Blog: October 2016

What are the ways in which the authors create and develop the narrators in "The Yellow Wallpaper" and "The Cask of Amontillado"?

In the short stories "The Yellow Wallpaper" and "The Cask of Amontillado," both authors, Charlotte Perkins Gilman and Edgar Allan Poe, respectively, create narrators the reader can empathize with. However, by the end of Poe's story, Montresor is clearly shown to be a villain, making him an unreliable narrator, whereas Jane is shown to be victimized throughout.In "The Yellow Wallpaper," the reader develops empathyfor Jane, the narrator, the moment she says of...

In "The Yellow Wallpaper," the reader develops empathy for Jane, the narrator, the moment she says of her husband, "You see he does not believe I am sick!," early in the story. We continue to develop empathy for her the more we see her being oppressed by her husband, who claims he knows what's best for her. For example, he oppresses her when, though she wants to take a room downstairs in their rented country house, a room decorated with "roses all over the window" and "pretty old-fashioned chintz hangings," John refuses, saying there is not enough room for two beds. Instead, he insists that they use the nursery on the top floor as their bedroom, a room she hates on account of the ugly yellow wallpaper. As John becomes more oppressive throughout the story, the yellow wallpaper becomes equally oppressive to Jane, and her oppression eventually drives her mad by the end of the story.

Similarly, Poe elicits empathy in the reader for the narrator Montresor the moment the narrator reports having been injured and insulted by Fortunato to the point of wanting revenge:

The thousand injuries of Fortunato I had borne as I best could, but when he ventured upon insult I vowed revenge.

Yet, the narrator never explains to the reader exactly what wrongdoing Fortunato is guilty of that merits revenge. In fact, due to the friendliness with which Fortunato greets Montresor and his complete inability to distrust Montresor, the reader can suspect Fortunato is not guilty of any wrongdoing at all, calling into question the narrator's reliability. Hence, though like Gilman, Poe elicits the reader's empathy for the narrator, unlike Gilman's story, the reader's empathy for Montresor does not continue once the reader sees him as the oppressor, not the oppressed.

What is a brief summary of Chapter 11 of The Story of My Life by Helen Keller?

Most of Chapter 11 in The Story of My Life was about Helen's time spent with her family and Miss Sullivan in their mountain cottage.

At the beginning of the chapter, Helen reflected on her time spent in the North. She had wonderful memories, and kept very busy during her time there. She also met many new people, some of whom communicated with her using the manual alphabet.

Helen spent the autumn after she returned...

Most of Chapter 11 in The Story of My Life was about Helen's time spent with her family and Miss Sullivan in their mountain cottage.

Helen spent the autumn after she returned home with her family in their cottage. The cottage was located in the mountains about fifteen miles from their home in Tuscumbia, Alabama. It was near an abandoned quarry, and train tracks ran nearby.

While there, Helen enjoyed exploring the forest. She loved the stream, the trees, the flowers, and many other aspects of nature there. She spent time outdoors with Miss Sullivan and her sister, Mildred. Visitors came and told stories. A hunting party left from the cottage, and returned later with enough meat for a large feast.

Helen, her sister, and her cousins loved the train. Helen described the excitement of her sister and the other children when they heard the train blow its whistle:

Sometimes a terrific whistle brought us to the steps, and Mildred told me in great excitement that a cow or a horse had strayed on the track (Chapter XI).

Between North Korea, China, and Japan, which country would first take action against South Korea, and which would South Korea take action against?

The most likely outcome in the situation that you mention is that none of these countries will take any sort of military action against any of the others. While it is true that South Korea and these countries all have conflicts of one sort or another, they are not the sorts of conflicts that generally lead to war. The one exception that makes it hard to be certain about this statement is North Korea. The North Koreans are something of a “loose cannon” and have already taken military action against South Korea on various occasions. Even so, it seems unlikely that they will resort to full-scale military attacks on their neighbor.

There is a great deal of difference between countries “not liking” one another and them being willing to go to war. To state the obvious, wars are bad for a country’s people and for its economy. In the modern world, wars can be utterly devastating, particularly when they involve countries (like China and North Korea) that have nuclear weapons. In addition, it is unlikely that any of these countries would actually gain anything worth getting if they went to war. The US would not allow North Korea or China to conquer South Korea. China would not allow South Korea to conquer North Korea. There is no way that South Korea could take and hold any significant part of China. In short, any war between any of these countries and South Korea would damage both countries without doing them much, if any, good. Therefore, it is very unlikely that any of these countries and South Korea will end up in a war, regardless of whether they “like” one another.

The wild card here is the North Koreans. They tend to act in ways that seem irrational and overly aggressive. There is a chance that Kim Jong Un might decide that he needs to launch a major attack against South Korea. It would not be logical for him to do so (from our perspective), but he might anyway. North Korea has taken many provocative actions against South Korea over the years, including artillery attacks on South Korean territory and naval attacks on South Korean vessels. However, it seems likely that even the North Koreans know that they can only go so far before they provoking a serious war that would harm their country.

Many countries have grievances against one another. This does not, however, typically mean that they go to war. I would be surprised if any of these countries took serious military action against South Korea and I would be shocked if South Korea voluntarily went to war with any of them.

In "Marriage is a Private Affair" by Chinua Achebe, how do we see children raised by extremely strict parents becoming rebellious?

The issue here is complicated by cultural context. The studies of authoritarian parenting done in the United States are situated within a sophisticated modern society, and focus on middle class Caucasians among whom arranged marriages are regarded as very alien and excessively authoritarian. The Ibo society of Nigeria portrayed by Achebe is not the United States in the twenty-first century and different cultural norms apply.

The key distinction Achebe is making is between traditional village life and an urban life that is postcolonial, having adapted many of the values of British society. The young couple in the story is part of a transitional population with ties to both worlds, educated and sophisticated, but still with emotional connections to the traditions of extended family and village culture.

Nnaemeka's father is not portrayed as overly controlling in terms of Nigerian village society, and in fact the reactions of the villagers show his ideas and behaviors to be relatively normal, even if his continued refusal to accept Nene eventually appears overly stubborn. Nnaemeka is not really a rebel or juvenile delinquent, but simply a young man in love who desires his father's approval for his marriage. While he does marry the woman of his choice, and reacts to his father's authority by standing his ground, he is not rebellious in the sense of being driven to anti-social behavior out of resentment of authority.

The story, in fact, ends with reconciliation due to the loving persistence of Nene. It is the father, not the son, who has maintained the rift, and even the father is eventually reconciled to the marriage by the existence of grandchildren. Overall, the arc of the story suggests that the title is ironic. Although marriage might on the surface appear private, in fact, it does involve the whole village and extended family. The story therefore is not simply, as it would be if set in modern Britain or the United States among middle class families, one of personal choices or rebellions but rather one about a clash of traditional Ibo and modern postcolonial Nigerian culture.

In the poem "Tears, Idle Tears" why does the poet Lord Alfred Tennyson describe tears as "idle"?

In the poem "Tears, Idle Tears" the designation "idle" is a bit obscure, because while the poet opens with the expression "Tears, idle tears, I know not what they mean," the main theme of the poem does not seem to be tears specifically, but rather regret and longing for the past.

The word "idle" typically refers to something that is inactive, indigent, stagnant, useless, or deliberately not fulfilling its designated occupation. In the poem "Tears,...

The word "idle" typically refers to something that is inactive, indigent, stagnant, useless, or deliberately not fulfilling its designated occupation. In the poem "Tears, Idle Tears," the word "idle" seems to most closely fit the idea of "useless"—that is, something that exists but serves no purpose.

To understand the phrase "tears, idle tears" in this poem it is necessary to carefully consider the poem in its entirety.

Consider the ideas that are repeated in this poem. "Tears... rise in the heart... thinking of the days that are no more" (paragraph 1); "So sad, so fresh the days that are no more" (paragraph 2); "So sad, so strange, the days that are no more" (paragraph 3); "O Death in Life the days that are no more!" (paragraph 4).

Through these phrases it becomes apparent that the main theme in this poem is the poet's experience of deep sadness when considering the past—a grief that makes life itself feel like death (paragraph 4). The poet's tears, however, are "idle"—that is, they are useless, they are of no benefit. He grieves over the past, which by nature and definition cannot be changed or affected by tears or any other actions.

What caused Brutus' downfall in William Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar?

Brutus' downfall is perhaps one of Shakespeare's most tragic, as it comes as a result of the qualities that also make Brutus most heroic: his deep sense of honor and nobility. Unlike the other conspirators, Brutus does not kill Caesar because he is jealous of the man's swift rise to power; rather, Brutus joins the assassins in order to protect Rome's representative republic and to guard the common Roman plebeians from an authoritarian dictatorship. Since he joins the conspiracy with such honorable intentions, he also assumes that others will abide by the same code of honor, and so he allows Mark Antony to give a speech at Caesar's funeral, and the cunning politician uses this time as an opportunity to convince the mob to turn against the conspirators. Thus, Brutus' downfall is caused by the same innate sense of honor that also makes him a successful leader in the first place.

But that's not all; if we're talking about Brutus' downfall, it's worth mentioning that, while Brutus is highly concerned with protecting the political freedoms of the plebeians, the common Romans are quick to turn on him. Indeed, Antony's funeral speech is enough to turn public opinion against Brutus and his companions, even though they quite recently believed that Brutus was "an honorable man" and that his actions were just. As such, Shakespeare explores the fickle and unjust nature of mob mentality, showing how it lacks reason and rationality and can be swayed by someone clever enough to manipulate it. If Brutus' downfall is already tragic, then his misguided faith in the "mob" of Rome merely serves to pour salt in the wound.

Which came first, the egg or the hen?

This famous thought problem has puzzled many, but I hope my answer will be satisfactory to you.

When we focus on the hen, specifically, this question is quite difficult to answer. It would depend on how we determine who the egg belongs to, and at what point we can say with certainty that a new species of poultry bird has come into existence.

Let's imagine a scenario between Bird A and her offspring, Bird B....

This famous thought problem has puzzled many, but I hope my answer will be satisfactory to you.

Let's imagine a scenario between Bird A and her offspring, Bird B. In this scenario, we'll also consider Species 1 and Species 2 as two distinct species based upon their characteristics. Bird A is a hen that exemplifies some transitional characteristics between two species, but still falls close enough into the category for Species 1. Depending on the male bird she mates with, she may have offspring that fall more closely into the category of Species 2. Let's imagine that Bird B is the offspring of Bird A, and while Bird A has been classified as Species 1, Bird B can be classified as Species 2.

As if that weren't tricky enough, let's consider ownership of the egg. The egg itself isn't a body part and so can't really be considered a distinct genetic part of either mother or baby. With that in mind, who does it belong to, and what does it mean for our question? The egg either belongs to Bird A or Bird B, and depending on which, we might say that either the egg or hen came first. Here are our two possibilities:

The egg belongs to Bird A, the mother. When Bird B hatches, this bird is the first of Species 2. In this case, the hen came before the egg, because Bird B will lay the first eggs of Species 2. Of course, all of this is dependent upon Bird B being born a female poultry bird and thus a hen.

The egg belongs to Bird B, who hatches from the egg. In this case, the egg existed prior to Bird B and has come first. This scenario is not necessarily dependent upon the sex of Bird B.

Now let's focus on the egg rather than the hen. I hope that this offers a much simpler answer to your question. Eggs as a reproductive unit have existed for much longer than birds, so technically the egg came before the hen! In fact, birds evolved from some lizard-like species of dinosaurs who laid eggs. Even farther back in our evolutionary history, many sea creatures laid eggs, but not in the hard-shell form we associate with hens. Any way you wish to look at it, eggs as a reproductive unit date to far earlier than any hen. It is only when we focus on the species of the hen and its related eggs that the question need be so complex.

According to your reading in Literary Criticism, Bressler notes that “Marx believed that the history of a people is directly based on the...

In Marxist theory, the economic base consists of the relationship between the producers and the laborers (essentially the employer-employee relationship). The superstructure, on the other hand, consists of the society's culture and governmental power players. Depending on which Marxist perspective we look at, the economic base can influence the superstructure and vice versa.

In Le Guin's novel, despite his Marxist Anarresti views, Shevek is still shocked by the Urrasti economic system. Essentially, in Urras, the...

In Le Guin's novel, despite his Marxist Anarresti views, Shevek is still shocked by the Urrasti economic system. Essentially, in Urras, the power players or ruling elite exist in a world wholly separate from that inhabited by the working classes. The working classes are the dispossessed; their talents are used and exploited by the producers for material gain. Because society is so stratified on Urras, individual citizens often experience alienation within their own culture. On the other hand, in Anarres, citizens co-exist on an egalitarian basis; the practice of mutual reliance and tolerance (at least on the surface) largely powers Anarresti existence on a daily basis.

For his part, Shevek is shocked by the sterilized detachment that characterizes the Urrasti economic system. In Anarres, the practice of interdependence fosters an atmosphere of camaraderie and trust. However, in Urras, Shevek learns that he must keep to himself and learn to distrust those around him. Interestingly, alienated as he is by the culture of "human solidarity" and "mutual aid" in Anarres, Shevek finds himself equally alienated from a culture that trusts no one (as is the case in Urras). Despite his own predilections and inclinations, Shevek finds it difficult to accept the degree of mutual aggression and detachment needed to thrive in a competitive society like Urras.

Meanwhile, the Urrasti superstructure reinforces its hegemony by supporting and maintaining the divide between the producers and the working classes. The power players in the economic sphere are essentially the buyers and the sellers. Shevek notes that the workers who produce the items are systematically erased from public consideration:

The strangest thing about the nightmare street was that none of the millions of things for sale were made there. They were only sold there. Where were the workshops, the factories, where were the farmers, the craftsmen, the miners, the weavers, the chemists, the carvers, the dyers, the designers, the machinists, where were the hands, the people who made? Out of sight, somewhere else. Behind walls. All the people in all the shops were either buyers or sellers. They had no relation to the things but that of possession.

The people he sees on the streets demonstrate disturbing attitudes of impatience and angst. The main concern of everyone seems to be to earn enough to maintain life at subsistence levels. Shevek finds it difficult to accept the surface pleasantries "propertarians" subject their customers to during the course of commercial business; it seems obnoxiously hypocritical to him. He wonders how polite an Urrasti shopkeeper would have been "if he had come in as an Anarresti came in to a goods depository: to take what he wanted, nod to the registrar, and walk out."

Essentially, the superstructure is able to maintain its relevance and hegemonic influence through maintaining its ruling elite's elevated social status as well as reinforcing consuming distrust and latent animosity among its working populace (the dispossessed). With their consuming interest being the need to survive, the working populace has little interest in confronting the superstructure that presides over them.

What is the main difference between Neoclassicism and the Romantic period when it comes to poetry?

Neoclassical poetry tended to be written in a much more elevated manner, using classical models such as epics, odes, and pastorals. The aesthetic approach of neoclassicism was descriptive, seeking to represent the world with the utmost fidelity and accuracy. Unlike the Romantics, there was no sense of fusing one's imagination with the world to create new forms of expression. It is not surprising that neoclassical poetry achieved prominence during the Enlightenment, with its strongly empirical...

The Romantics, by contrast, were keen to establish a poetic voice based on simple language. This was the manifesto of Wordsworth and Coleridge that they famously set out in the Advertisement to Lyrical Ballads. The very title of this collection must have seemed quite shocking at the time, almost oxymoronic. Ballads were songs or verses associated with the common people. As such, they were deemed unworthy of the lyricism of high art. Wordsworth and Coleridge, however, were effectively saying poems that dealt with the concerns of ordinary people, written in a language they could understand, could indeed aspire to the condition of music just as much as the more refined work of the neoclassicists.

There was more than just a hint of snobbery in all of this. In the waning hours of neoclassicism's heyday the writing of poetry was widely thought a suitable occupation solely for gentlemen and should deal with elevated themes culled from antiquity, history, and mythology. When Keats published "Endymion," a scathing review appeared in Blackwood's Magazine, contrived to be both condescending and brutally snobbish. As well as patronizing Keats as "Johnny Keats," part of a "Cockney" school of poetry, the reviewer lamented the fact that farm servants and married ladies were increasingly starting to write poetry. Even footmen were composing tragedies!

What were the features of Lincoln's plan of Reconstruction?

Abraham Lincoln developed his own plan of Reconstruction. It was often referred to as the Ten Percent Plan. President Lincoln was thinking of Reconstruction before the Civil War had ended. He issued his plan in December 1863.

His plan had several features. Once ten percent of the voters of a state would take an oath of loyalty to the United States, they would be able to form a new state government. They would adopt a...

His plan had several features. Once ten percent of the voters of a state would take an oath of loyalty to the United States, they would be able to form a new state government. They would adopt a state constitution that banned slavery. President Lincoln was also willing to offer amnesty to all white southerners who agreed to be loyal to the United States. However, this didn’t include the former leaders of the Confederacy. President Lincoln also encouraged the southern states to give more freedoms to the former slaves. However, since this wasn’t required in his plan, states were under no obligation to do this.

President Lincoln believed that Reconstruction should not be unduly harsh on the South. President Lincoln knew the country needed to reunite. He believed a harsh plan would make unity more difficult. His plan reflected these ideas.

How is the ABC News report "Untested Chemicals in Beauty Products" related to the concept of the precautionary principle, and how might the U.S....

That ABC News report, which aired April 30, 2012, was about the great number of untested chemicals that are in the beauty products women use daily. According to this report, women use on average 120 chemicals every day in their beauty products, creams, and shampoos, and most of these chemicals have not been tested. Men use about 80 chemicals per day, most of which are also untested. Europe has decided to ban about 1,200 chemicals,...

The precautionary principle states that if a substance or action poses a potential risk to people or the environment, the person taking the action or making the substance bears the burden of proving it is not harmful. This concept is related to the ABC news report because it means the makers of the beauty products bear the social responsibility of proving these chemicals are not harmful and that the protections put in place against using chemicals suspected of being harmful can only be taken away if the chemicals are scientifically proven not to be harmful. The U.S. might follow Europe's lead in applying the precautionary principle and banning substances in beauty products that are suspected of being harmful until these substances are proven not to be harmful.

How does the argument of Oedipus Rex correlate to the function of the Theatre in Ancient Greece?

Oedipus Rex encourages respect for the gods by showing what happens to a proud man who believes he can outwit the gods' will as expressed through prophecy. In his pride, Oedipus believes he can avoid the prophecy delivered by the oracle of Delphi, the mouthpiece—so to speak—of the god Apollo. When he learns his fate is to kill his father and marry his mother, he decides not to return home to Corinth and goes to Thebes instead. Ironically, it is precisely this decision that leads to the very fate Oedipus is trying to avoid (he doesn't know he was adopted by the monarchs of Corinth and that his birth parents are the rulers of Thebes). In showing Oedipus is unable to escape the prophecy, despite his best efforts, Sophocles conveys the idea that the gods' will must be respected above all other things.

Likewise, the main function of theatre in ancient Greece was to celebrate the gods. The first drama festival was actually a way to glorify the god of wine, Dionysus, and his festival was the only place that plays were performed for many years. Therefore, both Greek drama, in general, as well as Oedipus Rex, specifically, aimed to celebrate, offer respect, and pay homage to the gods.

What are some things that citizens of a democracy must do in order to ensure the democracy functions properly?

This is a great and important question. Citizens of a democracy, in order to maintain their rights, have duties to fulfill. Being informed, voting, participating in one's community, and ensuring that a good public education is available to all are the means of preserving these rights.

A good citizen is informed, about how a democracy works, about politicians running for office, the laws of the land, and the issues that affect the community, the region, and the country. Citizens should understand the country's constitution, which is the foundation of a democracy, setting forth everyone's rights and duties. I have carried a pocket copy in my purse for many years, since I frequently encounter people who misunderstand it or have never looked at it, so I can refer to it. A citizen who is not informed about how the country works cannot possibly be vigilant about seeing to it that the government does what it is supposed to do and does not do what it is not supposed to do. Being informed means doing research on candidates and issues. This includes looking at statistics for oneself, since these are often manipulated by politicians. We need to be informed about the records of the people running for office, not simply taking their word for what they say it is. One needs at least rudimentary scientific knowledge, so that one can examine evidence intelligently, on issues such as climate change or drinking water safety. A good citizen knows the laws and follows them. This is part of the social contract of a democracy, not that police have to enforce every little thing, but that people choose to willingly follow the law in exchange for the protections of a democracy and the harmony that this brings. A good citizen has knowledge of his or her own community, of his or her own region, and his or her own country as a whole, as well as some knowledge of other countries, since a democracy must interact with the rest of the world. You need to know what the problems and potential solutions are where you live. And if you think that Africa is a country, which it is not, you cannot possibly evaluate your country's relationship with it. A citizen who is not informed is, simply put, not a good citizen.

Citizens need to vote. In the United States, voter participation is disappointing low, a little over 53%. In Australia, voting is mandatory, and there is a fine for not voting. A democracy does not work very well if citizens don't vote. Citizens feel disenfranchised and are even less likely to participate in a democracy in other ways. In the United States, people died so we could all vote, first in the Revolutionary War, then for the African-American vote, and then for the vote for those under 21 years of age, after so many 18-year-olds died in the Vietnam War without even having a voice. Women fought hard for the right to vote, too. The entire point of a democracy is to have representation based upon the will of the people, so if people do not vote, democracy can lead to leadership that represents a small fraction of the populace, creating much dissatisfaction, which is detrimental to stability.

Participating in one's community goes a long way to creating a more successful democracy. Going to town meetings or school board meetings, joining a litter cleanup project, mentoring younger people in the neighborhood are all ways that we can participate in our communities. Our communities do a great deal for us, and this is a means of giving back or passing it forward. It is also a good way of staying informed of the issues and a good way of meeting one's local leaders. We are better citizens when we are active in our communities, and we make democracy better.

An educated populace is essential to a successful democracy. It is up to us to invest in good public education, which is the best means of ensuring that the democracy continues. People who are educated are going to be better citizens, pay more taxes, participate more fully in their communities, and be more likely to vote. People who are educated are more informed about the issues, more likely to make good choices in leaders, and more likely to challenge a democracy gone awry somehow. Good public education is a staple of a good democracy. This means true public schools, of the highest quality, for all students, not for-profit charters and private schools meant to prevent children from learning about evolution, not schools that are de facto segregated, with the least experienced teachers and shabby, out-of-date textbooks. In a democracy, everyone has a stake in good education, even those without children. People who are well-educated are better prepared to live in a democracy in which the rights of the "other" are respected. Public education is meant to expose us to people who are different from us, giving us different perspectives and teaching us respect and appreciation.

To ensure a properly functioning democracy may seem like a great deal of work, being informed, having to vote and participate, understanding a constitution and laws, spending money on education, even if one has no children. But I do believe that a constitutional democracy is the best form of government ever created, and no matter how much work it seems to be, the benefits are countless.

What do you think Saki is trying to show about the nature of children and adults in Lumber Room?

Your question is asking you to form an opinion based on the text of the story. In “The Lumber Room” by Saki, the author is trying to demonstrate how adults often believe they are wiser than children based solely upon their age, not their intellect.

Saki creates a witty, cunning, intellectual character as she develops the protagonist, Nicholas. Even as a child, he has the ability to outsmart the adults in his family.

While sitting...

Saki creates a witty, cunning, intellectual character as she develops the protagonist, Nicholas. Even as a child, he has the ability to outsmart the adults in his family.

While sitting at the breakfast table, Nicholas claims there is a frog in his milk and bread. The adults assure him this is an impossibility until he produces the frog, which he placed there himself. Saki is demonstrating how adults often refuse to listen to children when something seems implausible.

One of the adults attempts to impose her authoritarian ways upon Nicholas but he is able to outsmart her a number of times. He is also able to prove that she does not listen when the other children are talking. He explains why the beach trip he is being excluded from will be a disaster based on what the other children said. Unfortunately, the aunt was so caught up in her anger and intent to punish Nicholas that she did not hear what they said.

In general, Saki is demonstrating the nature of adults to feel superior and wiser than children. They consider themselves to be authority figures. It is the nature of children to test their limits with authority figures, and many of them have valid reasons for doing so.

In "The Lumber Room" by Saki, how was Nicholas to be punished?

In “The Lumber Room” by Saki Nicholas is punished in a number of ways for his supposed transgressions. But is he really punished?

During breakfast, Nicholas refuses to eat his milk and bread because there is a frog in it. As he describes the frog in great detail, he is scolded for being obstinate. When the adults realize the frog really exists and it is of Nicholas' own doing, they are angry. His self-appointed aunt hastily plans a trip to Jagborough for the other children, but Nicholas is excluded from the trip. Is this truly a punishment for Nicholas? In the aunt's mind it is, but Nicholas sees it as an opportunity.

While the others are away, the aunt forbids Nicholas from entering the gooseberry garden, which is filled with delightful fruits and plants. Nicholas pretends to want access to the garden. This punishment is meaningless to him because he does not want to go into the garden. It becomes more of a trial for the aunt who spends her whole afternoon patrolling the outer walls of the garden so Nicholas cannot gain entry.

While the aunt is preoccupied, he executes his plan to enter the lumber room, which is filled with tapestries, artwork, and books. He enjoys the delights in the room when he is supposed to be punished for being “in disgrace.”

Although the aunt aimed to punish Nicholas, she is the one who is ultimately penalized by his actions. She fell into the water tank and had to be rescued. On the other hand, Nicholas had a satisfying day exploring the contents of the lumber room.

What are the people in The Chrysalids sheltering themselves from?

I believe that the "people" that the question references are the members of the Waknuk society.

The people in the Waknuk society are sheltering themselves from and actively fighting against drastic genetic changes.

The reader learns this detail about the Waknuk people early in the book. Readers are introduced to Sophie and David in chapter one. David accidentally discovers that Sophie has six toes, and her parents plead with David to keep it...

I believe that the "people" that the question references are the members of the Waknuk society.

The people in the Waknuk society are sheltering themselves from and actively fighting against drastic genetic changes.

"It's very, very important," she insisted. "How can I explain to you?"

But she didn't really need to explain. Her urgent, tight-strung feeling of the importance was very plain. Her words were far less potent.

She said: "If anyone were to find out, they'd — they'd be terribly un-kind to her. We've got to see that that never happens."

It was as if the anxious feeling had turned into something hard, like an iron rod.

"Because she has six toes?" I asked.

"Yes. That's what nobody but us must ever know. It must be a secret between us," she repeated, driving it home. "You'll promise, David?"

Their pleading is not so Sophie avoids playground teasing. They want to keep Sophie alive. If her genetic mutation becomes known to the Waknuk people, Sophie will either be killed or banished.

The reader further learns about the Waknuk's deeply ingrained fear of genetic changes when David's house is described. Hanging up on the walls are "motivational" sayings. It's akin to people hanging up framed Bible verses in their house. But the sayings in David's house are hardly positive and uplifting. They say things like the following:

BLESSED IS THE NORM . . . WATCH THOU FOR THE MUTANT! . . . THE NORM IS THE WILL OF GOD . . . THE DEVIL IS THE FATHER OF DEVIATION.

The Waknuk people are actively seeking shelter from genetic changes. They actively remove unwanted genetic changes from their population. Essentially, they are practicing selective breeding, but they are not attempting to breed in new positive traits. They only want the current, existing traits.

How could you compare The Importance of Being Earnest by Oscar Wilde and C Above C Above High C by Ishmael Reed?

We can compare both plays by analyzing the importance of appearances and the constraints of morality within the plays.

1) The deception of surface appearances.

In The Importance of Being Earnest, Jack Worthing uses his alter ego to escape the constraints of Victorian morality; with his alter ego, Earnest, Jack is able to keep up appearances before his ward, Cecily Cardew. The notion of hypocrisy as a form of self-preservation and personal agency was a means to an end within the structure of Victorian society. Keeping up appearances allowed one to preserve one's image of respectability and integrity before one's servants, family, and community.

In the story, Jack becomes Earnest when he wants to have a bit of fun in London. It's a convenient excuse that works splendidly, until he realizes that his deceptive alter ego could cost him Gwendolyn's love. Meanwhile, his best friend, Algernon, has his own alter ego as well, the hypochondriac Bunbury. Bunbury allows Algernon to bypass his social obligations, responsibilities he finds boring and uninspiring. Two other characters in the play, Lady Bracknell and Miss Prism, also have to keep up appearances in order to appear virtuous and morally unassailable.

The aristocratic Lady Bracknell's rejection of Jack Worthing/ Earnest as a desirable suitor for her daughter, Gwendolen, is predicated on Jack's lack of an acceptable pedigree. As a daughter from an aristocratic family, Gwendolen is expected to conform to particularly restrictive social norms. Honor and reputation must be preserved at all costs. Meanwhile, Miss Prism, Cecily's governess, must teach her young charge all the expected virtues the ward of a respectable man must have.

In The C above C above High C, appearances are a form of deception as well. All must conform to required expectations in order to fit into a narrow and restrictive culture. In the play, J. Edgar Hoover appears in drag and he's black, quite a stunning and unconventional portrayal of the ebullient and combative FBI director. According to Mamie Eisenhower (in the play), Hoover has never been accepted as a white man; as a form of self-preservation, he tells people that he has a tan so they will trust him to fulfill his prescribed role in society.

Meanwhile, President Eisenhower is portrayed as a lecher and adulterer in the play. His lover is Kay Summersby, who uses embarrassingly poetic language to describe her sexual ecstasies during trysts with her presidential lover. Meanwhile, General Douglas MacArthur is described as a sex-obsessed and abusive philanderer. In the play, Mamie tells Lil (Louis Armstrong's wife) that MacArthur had abused a Chinese teenager "into bad health." Louis Armstrong himself does not escape unscathed; his wife, Lil, describes him as a man sexually fixated on his mother.

The commonality between both plays is the importance of appearances as a tool of self-preservation and personal aggrandizement. In C above C above High C, respected men in political and military circles must conform to outward expectations of manhood, masculinity, and respectability. Their material success depends on this. Likewise, in The Importance of Being Earnest, members of the aristocracy and the lower classes must adhere to outward conventions of morality, honor, and dignity. Any variation from the norm threatens to disrupt the hierarchical equilibrium so prized by Victorian society.

2) The definition of morality is in the eye of the beholder.

In The Importance of Being Earnest, Gwendolen exemplifies the perfect Victorian young lady. She is dignified, virtuous, and cosmopolitan; in short, a young lady beyond reproach. Her ideas about morality are vastly antithetical to true happiness, however; Wilde satirizes her fixation on the name "Earnest" as a way to comment on the hypocrisy of Victorian morality, a morality encased in sanctimonious piety and patronizing noblesse oblige (an implied social responsibility by the aristocratic class to demonstrate nobility and compassion towards the lower classes).

Despite the social obligations of the upper classes, the lower classes also have to fulfill certain expectations. They sometimes fail desperately in this area. In the play, it is revealed Miss Prism left Jack in a leather handbag in the cloakroom of the Victoria Station when he was a baby. As Cecily's governess, however, she maintains an outward appearance of primness, integrity, and civility. Yet, the truth is that Miss Prism is a repressed woman, a caricature of the respectable working-class employee in an aristocratic household. She pines after the priest, Dr. Chasuble, but must hide her less-than-savory desires from the public eye. This she does through pompous diction and supposedly didactic discourse.

In C above C above High C, we find the definition of morality is again in the eye of the beholder. As described in (1), the perception of an individual's morality can vary depending on who is doing the judging. Characters from both plays demonstrate a fear for exposing their individual desires, personalities, and ambitions. Perhaps the natural propensity for humans to judge each other cruelly distorts truth and prevents genuine self-contemplation.

In "How to Talk to Girls at Parties," what do you think Vic sees at the end of the story that upset him so much?

Throughout the story "How to Talk to Girls at Parties," there's a hint that the women at the party are not exactly women— or even human. This idea is foreshadowed early in the story and then the narrator, Enn, explains his run-in with these non-human "women" at the party. This is why we can guess as to what Vic means when he says, "She wasn't a—"

In the story, Enn explains his trouble talking to...

In the story, Enn explains his trouble talking to girls. He says that while Vic could get away with not actually talking to girls because he's good looking, Enn "did not know what to say to girls." The entire story is Enn trying to talk to girls. The first girl he speaks to is named "Wain Wain" and oddly says after a long speech, "Soon I must return to Wain, and tell her all I have seen. All my impressions of the place of yours." The next girl he speaks to calls herself a tourist and that on her last tour she "went to sun, and we swam in sunfire pools with the whales." Finally, the last girl Enn speaks to at the party is named Triolet and she calls herself a poem. She says about her people,

There are places that we are welcomed. . . and places where we are regarded as a noxious weed, or as a disease, something immediately to be quarantined and elimated. But where does contagion end and art begin?

After Triolet recites a poem in Enn's ear, Vic comes into the kitchen in a panic and says they need to leave. When they leave, Enn looks back and sees Stella, who is staring at them. Enn's description of Stella is interesting and explains these non-women:

Her clothes were in disarray, and there was makeup smudged across her face, and her eye—

You wouldn't want to make a universe angry. I bet an angry universe would look at you with eyes like that.

All of these clues lead to only one conclusion: Stella, who Vic was with upstairs, was not human. This frightens him so much that he ends up "sobbing in the street, as unselfconsciously and heartbreakingly as a little boy."

Why is The Merchant of Venice named for Antonio?

It's difficult to say with definite certainty why Shakespeare chose the name The Merchant of Venice, but it's possible to guess with reasonable accuracy. In general, it's reasonable to assume that The Merchant of Venice is named after Antonio (who is a merchant and is from Venice) because, in many ways, most of the play's plot revolves around him. Consider, for instance, that Portia and Bassanio's courtship relies upon Antonio's help, as the merchant needs to secure a loan to allow Bassanio to pursue the heiress of Belmont. Furthermore, Antonio's inability to repay this loan results in the dramatic conflict with Shylock. In that case, it appears as though most of the play's action depends upon and revolves around Antonio, and so naming the play after him makes sense.

It's very interesting, therefore, that the character that audiences usually find most memorable is not Antonio, but Shylock. Indeed, the marginalized, Jewish moneylender's oppressed existence, along with his arguably tragic downfall, proves to be more engaging, memorable, and sad than anything Antonio does in the play. Therefore, it's understandable that the title of the play is confusing, as it's Shylock, not Antonio, that we remember once the final curtain falls.

What do Roger and Mrs. Jones learn from each other in Langston Hughes's "Thank You, M'am"?

In Langston Hughes's short story "Thank You, M'am," Roger learns for the first time in his life that there truly are caring, compassionate people in the world, whereas Mrs. Jones is reminded of her past. Through her memories of her past, Mrs. Jones learns that there is often aneedto show care and compassion.At the start of the story, Mrs. Jones reacts the same way any woman in her position who has...

At the start of the story, Mrs. Jones reacts the same way any woman in her position who has the upper hand would react. Since she is much larger than Roger, she is able to kick him, drag him to his feet, and shake him "until his teeth rattled." Her actions show that, like anyone in her position, she is angry. However, the more she gets a closer look at Roger, the more her attitude changes. Specifically, the moment she notices that his "face is dirty" and learns that he has no one at home to remind him to wash his face, she realizes he is neglected and, though he may have a home, his real home is largely the streets. Mrs. Jones knows that, like many impoverished kids, Roger is doing his utmost to survive on the streets. The moment she has this realization, her attitude changes from anger to understanding and compassion.

Mrs. Jones demonstrates her understanding and compassion by bringing him home to get him cleaned up and give him dinner. She further shows compassion by confessing that when she was young, she, too, "wanted things [she] could not get" and did things she is ashamed of, a memory that reminds her there is a need to show people just like her compassion and mercy.

When Roger hears this, he learns he is not really as alone as he thinks he is, that others have been in his same position. But Roger learns his greatest lesson from Mrs. Jones the moment she hands him a ten dollar bill and tells him to go buy the blue suede shoes he wants. It's at this moment he learns that there truly are caring, compassionate people in the world, people willing to help, a realization the reader can predict will change his life.

What does the term comrade mean in Orwell's Animal Farm?

George Orwell's Animal Farm is an allegorical depiction of life under a totalitarian regime, first under the control of a disgruntled farmer and then under the control of those who sought, in the name of liberty and equality, to replace the deposed farmer. Orwell's novel was inspired by the excesses of Bolshevik (communist) rule in Russia following the revolutions of 1917. As readers of Lenin, Trotsky, and myriad other communist leaders know, the use of the word "comrade" was a common title for those who shared their political and ideological leanings. While the word itself predates the development of communist or socialist ideologies, its application by theoreticians and others among communist ranks was routine, as when Trotsky repeatedly referenced Lenin as "Comrade Lenin."

In Animal Farm, the animals are motivated to rebel against the farmer by Old Major, a venerated boar who gathers his fellow animals together to address them as a prelude to action:

I do not think, comrades, that I shall be with you for many months longer, and before I die, I feel it my duty to pass on to you such wisdom as I have acquired.

Major continues to employ the word "comrade" throughout his address. The word becomes a part of the new order's vernacular, with animals addressing and referencing each other accordingly, as when Snowball, Napolean, and others rally their fellow revolutionaries.

"Comrade" does not have to apply solely to practitioners of totalitarian political philosophies, but its use became identified with communism by virtue of the writings and statements of leaders of communist movements.

What was the turning point that ultimately led the American colonists to sever their ties and bonds to the British North American Empire?

History books generally tell us that the French and Indian War was the turning point that, eventually, led to the American Revolution and to the ultimate split between the colonies and the United Kingdom. There are at least three reasons why this war is seen as a turning point.

First, the war gave colonists more of a feeling that they were similar to one another and different from the British. Before the war, the colonists...

First, the war gave colonists more of a feeling that they were similar to one another and different from the British. Before the war, the colonists had generally seen themselves as citizens of their own colonies, not as Americans. During the war, however, men who went off to fight generally mixed with men from other colonies and came to realize that they were very similar to one another. In addition, they came to believe that they were very different from the British soldiers. They were, for example, more independent and less willing to allow officers to mistreat them. This reinforced in the colonists the idea that they were all similar to one another and, importantly, that they were different from the British because they loved freedom more. All this gave them a reason to feel that they were no longer British.

Second, the war got rid of the threat of France. Before the war, France had a large amount of territory in North America. The colonists would have known that France might attack them if they were not protected by the UK. For this reason, they would have been less likely to think independence was a good idea. They would have been more likely to think that they would be too weak to protect themselves as an independent country. When the French left North America after the war, it allowed the colonists to think that they might be able to survive if they broke away from Britain.

Finally, and most importantly, the war changed the way the British government treated the colonies. The war was very expensive and the government wanted the colonies to pay (what it saw) as their fair share. Therefore, the government started to impose more taxes on the colonies. It also started to be more aggressive about trying to stop smuggling into and out of the colonies, which was a very lucrative profession for some colonists. When the government did this, the colonists felt their rights were being violated. The British government had not acted like this before and they had grown to feel that they had the right to be free from much taxation and the right to trade with whoever they wanted (even if it was technically illegal). When the government changed its behavior because of the war (notably with the Stamp Act), the colonists became very angry. This led them to want to rebel against the British.

For all of these reasons, the French and Indian War is seen as the turning point that caused the colonies to want to break away and to cut their ties to the British Empire.

What is the expected lifetime for a star with twice the mass of the sun?

The Main-Sequence Lifetime of stars charts the approximate lifetime of stars. The chart is based on the mass and luminosity of the star. There is a correlation between mass and luminosity as well. The sun is given one solar mass and one solar luminosity. The expected lifetime for the sun is about 10 billion years. A star with twice the mass would be ten times as bright, but live only 2 billion years (or about...

Stars with more mass do not last as long because they burn fuel at a faster rate. A star with twice the mass of the sun would burn its fuel about ten times faster. The timeframes are estimates and based largely on the luminosity, which is an indicator of fuel consumption. The lifetime could vary by a few billion years.

What is politics? Explain the importance of politics in daily life.

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines 'politics' as the following:

1. activities that relate to influencing the actions and policies of a government or getting and keeping power in a government

2. the work or job of people (such as elected officials) who are part of a government

3. the opinions that someone has about what should be done by governments : a person's political thoughts and opinions

Activities related to "influencing the actions and policies of a government" and "keeping power" include lobbying. A lobby is an organized group that works to influence government policies related to a particular issue or industry. The National Rifle Association, for example, is the most powerful political lobby in the United States. They use their wealth to finance political campaigns. In exchange for the NRA's financial support, politicians agree to refuse to support legislation in support of additional gun regulations.

'Politicking' refers to all of the discussion and activities in which politicians, which include legislators at the state and federal level as well as those with executive power, engage with the purpose of influencing public opinion. The goals are to gain the support of the public and the support of others in power to institute policies that will support a particular issue (e.g., immigration reform) or an industry (e.g., gun rights). This is how politics work on a professional level, among those with the power to create policies that affect all of us.

Merriam-Webster's third definition refers to the personal views that all of us have regarding politics. When we talk about politics, we are really talking about the everyday things that matter to us: the ability to make a decent living, the ability to buy products at a fair price, the ability to plan our families, the ability to be safe, and the right to be respected by other members of society.

Voters frequently support political candidates for local, state, and national office based on their personal concerns, or on what is most relevant in their own lives. For example, if you are an evangelical Christian, you will support and vote for a candidate who shares your religious views and who will apply those views when creating policy measures. If you are a feminist, you will support and vote for a politician who makes women's rights a priority in terms of creating and supporting policies that benefit women.

Even if one is not overtly political, one will support politicians that speak to one's needs. For example, a former factory worker who has been unemployed for several years and is generally uninterested in politics might support and vote for a candidate who talks about bringing factory jobs back to the United States. This person will vote for that candidate with the hope that he or she will help the former employee find work again.

So, when we talk about politics, we are not only talking about the "wheeling-and-dealing" that goes on in Washington, DC with the aim of creating policy measures to benefit a particular issue or industry. In fact, we are mainly talking about the ways in which policies are created and supported based on the impact that those measures will have on people's lives.

What are Eckels's motives in going on the safari into the past?

Eckels's motive to go on a time safari to the past is to hunt and shoot a dinosaur.

From the beginning of the story, Eckels is full of pompous arrogance. He saunters into the safari company and slaps down his big check. He barely listens to the rules about traveling into the past, and he brags about all of the other safaris that he has been on. Once in the past, he playfully aims his gun at all kinds of imagined targets. He even firmly states that he is there to shoot "my dinosaur," even though he is one of several hunters hunting that particular dinosaur. Unfortunately for the present/future, Eckels winds up being a complete coward. He steps on and kills a butterfly. The effects ripple through time, and the entire societal structure of the present/future changes.

What are the various methods for macro-environmental analysis?

One method for macro-environmental analysis is called the "PESTLE" method. This is essentially a framework through which to explore the broad environment surrounding an organization. PESTLE stands for Political, Economic, Socio-cultural, Technological, Legal, and Environmental. It's a relatively simple method: you analyze each of these individual areas and how they relate to the organization, and come up with a broader plan that incorporates these various factors.

For example:

1) Political: What political factors might affect your...

For example:

1) Political: What political factors might affect your organization? What are the government's beliefs and policies?

2) Economic: What are the current economic conditions in the area? Is the economy growing or shrinking? What are interest rates like?

3) Socio-cultural: What is the social climate like? What are some demographics that might affect the organization?

4) Technological: What technology is available and how can it be used? This means not only digital/ internet tools but also manufacturing and distribution tools.

5) Legal: The laws in any country are constantly changing. What are the legal factors that might help or hinder the organization? Are there new or changing laws that might have an effect?

6) Environmental: An organization's physical location and its relationship to the environment can also affect the organization. What is the climate like? What are the local waste disposal practices?

Another method, called STEEPLE, integrates the components of PESTLE with one additional factor: Ethics. Ethics can be complex, since something that is legal is not always ethical and something that is ethical is not always legal. In today's world, it is much easier for people to align with companies they ethically support, and it is important for organizations to consider their ethical profile.

All of these can be run through a SWOT analysis, which refers to an organization's Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats. Any one finding from a PESTLE/ STEEPLE analysis can fall into any of these four categories. A new legal ruling might be an opportunity or a threat; a piece of technology might be a strength or a weakness.

What is an example of alliteration used in the book Anthem by Ayn Rand?

Alliteration is the repetition of the beginning sounds of words, like when Juliet says that parting was "such sweet sorrow" in Act 2 of Romeo and Juliet. Authors often choose to use alliteration to make certain phrases memorable or poetic, or simply to add emphasis. (Other times, random chance causes authors to simply use the same sounds to begin words close together in a phrase--although you can still call these...

If you take a look at Chapter 1 of Anthem, you'll notice quite a few alliterative phrases, such as "memory of men," "thin threads," "Street Sweepers," "your body has grown beyond the bodies of your brothers," "big bell," and more.

Are these examples evidence of purposeful alliteration? Probably. I say this because these particular alliterative phrases help establish the serious, dramatic, foreboding tone of the chapter. Clearly the narrator is in distress throughout Chapter 1, struggling to express his fear and reflecting on the extremely rigid existence he's lived through so far. This narrator's tone of voice, sentence structure, and poetic phrases all combine to convey that fear and distress.

What laws have we recently tried to pass that infringe on the second of FDR’s "Four Freedoms"?

The second of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Four Freedoms is the freedom of worship. This freedom is, of course, codified in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, in which establishing a state religion is forbidden and the state may not impede people's rights to freely exercise their respective religions. The only law that comes to mind is one that has been under discussion during this presidential campaign, which could be said to have been referenced in the comments of one candidate who seeks to keep all Muslims out of the United States. There is a Supreme Court decision that you might be thinking of, that some people will argue interferes with the freedom of religion, but I disagree with their position on this. You will have to decide for yourself what you think.

If we place a religious restriction on immigration, we are clearly interfering with Roosevelt's second freedom. If we are going to be a nation that allows immigrants at all, the government cannot pick and choose which religions to allow in. People who are here lawfully have constitutional rights, too. And it is a slippery slope once we prohibit people of one particular religion from emigrating here. From there, it would be quite easy to make Muslim worship completely illegal, along with Hinduism, Judaism, and whatever other minority religion we choose to eliminate. We might say this can't happen today, but it happened in the Spanish Inquisition, it is happening now with ISIS, and it has happened in plenty of other times and places, too. Once we choose one religion to stigmatize, it is easy to keep going down that path.

In Obergefell v. Hodges, (2015) the Supreme Court held that gay people have the right to marry one another, with the same protections and privileges afforded by law to heterosexual couples. The argument is that anyone who believes, as a matter of religion, that the LGBT community is an "abomination unto God" is being denied the right to practice his or her religion by signing a gay marriage license or by doing the photography or flowers for a gay wedding. The decision is also disingenuously held to stand for the proposition that clergy must perform gay marriage ceremonies.

There are a few separate threads to these arguments that must be untangled. First, signing a marriage license is an act of a public official who has no freedom whatsoever to exercise religious judgement on the job. Second, if an establishment is open to the public, if we allow it to discriminate on the basis of sexual preference, there is nothing to stop it from discriminating on the basis of race. Both are immutable characteristics. This is another slippery slope that is antithetical to American values. Most of us have done business with people we do not approve of in one way or another from time to time. This does not mean that we sanction them in any way whatsoever. A public entity needs to be open to the public, not just to those whom we approve of. This in no way detracts from someone's exercise of religion. Third, any law that would force any member of the clergy to perform any wedding at all would be a violation of the First Amendment. Religious institutions have the absolute freedom to delineate whom they will admit, whom they will marry, and whom they will serve. No minster, priest, rabbi, or imam can be forced to officiate in any marriage ceremony in the United States.

I am not sure if the Supreme Court decision is the "law" being contemplated in your question or if perhaps the proposals of one presidential candidate are what you have in mind. Certainly, the response of Congress has been largely negative regarding this suggestion. While there may be those who believe that the court decision interferes with their second freedom, the fact is that a converse decision would have interfered with the religious rights of many gay people, who would have had to forego the sanctity of marriage. If someone believes there is something religiously wrong with being gay, that person can be assured that no decision or statute will ever force that person to engage in any gay behavior.

What literary devices are used in "Death be not Proud" by John Donne?

The most notable literary device Donne uses in this poem is personification. Personification is when an author attributes human characteristics to non-human things. He carries personification of death throughout the poem by saying that death should not be proud because, contrary to what most people think, death does not have the ability to kill. Instead, it delivers eternal life to those it touches. At the end of the poem when he says, “Death, thou shalt...

In this case, death is non-human, but Donne uses the literary device apostrophe to address death as if death is a person to whom Donne is writing. When he addresses death with “thou,” it is as if he is addressing death as a person (“thou” being the equivalent of “you” today).

Another literary device in this poem is a rhetorical question. In lines 11-12, Donne explains that “poppy and charms” can induce the same kind of sleep that death can, so he questions, “why swell’st thou then?” In other words, he asks death why it swells with pride at its ability to put people to sleep when other more trivial things can do the job just as well. This rhetorical question is another way for Donne to make his point that death does not have the right to be proud and that people who believe in eternal life have no reason to fear death.

Does our constitutional republic promote or restrict economic freedom?

Compared to what?

Compared to some idealized perfect system of maximal economic freedom, obviously any real-world government is not going to match up. There are taxes, of course, but also a huge quantity of regulations, many of which are clearly overcomplicated or unnecessary. Particularly damaging in my opinion are immigration restrictions and tariffs, as these restrict the flow of people and goods across borders which is the fundamental basis of trade. Many taxes and subsidies are also misaligned with the true externalities they are supposed to reflect (agricultural subsidies are too high, while renewable energy subsidies are too low), and while some degree of labor and environmental regulations are necessary they are often too strict or not structured well.

However, if you compare them to dictatorship, constitutional republics do spectacularly well at promoting economic freedom (as well as other forms of liberty). Instead of micromanaging everyone's lives, they give people freedom to live and work as they choose. Compare the US to North Korea (or even South Korea to North Korea!) and the difference could hardly be starker: In North Korea, almost everything you do is controlled by the government, and you have basically no liberty, economic or otherwise. In the US, there are certain rules you have to follow and you've got to pay your taxes, but mostly you get left alone.

What about the other end of the spectrum? Is a constitutional republic more free than anarchy? In a real sense, yes---because anarchy is unstable. In the absence of a strong government, a power vacuum emerges where individuals, corporations, or other special interests can use force and fraud to take advantage of others. We saw this happen in Somalia when their government collapsed; this didn't usher in an era of freedom, but rather allowed warlords to emerge and form new de facto governments every bit as violent and oppressive as the formal government that preceded them.

Indeed, as a matter of real empirical data, constitutional republics such as the US and France, along with constitutional monarchies such as the UK and Norway, are always at the very top of the rankings in terms of economic freedom. No country is perfect, but some are much better than others, and the better ones are almost always constitutional republics or constitutional monarchies.

A finite potential well has depth Uo = 3.00 eV. What is the penetration distance for an electron with energy 2.50 eV? I am pretty sure that the...

The wave function of a particle near the barrier (or the "wall" of the finite potential well) is

`Psi(x) = Ae^(-alphax)` , where

`alpha = 2pisqrt((2m(U_0 - E))/h^2)` . Here, `U_0` is the depth of the well, and m and E are the mass and the energy of the particle, respectively. The constant `alpha` determines the penetration distance (depth), which equals `1/alpha` . This is a distance over which the wave function becomes 1/e of its initial value.

In the given problem,...

The wave function of a particle near the barrier (or the "wall" of the finite potential well) is

`Psi(x) = Ae^(-alphax)` , where

In the given problem, the particle is an electron with the mass`m_e = 9.1*10^(-31) kg=0.5 (MeV)/c^2`

and the energy E = 2.5 eV.

The penetration depth is then

`1/alpha = h/(2pisqrt(2m_e(U_0 - E)))`

= `(ch)/(2pisqrt(2*0.5*10^6 eV (3 eV - 2.5 eV))) = (3*10^8*4.14*10^(-15) eVs)/(2pisqrt(0.5*10^6))=2.8*10^(-10) m`

This is the same as 0.28 nm, which approximately equals your answer. The discrepancy might be due to my rounding the Planck's constant (I used 4.14*10^(-15) eV*s instead of 4.136*10^(-15) eV*s.)

How did the British and the colonists differ on the issue of taxes?

I assume you are asking about the difference between the colonists and the British government. If so, the basic difference is that the British government believed that it had the right to tax the colonists under almost any circumstances. By contrast, the colonists felt that the British government had the right to tax them only in very limited circumstances (and perhaps not at all).

The American colonists felt that the British government only had the...

The American colonists felt that the British government only had the right to tax them in very limited circumstances. They (of course, this is just a generalization as not everyone felt this way) believed the government had the right to tax imports and exports which were things that were external to the colonies. However, they believed the government did not have the right to tax them on internal things (like the Stamp Tax did). Some colonists even believed that the British government did not have the right to tax them at all because they were not represented in Parliament.

By contrast, the British government claimed the right to tax the colonists in all circumstances. The government believed that, because the colonies were part of the United Kingdom, it had the right to tax them even on internal goods. The British government believed that the colonists were represented in Parliament through the idea of “virtual representation.” This idea held that the members of Parliament would represent the colonists because they represented everyone in the empire.

In these ways, the colonists (or at least many of the colonists) and the British government had very different ideas about taxation.

What did Gerda Lerner seem to be saying about women as victims of oppression? What do women sacrifice by accepting this?

In this essay, published originally in 1975, Lerner, a feminist and a historian, is surveying various trends in the study of women's history, discussing their benefits, but also, more importantly, their drawbacks. Fundamentally, she is suggesting that the ways women's history has been studied up to that point have tended to operate, sometimes unintentionally, within the same patriarchal assumptions that oppressed women in the first place. So in studies that have, quite accurately, depicted various ways in which women have been historically oppressed (the subject of your question), historians have tended to obscure or downplay the ways in which women resisted oppression. This makes it appear, in Lerner's words, that "women were largely passive," or that their actions were simply reactions to "male pressures or to the restraints of patriarchal society." Thus women as historical actors are placed "in a male-defined conceptual framework: oppressed, victimized by standards and values established by men." To use the word that social historians often use to describe the actions of the historical people they study, this approach obscures the agency of historical women. "The true story," Lerner says, of these women is "of their ongoing functioning in that male-defined world, on their own terms," and because focusing simply on oppression does not reveal this, it is "of limited usefulness to the historian." So the focus on oppression is, like a focus on "great" women, for example, always going to yield a very simplistic picture of women's historical lives even as it draws much needed attention to the systems of oppression faced by women. This is a very common concern among historians, not just concerning women, but also in relation to enslaved people, Native Americans, working-class people, and many others. How do we illustrate the structures and processes that oppress people without overlooking the ways that those same people figure out how to live within them?

In Homer's Odyssey, who is Theoclymenus and why should Telemachus treat him kindly?

Theoclymenus is a seer who is fleeing Argos for killing a man of his own race. He tells Telemachus that the kinsmen of the murdered man seek to avenge themselves on him; this is why he lives in exile.

Theoclymenus is actually a very important guest; as he is a seer, he can see the future and interpret omens. If Telemachus treats him kindly, he will benefit from Theoclymenus' psychic abilities. In the story, Theoclymenus' clairvoyant skill is demonstrated when he observes a hawk fly by Telemachus' right hand. The hawk is clutching a dove in its talons, and in mid-flight, it tears the feathers of the dove off. The feathers fall between Telemachus and the ship. Theoclymenus interprets this as a good omen. He tells Telemachus that he, Telemachus, will remain a powerful man and that no house in Ithaca will be as royal as his own.

As time progresses, Theoclymenus becomes more and more important to Telemachus. His ability to interpret omens is a gift that encourages Telemachus and those who are faithful to Odysseus' house. In Book 17, Theoclymenus tells Penelope (the wife of Odysseus) that he can divine the future. He tells her that her husband "himself is even now in Ithaca, and, either going about the country or staying in one place, (and) is inquiring into all these evil deeds and preparing a day of reckoning for the suitors."

In Book 20, Theoclymenus prophesies that the suitors will eventually meet their doom:

But Theoclymenus said, "Eurymachus, you need not send any one with me. I have eyes, ears, and a pair of feet of my own, to say nothing of an understanding mind. I will take these out of the house with me, for I see mischief overhanging you, from which not one of you men who are insulting people and plotting ill deeds in the house of Ulysses will be able to escape.

From the text, we can see that Telemachus' welcome of Theoclymenus is not misplaced. His kind treatment of his exiled guest has earned him the loyalty of a seer who has psychic abilities. At each stage of the mission to reclaim Odysseus' household, Theoclymenus uses his clairvoyant abilities to encourage Telemachus and his allies. So, Theoclymenus is an asset to Telemachus.

In Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, who is the more effective speaker, Brutus or Antony?

Antony was clearly the more effective speaker. It was his speech that drove the gathered crowd into a frenzy. At the end of his oration, the crowd had become enraged at what, he made them believe, had been a great injustice against their murdered leader. They immediately sought retribution and were intent on ripping the conspirators apart, as the following extract clearly indicates:

Second Citizen
We will be revenged.

All
Revenge! About! Seek! Burn! Fire! Kill! Slay!
Let not a traitor live!

Brutus adopted a rational approach in which he explained the purpose behind Caesar's assassination. He convinced the crowd that Caesar's death was necessary for the survival of Rome and the good of all its citizens. The crowd was satisfied with his clinical, matter-of-fact and commonsense explanation and believed what he said. Antony, conversely, appealed to the crowds' emotions. He was passionate and drew them in by making them believe that they had suffered a deep and personal loss when their leader was so savagely slaughtered. It was this passion that fired them up. Brutus' speech, although intelligent, had been a dispassionate oration.

Antony also applied the gamut of persuasive speaking techniques to overwhelm the already jittery collective in the market place. He began by kindly asking his fellow citizens to give him a hearing by using repetition - the rule of three: 'Friends, Romans, countrymen...' He employed innuendo and subtle sarcasm, which suggested that the conspirators and their deed were not as noble as Brutus had originally suggested: 'and so were they all, all honourable men.'

The repetitive use of the term 'honourable' in tandem with, and in juxtaposition to, a previous statement eventually gave the word a hollow ring.

Antony used rhetorical questions:

I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?

You all did love him once, not without cause:
What cause withholds you then, to mourn for him?

He used facts to prove that Caesar cared about all Romans:

He hath brought many captives home to Rome
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:
Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?

He conveyed an opinion which suggested that Caesar had compassion:

When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:

He consistently used emotive language:

O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,

Bear with me;
My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar,
And I must pause till it come back to me.

Antony repeatedly appealed to the crowds' emotions:

O masters, if I were disposed to stir
Your hearts and minds to mutiny and rage,
I should do Brutus wrong, and Cassius wrong...

He creates tension and stirs up the crowds' expectation when he mentions Caesar's will whilst at the same time convincing them of Caesar's generosity and good nature:

...here's a parchment with the seal of Caesar;
I found it in his closet, 'tis his will:
Let but the commons hear this testament--
Which, pardon me, I do not mean to read--
And they would go and kiss dead Caesar's wounds
And dip their napkins in his sacred blood,...

In the end, Antony works up the crowd to such an extent that the citizens are desperate to take revenge. Brutus' charming speech has been forgotten completely and the crowd has turned into an unruly mob that is single-mindedly driven by a lust for the conspirators' blood.

In "Blue Winds Dancing" by Thomas S. Whitecloud, how does the speaker feel when he first reaches Woodruff? Why does he feel that way?

The writer is apprehensive and a little afraid of how he will be received when he first arrives in Woodruff.

This is because the writer has presumably been away for a while. He hasn't seen his family since he's been enrolled in college. While he appreciates the opportunity to learn new ways, the young writer misses his home and his people. He reasons that, where he lives, there's no need to listen to lecturers droning on and on about obscure topics just to "hear their own words come back to them from the students." At home, the speaker doesn't need to concern himself with grades or whether he's earned enough academic honors. In short, when he's home, there are no anxieties to plague his peace.

Lonely and homesick, the writer decides that he will return home in time for Christmas. When he gets off the train, he feels great joy in tramping through the woods of his childhood years. Yet, on initially arriving at Woodruff, he's apprehensive and fearful of how his family and village will receive him. He's afraid that they will think him less of an Indian. At the same time, he feels that he has no place among the white people he associates with on a daily basis.

In short, the writer feels alienated from both groups. He even wonders about his identity ("Am I Indian, or am I white?"). However, when he enters the village lodge, he soon finds that his deepest fears have been unfounded. The older people receive him with great joy, and everyone makes him feel at home. At long last, the writer joyously concludes that he's indeed home, where he's yearned to be for a while.

In "The Canterville Gost" by Oscar Wilde, why doesn't the Canterville ghost make any plans to frighten Virginia?

The Canterville ghost does not make any plans to frighten Virginia because she is the only member of the family who does not humiliate or belittle him. In Chapter Three, for example, it is noted that Virginia does not "enter into the joke" of the re-appearing blood-stain in the library. This contrasts with her brother, Washington, who is constantly cleaning it. Similarly, as the narrator mentions:

She had never insulted him in any way, and...

She had never insulted him in any way, and was pretty and gentle.

Evidently, the ghost likes Virginia and does not want to upset her. There is also another reason why the ghost does not make plans to scare her: he knows that he will soon need her help. Once he has tired of trying to scare her family, the ghost becomes depressed and thinks often about death. In order to die, however, he must fulfill the prophecy on the library window which expressly states that he needs a "golden girl" to pray for him. As the only character who fits this description, the ghost knows that he must appeal to Virginia and her good nature for his dreams to be realized.

What oppressive force is at work in Anarresti society that influences how individuals act in The Dispossessed by Ursula K. Le Guin? How does this...

According to Freud's tripartite model, the psyche consists of three parts: the id, ego, and superego. The id operates under the pleasure principle; regardless of the consequences, the id wants to satisfy every desire immediately. On the other hand, the ego operates under the reality principle; it is primarily concerned with pragmatic considerations in satisfying the id's demands. It should be noted that the ego considers societal norms and etiquette in its deliberations. The superego...

In Le Guin's book, Odonian idealism has to exist with an equally opposing force: gratuitous self-interest. As a character, Sabul exemplifies what happens to individuals who are influenced by it.

Accordingly, Shevek learns Sabul is actuated by a personal desire for aggrandizement; the older man orders Shevek to hide his newly-acquired knowledge of Urrasti physics and Iotic from other scientists. The truth is that, without fluency in Iotic, no Anarresti scientist can delve into the concepts of Urrasti physics. For his part, Sabul wants to preserve this status quo of affairs. In desiring to use his knowledge of Urrasti physics as a source of power over his colleagues, Sabul is operating under the pleasure principle. With Sabul, the id's demands take precedence over the ego and superego's demands. By appropriating other scientists' work for his own, Sabul rejects the traditional Anarresti concepts of mutual reliance, solidarity, and disinterested benevolence.

Sabul is definitely an example of how this oppressive force influences individuals adversely.

How does Edgar Allan Poe use darkness and gloom to make "The Tell-Tale Heart" a Gothic Story?

Gothic texts combine fiction, horror, and death to prompt readers to feel extreme emotion, and "The Tell-Tale Heart" employs darkness and gloom to this effect. When the narrator describes the way he approaches the old man's darkened room each night, just at midnight, slowly inserting his head and his "dark lantern" through the door, we know what his intention is. His obsessive repetition of these actions, undertaken in darkness, only adds to the growing tension. Further, on the night the old man hears the narrator and sits up wide awake in bed, we know the narrator is waiting in the gloom, increasing our anxiety and terror for the old man's well-being. It's quite terrifying when the narrator says the old man tried to comfort himself in vain "because Death, in approaching him had stalked with his black shadow before him, and enveloped the victim." The old man seems to know, intuitively, that he is in danger, and the fact that the narrator associates himself with Death (he is right at home in the darkness and gloom with which we often associate death) confirms the man is, indeed, in mortal danger. This all heightens our anxiety and horror, in parallel with how the old man's feelings of terror increase as well, and these feelings are the hallmark of Gothic literature.

At room temperature common salt sodium chloride, NaCl, is a solid and methane, CH4, is a gas explain, in terms of the bonds present in each...

At room temperature, common table salt (sodium chloride, or NaCl) is a solid. At the same temperature, however, methane (` `) is a gas. Explain, in terms of the bonds present in each compound, why their physical states are so different.

The chemicals that make up table salt and methane form different intermolecular bonds. These are the bonds between molecules in a substance. Let's look at the intermolecular bonds formed by each compound.

...

NaCl's intermolecular forces are ionic. These are very strong intermolecular forces, and they occur due to the big difference in their charge. They are opposite in charge (sodium is positive, chlorine is negative) and so they pull together strongly.

Methane, by contrast, is subject to only very weak London dispersion forces between its molecules. Carbon and hydrogen, the two elements that make up methane, are very close in electronegativity. That is, they are not at all opposite in charge. London dispersion forces are a weak intermolecular bond that every compound is subject to.

Ionic bonds take much more energy to break. This also means that substances made up of chemicals with ionic bonds have a higher melting point and boiling point than substances with ionic bonds. That is, the temperature at which they melt (turn from solid to liquid) and boil (turn from liquid to gas) is higher. This means that at room temperature, table salt is a solid, but methane is a gas because its boiling point is much lower.