediately
punished for simply being.  In the end, Proctor can no longer accept such hypocritical
demonstrations.  While it is evident that Proctor has accepted his own condition of sin,
he is also ready to indict others for their own hypocrisy and inauthenticity, and in
here, Proctor speaks towards Danforth and the court, in general.

How were wealthier classes in Pride and Prejudice limited in terms of their choices Provide evidence and quotes

The social structures of the period limited the ways in
which people could behave without being ostracized from their social circle. For
example, only certain forms of employment were acceptable for "gentlemen" -- being an
officer in the military, clergy, and, to a limited degree, law and medicine. Often men
with no interest in or talent for those occupations fell into them due to social
restrictions. Women of the gentry were expected to marry gentlemen -- to marry
inappropriately or to earn one's own living was to remove oneself from the
social category of gentlewoman (governesses, ill-paid and ill-treated, were sometimes an
exception). Much of the lack of freedom in social choices is seen in the novel in the
treatment of good and bad marriages -- whether Darcy marrying down, Lydia almost ruining
the family by impropriety, the shame of having relatives "in trade",
etc.

Did Putnam accuse Rebecca Nurse of being a witch in hopes that he eventually would be able to buy her land?from the crucible play, please.

The Salem Witch Trials, as depicted in Arthur Miller's
play "The Crucible", examined many different aspects of revenge and
hysteria.

Many of the townspeople would accuse others based
upon reasons only understood, then generally assumed by others, by the person making the
accusation.

It was very easy to accuse people in the town
given the mass hysteria which broke out during this period. People would accuse others
based upon fear (that they themselves would be accused--so why not accuse another before
another person could accuse them), revenge, and
jealousy.

In regard to Putnam, he knew that by accusing
Nurse of witchcraft the possibility of her land being claimed by the township would be
greater. It was most likely his hope that when this happened  he would be able to
purchase the land without issue. Therefore, like many others, Putnam used the hysteria
of the accusations in Salem to his benefit.

What is the topic in "The Tell-tale Heart?"

Like many of Edgar Allan Poe's stories, The Tell-Tale
Heart contains more than one theme, including his mortal fear of being buried alive. The
most prevalent theme, however, is Guilt.

The nameless
narrator speaks of an undefined loathing for the Old Man who lives in his house, and of
the Old Man's staring eye, which watches him incessantly. Eventually, the narrator kills
the old man in the night and dismembers the body, hiding the corpse beneath the floor.
When Police come to investigate a neighbor's report of a scream, the narrator entertains
them on the spot, but grows more and more nervous as he imagines the old man's heart
still beating below them. Eventually, he works himself into a frenzy and tears up the
floorboards himself.

The narrator speaks constantly of his
sane state of mind, and yet he himself reveals his perfect crime. In his guilt over
killing a man who, he admits, had never wronged him, he mistakes every sound and sight
for proof that the police already know and are just toying with him. It is likely that
the heartbeat he hears is his own, beating in his
ears.

Near the climax, the narrator
explains,

readability="6">

Anything was more tolerable than this derision! I
could bear those hypocritical smiles no longer! I felt that I must scream or
die!

And scream he does,
exposing his crime. While he never denies the crime itself, he denies that the
commission of it was in any way immoral. He has taken a life for no purpose but his own
satisfaction, yet refuses to understand or accept his guilt even as it undermines his
calm.

How would the limewater test be affected if one exhaled through the straw immediately after running on a treadmill?

Lime water is a saturated solution of calcium hydroxide.
When calcium hydroxide reacts with carbon dioxide, calcium carbonate is
precipitated.

Ca(OH)2 + CO2 --> CaCO3 +
H2O

If an excessive amount of carbon dioxide is passed
through the lime water, the solution becomes clear again as the calcium carbonate that
was initially formed reacts with CO2 to form Ca(HCO3)2 which is
colorless.

When a person runs on a treadmill, the body
cannot produce energy by aerobic respiration as it requires a large amount of oxygen.
Instead, anaerobic respiration is used which is inefficient as compared to aerobic
respiration and produces only one-tenth the
energy.

Anaerobic respiration does not produce CO2, lactic
acid is the only product. This has to be eliminated from the muscles and that requires
heavy breathing to increase the intake of oxygen necessary for this
process.

After running on a treadmill, if one were to
exhale through a straw into lime water immediately, it would not turn
cloudy.

Identify the instances of formalities that Dorothy is treated with in Emerald City

The presence of Dorothy in Oz is an example of a guest in
a strange land.  She never looks at Oz as a home and is not treated as one who is at
home in Oz.  The Wizard treats Dorothy is a sense of polite detachment in how he works
with she and her guests in order to find happiness.  The Wizard offers her a seat on the
balloon with him, but in the end he leaves without her.  The Winkies treat Dorothy and
her friends with a sense of reverence.  There is evident distance between them for she
is seen as a type of liberator of them.  In this, Dorothy is treated with formality and
again, a sense of distance.  In this, I think that Dorothy find herself understanding
that part of the reason she wishes to go home is because there is more emotion waiting
for her there.  When Auntie Em runs out to greet her upon her return, there is a
redemption in emotion, something of warmth and care that helps to define Dorothy's state
of being.  While her journey was filled with many positive moments, the emotions of
redemption are only present when she returns back to Kansas, indicating that the
treatment one receives as being a guest is much different than what one receives when
they are at home.

why is being king not good enough for macbeth? in the book macbeth sene 3 act 1

Being king is great, according to Macbeth, and he wants to
stay king.  This is the problem.  He cannot stay the king, and he cannot ensure that his
chidren will be kings if Banquo and his son Fleance are alive.  In Act III, sc i Macbeth
acknowledges this when he says, "To be thus is nothing; /But to be safely
thus."

Macbeth is slowly beginning to realize that the
witches prophecies, which have proven true for him, will also prove true for Banquo and
Fleance.  He is king, but for how long?  Macbeth
notes,

Upon
my head they placed a fruitless crown,
And put a barren sceptre in my
gripe,
Thence to be wrench'd with an unlineal hand,
No son of mine
succeeding. If 't be so,
For Banquo's issue have I filed my
mind;
For them the gracious Duncan have I
murder'd;

Now Macbeth is
forced to continue the murdering and eliminate his friend Banquo and his son
Fleance.

Describe Wiesel's style in Night.

The first person narrative nature of Night
is what helps to make it so powerful.  It can never escape the mind of the
reader that what is being read was actually experienced.  It was real.  It was alive. 
Wiesel's first person technique and style of narration allows it to happen. Wiesel's use
of juxtaposing flashbacks with post- Holocaust life also helps to make this effective in
displaying how such memories provide a hold on his psyche and his maturation throughout
consciousness.  Yet, on another level, I think that the style of using first person
narration in the frame of "Eliezer" is something powerful.  We never see the main
character referred to as Elie.  Yet, when we read the novella, we understand that the
author is Elie Wiesel.  In this divergence, another very telling element is revealed in
that there is some level of psychological distance between the horrific events of the
Holocaust and the survivors.  There will always be some distance between fully embracing
and absorbing what happened and the present experiences of living through it.  There is
a contradiction because survivors of such an experience never escape what happened to
them, indicating total immersion in it.  Yet, in the change in name, a stylistic
technique that reflects psychological depth, there is a reality that indicates
individuals can seek to find distance from that which will never leave them and their
memories.

The characters that help frame the narrative are
also significant in helping to bring out the themes of the novella.  The issues of
religious faith, community, and solidarity are evoked through characters.  How they are
treated are reflective of how these themes are developed.  Moshe the Beadle, Madame
Schachter, Akiba Drumer, and the little boy who took half an hour to die on the gallows
are all representative of this, characters who become more of stylistic devices to
develop and bring out themes.  In this way, their lives are more than that of a death
count on the Nazi mournful tally.  Rather, Wiesel gives them dignity in representing
themes that help to define how human beings treat one another and how human cruelty can
reach unspeakable proportions.

How would you identify or describe Roger Chillingsworth's main sin?I'm not sure what it would be called. I read the book and read spark notes and...

If we were to classify Roger Chillingworth's sin under the
scope of the seven deadly sins, we could conclude that his most mortal sin is certainly
wrath.

As you know, theologically speaking, humans may
commit two kinds of sins: Venial sins are the sins that could be classified as "minor"
since the degree of damage to others or to self is not too significant. A venial sin is
not meant to destroy your life, nor your possibilities of leading a life of grace. It is
a fixable kind of miscue.

Contrastingly, Chillingworth
purposely and maliciously inflicts pain and terror in both Hester and Dimmesdale as a
result of the intense wrath that he feels as a result of Hester's affair with
Dimmesdale. Even though Chillingworth is presumed dead by the time Hester and Dimmesdale
get together, Chillingworth still cannot forgive Hester for having a child with
Dimmesdale and for sparing him (Dimmesdale) from being judged by the congregation the
way she is judged daily.

The intensity of Chillingworth's
wrath has resulted in that Dimmesdale and Hester's lives are in consistent torment,
unjustly and unfairly. All Chillingworth is trying to do is enhance his own ego...or is
it simply make Hester miserable? Wrath would then fall under the category of a "mortal"
sin. A mortal sin, theologically speaking, is one which takes you completely away from
grace because the degree of damage that you inflict on yourself or others is
irrevocable.

Therefore, from that theological perspective,
Chillingworth's mortal sin is the sin of wrath, and all the other horrid results that
come as a result of a wrath that spirals out of control.

According to Guns, Germs, and Steel, what is the connection between the early types of agriculture and how the modern political structures are now?

There is very little connection between these two. 
Diamond does not claim that there is any connection between types of agriculture and
types of government.  For example, he does not claim that some kinds of agriculture led
to democracy and others led to communism.  The only claim that Diamond makes is that
agriculture led to complex societies and that the areas that got these things first
became dominant in the world.  Their forms of government have come to prevail in the
world today.

For example, Diamond can help us understand
why democracy exists to some extent in countries as far apart as the US, India, South
Africa, and Australia.  His argument tells us that agriculture arose first in Eurasia
and that rise helped Europe to come to dominate the world.  Since Europe was able to
dominate the world, European countries like Great Britain were able to conquer people
across the world and either replace those people with white settlers (as in the US and
Australia) or impose their systems of government on the people they conquered (as in
India).

However, there is no way to take Diamond's
arguments and explain why some countries have developed communist governments and others
have become democratic.

What ideas enabled progressives to extend opportunities to all citizens?

The primary idea that enabled Progressives to extend
opportunities to all was the notion that power comes from the bottom up.  Progressive
thinkers were really animated by the idea that power can be seen as something that
emerges from the smallest aspect of society and radiate through it.  They were not
thinkers that believed that power needed to be consolidated in the hands of the few, or
the select.  In this, the progressive thinkers believed that power could be shared and
distributed equally and as thoroughly as power.  This idea helped to bring forth the
idea that all citizens could have a part in the political process.  This translated into
extending political and social opportunities to women, people of color, as well as those
who were economically challenged.  It is here where the Progressive idea of wealth
sharing and reconfiguring political power to include more voices in the discourse helped
to mark it asd a significant reform movement.  In doing so, the Progressives made their
movement distinctive as one that sought to include more voices, towards a more equal
vision and away from one that believed that power should rest with an elite
few.

In Act One, scene two of Shakespeare's Hamlet, what effect does Shakespeare intend for the scene to have on the audience?

In Act One, scene two, of Shakespeare's
Hamlet, we learn a great deal. While scene one sets a dark mood,
scene two provides extensive exposition.

With paradoxes
meant to convey mutual sorrow and joy, we learn that even while Old Hamlet's death is
"green" (new), Claudius has married his brother's
widow.

readability="10">

...With mirth in funeral, and with dirge in
marriage,

In equal scale weighing delight and
dole,

Taken to wife.
(12-14)

Claudius acknowledges
that Young Fortinbras is trying to take back lands his dead father
lost—in a fair contest—to Old Hamlet. In this way, Shakespeare explains the threat of
war that faces Denmark (hence the armed soldiers watching the battlements), and also
introduces a foil for Hamlet. Later we hear even Hamlet mourn the fact that Fortinbras
is so better able to do what he believes honors his dead father,
while Hamlet is never able to move with equal determination to avenge his father's
death.

Laertes requests permission to leave the Claudius'
court, showing respect for his father's wishes and the
King's.

We learn that Hamlet is disgusted by his mother's
remarriage and Claudius and Gertrude's lack of mourning for Old Hamlet's death. Gertrude
ask her son to put off his dark looks—death is a part of life. He agrees; Gertrude asks
him why then he "seems" so sad. For Hamlet, greatly broken up over the loss of his
father, he is clear that there is nothing "seeming" about his
grief.

Seems,
madam? Nay, it is. I know not seems.

'tis not alone my inky
cloak...

Nor customary suits of solemn
black,

Nor windy suspiration of forced
breath,

No, nor the fruitful river in the eye...
(79-84)

That can denote me truly. These indeed
seem,

For they are actions that a man might
play;

But I have that within which passeth
show,

These but the trappings and the suits of woe.
(86-89)

Hamlet says that it
is not the "showing" of sorrow that matters, for an actor could easily so the same with
no meaning. [This foreshadows the
play-within-the-play—(III,ii)—when Hamlet has the players re-enact
his father's death; even then he notes that the actors seem so capable of showing
sorrow, while he is unable to act on the true sadness he
feels.]

We are given a clear insight into the kind of man
Claudius is: not because he offers his "love" as a father to Hamlet or names him heir to
the throne, but because he (who is obviously unmoved by his
brother's death—we will soon learn why) accuses Hamlet of unmanly
and unholy behavior by grieving.

readability="12">

KING:

...'tis
unmanly grief;

It shows a will most incorrect to heaven...
(97-98)

...Fie! 'tis a fault to
heaven,

A fault against the dead, a fault to nature,
(104-105)

Gertrude wishes
Hamlet not to return to school so soon. Alone, Hamlet wishes he could kill himself.
Hamlet tells Horatio that the wedding occurred so soon after the funeral that they could
have used the leftovers of the first, for the
second.

Horatio reports that he has seen Old Hamlet's
ghost—this introduces the theme of the disruption of natural order
of the universe, for why else would the ghost roam the castle? Hamlet is told that his
father's face is sorrowful and that he is dressed for war. Not sure if this is indeed
his father's spirit, Hamlet declares that he will approach the ghost that night, and
asks for silence from the men who have seen the apparition. This introduces the theme of
secrecy.

The entire scene shows
unnatural joy in the presence of sorrow, the need for secrecy, and possible threats from
within and without the castle.

Is it true that over a five year period that the plaintiff was only rewarded one dollar? More details about this episode relating to Marjorie...

It is true that Cross Creek author
Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings was sued by one of her closest friends and, after five years of
litigation, the plaintiff won the case--and was awarded the sum of $1. The mostly
non-fiction novel set in the wilds of North Central Florida (just south of Gainesville,
where Rawlings taught at the University of Florida) featured real characters using their
real names. Marjorie decided to use the true names of her characters after lengthy talks
with her editor. One of them, Zelma Cason, was angered by her depiction in the novel,
particularly Rawlings' description of her as

readability="5">

"... an ageless spinster resembling an angry and
efficient canary..."

Cason
wore pants, carried a gun and her profanities

readability="5">

"... could be heard for a quarter of a
mile..."

The two women were
very much alike. Rawlings had met Cason on her very first day in Cross Creek, and the
two women eventually "mended their friendship." But Cason declared that Rawlings' book
drew her up as a "hussy," and she felt Rawlings had betrayed their friendship. Rawlings
was apparently "shocked" at Cason's reaction. Cason hired Kate Walton, a pioneering
female lawyer in Florida, and sued Rawlings for $100,000. Rawlings initially won the
case, but the verdict was overturned, and the author was ordered to pay Cason $1 in
damages. Despite the small amount of the award, the case cost Rawlings thousands of
dollars as well as five years of emotional distress.

' Truth and non-violence were the weapons with which Gandhiji succeeded everywhere. ' That is the topic I need help with. How do I go about...

I think that your answer to this is to make the
fundamental argument that Gandhi sought to raise the moral consciousness of a people. 
Gandhi fought his "war" in a most unconventional manner. He wanted to achieve a moral
transcendence whereby fighting against him would be to fight against moral truth and
justice.  The opponent in such a battle is already tabbed with the label of being
morally inferior.  Given Gandhi's circumstances, it was not only a spiritually powerful
move, but one that utilized his strengths.  The British Raj had most, if not all, of the
"lawyers, guns, and money."  They controlled the means of production and possessed the
largest army and navy in the world.  Gandhi could not have been successful in fighting a
conventional war or battle with them.  The Indian resistance movement would have been
put down with strikingly fast speed.  Instead, Gandhi understood that truth and non-
violence could be utilized by Indians, who en masse, could prove to be a spiritual
example against the British.  These weapons allowed Gandhi to be able to take a moral
stand against the British, allowing for greater success in his vision of a nation free
from foreign control.

What view of Hester Prynne's character does the old Surveyor's document convey in A Scarlet Letter?

There is a marked difference in the way that the document
that the narrator finds about Hester Prynne remembers her and the impressions that we
have of her character. In contrast to our automatic assocation of Hester with adultery,
the document presents Hester as something of a saintly figure in her time. Consider the
following presentation:

readability="16">

It had been her habit from an almost immemorial
date to go about the country as a kind of voluntary nurse, and doing whatever
miscellaneous good she might; taking upon herself, likwise, to give advice in all
matters, as a person of such propensities inevitably must, she gained from many such
people the reverence due to an angel, but, I should imagine, was looked upon by others
as an intruder and a
nuisance.

We are thus given a
view of the kind of character that Hester Prynne became after the end of the main
section of the novel, which interestingly comments on the situational irony of Hester
Prynne's fate. She starts the story being scorned and rejected by society because of her
sin of adultery, and in the end becomes regarded as a saint. This could be viewed as yet
another example of the strange hypocrisy of Puritan society that Hawthorne writes so
much about.

What was the structure of Leo Tolstoy's "The Penitent Sinner"?

The structure of this excellent spiritual meditation on
grace and our sinful nature as humans is built around the attempts of the penitent
sinner of the title to gain admission into heaven, and the three knocks that he makes on
the door and the three people that come to see if he is worthy to enter. The first two
knocks bring, respectively, Peter and David to the gates to interrogate the sinner. When
they reply, after hearing the accuser denounce them, that the sinner cannot enter, the
sinner is able to challenge them on the many sins that they committed during their
lifetime. Consider what the sinner says to David as an
example:

Have
pity on me, King David! Remember man's weakness, and God's mercy. God loved thee and
exalted thee among men. Thou hadst all: a kingdom, and honour, and riches, and wives,
and children; but thou sawest from thy house-top the wife of a poor man, and sin entered
into thee, and thou tookest the wife of Uriah, and didst slay him with the sword of the
Ammonites. Thou, a rich man, didst take from the poor man his one ewe lamb, and didst
kill him. I have done likewise. Remember, then, how thou didst repent, and how thou
saidst, "I acknowledge my transgressions: my sin is ever before me?" I have done the
same. Thou canst not refuse to let me
in.

The sinner is thus able
to challenge both Peter and David about their own failings and how they, too, are
dependent upon the grace and forgiveness of God. This silences both of them until the
sinner knocks the third time and the Apostle John comes, whose doctrine of love and
grace means that the sinner knows he can finally be admitted into
heaven.

Thus the structure of this text is based around the
three separate knocks on the gates of heaven of the penitent sinner, and who responds to
those knocks.

Why shouldn't we eat animals, according to Peter Singer and Jeremy Bentham (at least as their views are reported in Michael Pollan's book The...

In his book The Omnivore’s Dilemma,
Michael Pollan discusses why Jeremy Bentham, the great nineteenth-century English
philosopher, and Peter Singer, a prominent philosopher of the late twentieth century,
questioned the practice of eating animals.

On page 308 of
the first hardcover edition of Pollan’s book, Pollan notes that Singer quotes Bentham
when trying to explain his own thinking on this matter. Bentham had wondered why animals
should not have the same rights as humans.  If we try to argue that they should lack
those rights because they cannot reason as humans can, then (Bentham asks), should we
argue that a human infant should have fewer rights than an adult horse or dog, since an
adult horse or dog can reason better than a baby can? Similarly, a full-grown dog or
horse can communicate more effectively than a baby can; does this mean that adult dogs
and horses should have more rights than human
babies?

Bentham argues, instead, that the reason animals
deserve rights is simply because they can suffer. The more an
animal can suffer pain, the more (according to this argument) it deserves rights that
approximate the rights of humans.

Interestingly, Pollan
later notes that Bentham did in fact justify eating meat. Pollan reports that
in

a passage
seldom quoted by animal rightists Bentham defended meat eating on the grounds that “we
are the better for it, and they [the animals] are never the worse. . . . The death they
suffer in our hands commonly is, and always may be, a speedier and, by that means a less
painful one, than that which would await them in the inevitable course of nature.” (p.
328)

Pollan immediately
notes, however, that the suffering inflicted on animals in modern industrial farming is
enormous and is far worse than anything most of them would encounter during most of
their lives in nature. Pollan, then, succeeds in raising very serious questions and in
making us aware that satisfying answers to such questions are also often very difficult
to come by.

Why does the Green Knight challenge Sir Gawain?

The Medieval tale of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight shows
the importance of chivalry and honor.

The Green Knight, a
pawn of Morgan Le Fay, challenges the Green Knight so as to play out the game which Le
Fay has created so as to scare Guinevere.

Sir Gawain is a
member of Arthur's Court. As a member of his court, he is required to uphold the code of
the knight. When the Green Knight comes to Arthur's, during the Christmas season, he
offers a challenge. Arthur, not willing to eat until entertained, allows the Green
Knight to put forth his challenge. None of the knights step forward at first. Arthur,
somewhat ashamed of his knights, initially accepts the Green Knight's
challenge.

Gawain, knowing the he may fail and seeing
himself as the weakest on one who will be least missed, decides to take Arthur's place.
It is out of courtly love and chivalric duty by which he does
this.

Le Fay's challenge, again as enacted by the Green
Knight, is a simple ruse because of her hatred and jealousy against Queen Guinevere. Her
whole plan is to frighten Guinevere so as to gain an upper hand over the
Queen.

How radical was the American Revolution?

There is no way to definitively answer this question,
which has been at the heart of historical debate about the Revolution for many years
now, and historians by no means agree on its answer. Historians at the beginning of the
twentieth century tended to view the Revolution as a profoundly conservative affair,
focusing on the economic interests of elites and the efforts they made to contain any
potentially radical reforms. According to Carl Becker, one the preeminent Revolutionary
historians of the period, the Revolution was about two things, "home rule" and "who
would rule at home." Later historians rejected this class-based analysis, but still
noted what they saw as an ideological consensus among elites, who fought to preserve
their rights, not to create any sort of new society. A later generation of social
historians, beginning in the 1960s and 70s, point out the many ways in which the
Revolution failed to live up to its rhetoric. The most famous recent book on the topic,
The Radicalism of the American Revolution, by Gordon Wood, argues that the revolution,
while limited in its goals, unintentionally unleashed radical democratic ideals, which
took root despite the Founders' fears of democracy. Other historians have focused on the
Revolution from the "bottom up," showing that it involved the actions of urban crowds,
agrarian radials, women, Native Americans, and slaves, who played a role in pushing the
events of the revolution along and altering them to fit their circumstances. Most
historians would now allow that because of the changes it set in motion, albeit against
the wishes of many elites, that the Revolution was, in its way,
radical.

In The Miracle Worker, why does Annie compare her hand talk to baby talk?

The answer to this question can be found in Act 2 of this
brilliant and moving play, which is when Kate speaks to Annie about her methods of
teaching Helen and in particular her stubborn insistence on spelling everything to
Helen. She tells Annie that Captain Keller believes that what she is doing is like
"spelling to the fence post." In response, Annie defends herself by saying that what she
is doing with Helen is no different from how Kate communicates with her baby
Mildred:

Any
baby. Gibberish, grown-up gibberish, baby-talk gibberish, do they understand one word of
it to start? Somehow they begin to. If they hear it, I'm letting Helen hear
it.

Annie insists throughout
the play that there is nothing "defective" with Helen's mental processes, and in fact,
she is extremely intelligent as he mind "works like a moustrap." However, nobody has
taken the time to teach her the basis of how to communicate because everybody has
assumed that she is mentally defective. Annie is obstinately determined to prove them
wrong.

How did the beliefs and ideas of the English Puritans differ from those of the Church of England ?

While both are considered Christian religions, The
Puritans (a specific group of Protestants) and the Church of England differed on several
major theological issues.  Members of the Church of England saw the King as the head of
the church.  This was different from the Catholic religion that saw the Pope as the head
of the Church, but the Puritans believed that Christ should be the head of the Church. 
Puritans didn't want to confess to a priest.  They believed that individuals could speak
directly to God while the Church of England believed that a intercessor was necessary. 

There are other major theological differences, but the most visible
differences were probably found in the way services were conducted.  The Church of
England reads passages from hymns and other materials in Latin.  They have ceremonies
like candle lighting and confession that don't exist in the Protestant religion of the
Puritans.  Protestants felt that God should be accessible to all and not just the upper
class (Latin was spoken by the upper class but the lower classes were often
uneducated).

What is the relationship of Euripides`Satyr play, `the Cyclops`,`to the Cyclopeia episode in Homer`s OdysseyÉ

Euripides``The Cyclops` is the only satyr play to have
survived from antiquity. Satyr plays were comic performances given at the end of a day
of tragic performance; normally, a full day at a tragic theatrical festival consisted of
three tragedies and a satyr play by the same playwright. The satyr play was
distinguished by having Silenus and a troop of satyrs as a
chorus.

`The Cyclops`is based on Book IX of the Odyssey,
but adds to it the element of satyrs and Silenus also captured by Polyphemus. Much of
the comic business includes homosexual encounter and drunkeness involving the satyrs.
Rather than being a figure of terror, Polyphemus is more of a buffoon in the Euripidean
version. The essential plot elements, with the exception of the presence of the satyrs,
are similar.

What is the personal nature of "Digging"?

The personal nature of this poem relates to the way in
which it is a meditation of how Seamus Heaney, the poet, is following in his father's
footsteps, though in a radically different way, which the figurative langauge employed
in the poem helps us to see is not actually that different after
all.

The poem discusses the way that his father and his
grandfather cut turf and presents us with an evocation of their way of life and how they
took pride in their work:

readability="7">

My grandfather cut more turf in a
day

Than any other man on Toner's
bog.

The poet remembers
seeing how his grandfather worked, "Nicking and slicing neatly" and going "down and
down." The poem ends with the determination of the speaker to "dig" in the same way as
his father and grandfather dug, but with his pen, making a link between his writing and
his rich cultural heritage. The personal nature of this poem therefore stems from the
way in which the poet examines what he does and creates an imaginative link between his
profession as a poet and what his father and grandfather did.

Do you think it always must be ‘lonely at the top’ for supervisors or that if it is not, you are doing something wrong?

You are asking whether a person in a supervisory position
must always be lonely, assuming they are doing a good job.  I would argue that this is
at least generally true in the context where the person is a supervisor.  In other
words, they will need to be somewhat lonely in that capacity, but they need not be
lonely in the rest of their life.

Supervisors can include
bosses at work, teachers, coaches, or even parents.  They are people who are entrusted
with making sure that others do what they are supposed to do.  This is why supervision
can be a lonely thing.  Supervisors must in some ways maintain an emotional distance
from those they supervise (of course, this is not true of parents).  They cannot get too
close to those whom they might have to discipline, to fire, or to fail in a class.  For
this reason, they need to remain a little detached.

This is
not to say that supervisors cannot or should not be friendly with those they supervise. 
It is important to be friendly.  But at some level, they have to maintain a distance. 
They can not be on truly intimate terms because they must be able to do things to the
supervised people that might be unpleasant.

Why has communism had such a lasting influence on human rights in China?

The reason for this is that communism is a system of
government that does not believe that individual rights matter to any great degree. 
Instead, it holds that the needs of the society are more important than individual
rights.

By communist theory, there needs to be a "vanguard
party" that will promote the cause of the proletariat and will fight against any
counterrevolutionary activity.  To communists, any activity that might work against that
vanguard party is counterrevolutionary and therefore bad for
society.

This is why China's government is so willing to
abridge the human rights of its people.  It feels that it is the vanguard party that is
protecting the rights of the proletariat.  Therefore, anyone who opposes it (whether it
be the Falun Gong or dissidents or whoever) is working to hurt the country as a whole. 
Such people must be suppressed where, in a democratic system, they would be allowed to
speak and act as they wish.

How did Black Death spread?

The Black Death had been endemic to Asia, but came to
Europe by means of ships landing in Italy which originated in Asia. The bacterium
responsible for the Black Death, yersenia pestis only survived on a
certain type of flea that only survived on Asian black rats. European brown rats were
not a suitable host.The rats were transmitted to Europe by means of ship, and thereby
carried the disease to Europe. A ship which landed in Messina in October, 1347 is widely
suspected as the first to transmit the rats to Europe. Town officials would not allow
the ship to offload, as the sailors were either dead or dying; yet in the time the ship
was docked, the Asian rats left the ship and made their way inland. Fleas from the rats
often infested the bedding and clothing of people of the European Middle Ages and bit
their human hosts, thereby inflicting them with the plague. The clothes of the deceased
were often passed on to others who were also bitten by the fleas. Numerous remedies,
including inhaling vapors from urinals, were attempted to stop its spread, all to no
avail.

The plague, known as astra mors
(dreadful death) but later "black Death had two phases:
bubonic, which could only be transmitted by flea bites, and
pneumonic which could be transmitted from human to human. The
plague seldom reached the pneumonic phase, as victims normally died during the bubonic
stage. An often misunderstood fact is that the Plague did not descend on Europe as a
blanket but rather as a cascading wave. Much of the panic caused by the plague was in
towns and villages where it had not yet struck; but whose inhabitants saw it coming and
could do nothing other than wait. Plague normally passed through a given area within two
weeks, yet it left unprecedented death in its wake.

Plague
finally passed when the European Brown rats drove off their black rivals; but before it
ended, fully one fourth the population of Europe had died as a
result.

Why did the Roman empire collapse?

The fall of Rome is usually considered to have taken place
in 476 A.D. when Odoacer, a minor German chief, captured Rome and forced the emperor off
his throne.  But Rome began to decline centuries before
that.

A time of peace and prosperity, known as
the Pax Romana, began in 27 B.C. when Augustus became emperor and it lasted until 180
A.D. with the end of the reign of Marcus Aurelius.  During the Pax Romana, the
government of Rome was stable, and the Roman Empire grew in wealth and power.  This came
to an end in 180 A.D. when Commodus, the son of Marcus Aurelius, became emperor. The
decline and the ultimate fall of the Roman Empire began with the end of the Pax Romana.
The decline of the Rome continued when the Empire was permanently divided into the
Eastern (Byzantine) Empire and the Western Roman
Empire.

There were several reasons for the decline and fall
of the Roman Empire.  First, there were political reasons. There were no rules on who
was to inherit the throne. This led to periods of civil war that plagued the Empire. 
Between 234 A.D. and 284 A.D. Rome had 26 different emperors. The division of the empire
also hurt the western empire. The best generals and administrators were found in the
east. Next, there were economic reasons.  More and more money was needed by the emperors
in order to pay the army and stay in power. This meant higher taxes which made Romans
unhappy and less loyal to the Empire. In addition, no new lands were conquered depriving
Rome of new revenues.  Eventually, inflation became a big problem.  The finally, there
were foreign enemies.  While Romans bickered and fought over politics and money, they
left the frontiers open to invasion. It was the invasion and capture of Rome by Odoacer
in 476 that is considered the fall of Rome.

 The beginnings
of the decline, or “falling”, of the Roman Empire could probably be traced back to the
reign of Commodus and the end of the Pax Romana in 180 A.D.

Describe Miss Maudie Atkinson in To Kill a Mockingbird.

Miss Maudie Atkinson lives across the street from the
Finch house in Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird. Maudie is a
widow: The daughter of Dr. Frank Buford, Maudie was married to a man named Atkinson, but
grew up with Atticus' brother, Jack. She inherited her love of plants and gardening from
her father, and she spends as much time outdoors as possible. She wore "coveralls" and a
straw hat during the day, but

readability="6">

... after her five o'clock bath she would appear
on the porch and reign over the street in magisterial
beauty.

She called the
children by their full names--"Jem Finch, Scout Finch, Dill Harris"-- and "her speech
was crisp for a Maycomb Country inhabitant." Maudie didn't talk down to the kids as many
adults do, and Scout spends many evenings talking with her on her porch. Maudie is the
best baker in the area and often baked for the children, closely guarding the secret
recipe of her Lane Cake from Miss Stephanie. Scout admires the "gold prongs clipped to
her eyeteeth." Maudie is Scout's closest adult friend, in part because
she

... had
never told on us, never played cat-and-mouse with us... She was our
friend.

Maudie is intensely
loyal to Atticus and his children, supporting him during the trial of Tom Robinson and,
more importantly, against a personal attack by Mrs. Merriweather at the missionary
circle tea. It is Maudie who explains to Scout the wisdom of Atticus' admonishment that
"it's a sin to kill a mockingbird." She also reminds them after the trial that Atticus
is a special man, meant to "do our unpleasant jobs for us."

In Act 4, why has Parris fallen apart?

Parris has fallen apart in Act IV for a variety of
reasons.  The first would be that the witch trials, something upon which he had pinned a
great deal of hope, have become the source of anger amongst the people.  Citizens of the
nearby town of Andover have openly rejected the trials in their town and held those who
instigated them responsible.  Parris, always insecure of his own status, is fearful that
such rebellion will come upon he and those who initiated the Salem trials of witches. At
the same time, Parris is mindful of how it will look to execute people such as Proctor
and Rebecca Nurse.  Parris recognizes the respect they command, and given the fact that
he will be standing over their deaths, he rightly recognizes that he will receive a
heaping of negative publicity over this.  It was one thing to execute individuals like
Sarah Good or Tituba, people who lacked social power and were marginalized in their own
right.  Yet, Parris understands that killing socially accepted individuals will not
yield good results for him.  On a personal level, his insecurity has been turned up by
Abigail stealing his money and running away, lending even more doubt to the proceedings
as the star witness has run off.  Parris also shares that he has been the victim of
death threats, along with a dagger in his office.  It is for these reasons that Parris
comes across as completely fragmented and incoherent, to a great
extent.