Blog: December 2016

Where Helen Keller's family lived, there were no resources for the blind and the deaf. Where did Helen's parents take her to see a famous eye doctor?

In Chapter III, Keller writes that her father heard about a famous doctor named Dr. Chisholm in Baltimore and took her to see him in the summer of 1886. The doctor, who was an oculist, said he could not help, but that he knew that Keller could be educated. He sent the family to Dr. Alexander Graham Bell in Washington, D.C. for a referral to a school. Keller's father felt disappointed with Dr. Chisholm's message but brought his daughter to Washington to see Alexander Graham Bell. Bell then referred the family to Mr. Anagnos, who is the director of the Perkins Institution, a school for the blind in Boston. Helen Keller's father wrote to the Perkins Institution, and they sent a teacher, Anne Sullivan, to teach Keller at her house in March of 1887. This is the beginning of her education.

Give an example where the society in The Giver violates the Third Amendment to the United States Constitution.

There really are not any examples where the society in The Giver violates the Third Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The society in the book violates many of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, but it does not seem to violate the Third Amendment.

The Third Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is somewhat obscure. It reads

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

This amendment is not particularly relevant as our government would not do this in modern times. In fact, the Supreme Court has never had to decide a case based on this amendment.

In The Giver, it would be very hard for the society to clearly violate this amendment. As far as we can tell, the society does not have any soldiers. We know that they do not know about war because Jonas is overwhelmed by the memory of war that the Giver gives to him in Chapter 15. They may have some sort of military since the jet in Chapter 1 sounds like a fighter airplane, but we never actually see any discussion of soldiers in the text. If the society does not have soldiers (or if they are not discussed) we cannot find any clear violations of the Third Amendment.

I suppose that you could try to say that the society violates the Third Amendment by assigning people to live together as families, but even that does not really work for me. In order to get a spouse, you have to ask for one, which means that you consent to have that person live with you. The same applies if you want to have children live with you. Since the people have to give their consent, this would not violate the Third Amendment, even if we were to say that the Third Amendment does not apply only to soldiers.

Because of this, I do not think there are any violations of the Third Amendment in this book. Other amendments, like the 1st, 4th, and 5th appear to be violated, but not the Third.

In Paulo Coelho's The Alchemist, how does the Englishman's search for the alchemist compare to Santiago's search for his treasure?

The Englishman first speaks with Santiago when he sees the boy playing with Urim and Thummim, the stones given to him by Melchizedek. They compare notes about the king who gave them to the boy and realize that they are both on journeys to achieve their Personal Legends. It is at this point that the Englishman wonders if meeting the boy might be an omen. Santiago asks who taught him about omens, whereupon the Englishman reveals that omens are part of the language of the world. It is for this purpose that the Englishman is in the desert and traveling with a caravan--he seeks the alchemist who knows this language and could teach it to him. Because of the similar knowledge shared between them, the Englishman asks the boy if he is searching for the alchemist as well. The following exchange occurs:

"'I'm looking for a treasure,' said the boy, and he immediately regretted having said it. But the Englishman appeared not to attach any importance to it. 'In a way, so am I,' he said" (70-71).

Even though the Englishman and the boy are searching for different things, each one is in search for his Personal Legend. Personal Legends are different for each person, so it doesn't matter what they are searching for. What matters is that the Englishman and Santiago both have much of the same knowledge and information to draw from to help them in their search.

Why does Portia lie to Lorenzo and tell him that she is going to a monastery in Act three, Scene 4?

In Act three, Scene 4, Lorenzo praises Portia for being noble and understanding in regards to her husband's friendship with Antonio. Portia responds by saying that she never regrets doing a good thing and proceeds to tell Lorenzo that she will be leaving him in charge of her household until Bassanio returns. Portia lies to Lorenzo by telling him that she has made a secret vow to God to live in prayer and contemplation alone until her husband returns. She also says that she and Nerissa will be staying at a monastery two miles away and nobody is to bother them while they are there. The reason Portia lies to Lorenzo is because she plans on traveling to Venice where she will dress up and impersonate Doctor Balthazar in order to influence Antonio and Shylock's court case. Portia does not want Lorenzo or anybody else knowing that she is leaving Belmont, which is why she tells Lorenzo that she needs to be alone in the monastery.

In the poem "The Road Not Taken " by Robert Frost, do you think it is on a positive side that he chose "the road less travelled by"?

In Frost's poem, "The Road Not Taken," all we know from the narrator is that his having chosen the less traveled road has "made all the difference" (line 20). Whether this is a positive or a negative choice as applied to any particular individual is a matter of opinion. Bear in mind that no matter which the narrator had chosen, it would have "made all the difference" (line 20).

Which is positive and which is...

Which is positive and which is negative depends, I would say, on the kind of personality one has. A person who is risk-averse is likely to be happier in the end following a more traveled road. A person who is risk-seeking is likely to be happier following the less-traveled road. This is because the roads are a metaphor for our paths through life. At many junctures, we decide to do what most people do, to follow a path where most people have gone before, or to follow a path that is a bit different, one that is more likely to bring about atypical results. To apply this to the lives of most people I know, for example, one graduates from high school, goes to college, gets a job, gets married, and has children. However, some I know decided not to go to college but to go travel through Europe for ten years or join the Peace Corps. A few went to New York and became starving artists. My brother spent a few years on the road as a musician and dancer. For him, the road was a great choice. The less-traveled road can lead to great adventures and it can also lead to some very hard times.

Think about what kind of person you are. To decide whether this is a positive or negative choice means viewing the choice from your own perspective, since all the narrator tells us is that it made a difference, which is meaningless in a way, since if he had been presented with five different paths to follow, the choice of any would have made a difference.

`y = ln sqrt((x + 1)/(x - 1)))` Find the derivative of the function.

`y=lnsqrt[(x+1)/(x-1)]`

`y=ln(x+1)^(1/2)-ln(x-1)^(1/2)`

`y=1/2ln(x+1)-1/2ln(x-1)`

` ` `y'=1/[2(x+1)]-1/[2(x-1)]`

`y'=[(x-1)-(x+1)]/[2(x+1)(x-1)]`

`y'=[x-1-x-1]/[2(x+1)(x-1)]`

`y'=-1/[(x+1)(x-1)]`

The derivative of the function y is `-1/[(x+1)(x-1)].`

`y=lnsqrt[(x+1)/(x-1)]`

`y=ln(x+1)^(1/2)-ln(x-1)^(1/2)`

`y=1/2ln(x+1)-1/2ln(x-1)`

` ` `y'=1/[2(x+1)]-1/[2(x-1)]`

`y'=[(x-1)-(x+1)]/[2(x+1)(x-1)]`

`y'=[x-1-x-1]/[2(x+1)(x-1)]`

`y'=-1/[(x+1)(x-1)]`

The derivative of the function y is `-1/[(x+1)(x-1)].`

How does the scaffold in The Scarlet Letter bring greater meaning to the message, and does how the symbol further Hawthorne's purpose?

Hawthorne's employment of the three scaffold scenes in The Scarlet Letter is a brilliant structuring device; it not only frames the narrative, but it also directs the readers' attention to the essential themes of the novel. This symbol furthers Hawthorne's purpose, as it incites feelings of isolation in the characters.

In all three of the scaffold scenes, the main characters are present, but their arrangement concerning the scaffold differs. These arrangements are significant in meaning and in developing themes.

In the first scaffold scene, before a condemning crowd, Hester stands alone in her ignominy with the scarlet letter on her breast and her living symbol of her sin, Pearl, clutched to this breast. Accosted with the harsh Puritan judgments of the crowd, such as the woman who declares that she has "brought shame upon us all, and ought to die" (Ch.2), Hester is isolated from society. Nevertheless, she courageously bears her isolation. This illustrates the theme of conflict between individual and society.

In the second scaffold scene, which is in the middle of the novel and is seven years after the first scene, the Reverend Arthur Dimmesdale stands alone on the scaffold in the dark of night. Tortured by his guilt and remorse that he lacked the courage to confess his sin years ago, he stands on the scaffold to admit to God his sin. When Hester and Pearl approach on their way home from the governor's mansion, the minister asks them to join him on the scaffold.

"Come up hither, Hester, thou and Little Pearl. . . . Ye have both been here before, but I was not with you. Come up hither once again, and we will stand all three together." (Ch.12)

But when Pearl asks the minister if he will stand with her mother and her tomorrow, the minister replies, "Nay; not so, my little Pearl. . . . I shall, indeed, stand with thy mother and thee one other day, but not to-morrow!" (Ch.12) Ironically, the minister implies Judgment Day, but he does, in fact, stand with them one day before the Puritan community. Lurking in the shadows is Roger Chillingworth who acts as physician to the minister, and only Hester realizes that Chillingworth means to harm him. However, the minister "yields himself to the physician." (Ch.12) The theme represented here is ambiguity—some know of Dimmesdale's guilt while others do not.

In the third scaffold scene, there are parallels to that of the first scene. The townspeople meet in the marketplace and Hester is again rejected by "her fellow-creatures" while Reverend Dimmesdale is still revered as a saint. However, before he dies, Dimmesdale feels that he must confess. He calls Hester and Pearl up to the scaffold on which he has taken a position. At that moment old Chillingworth hurries forward to "snatch back his victim from what he sought to do." But the minister repulses him.

"Ha, tempter! Methinks thou art too late! . . . Thy power is not what it was! With God's help, I shall escape thee now!" (Ch.23)

Hester helps the minister ascend the steps to the scaffold with Pearl's hand clasped in his. Chillingworth knows that his victim has escaped him. For the minister confesses his sin and reveals the imprint of "the ghastly miracle" upon his chest, stunning the crowd. He asks Pearl if now she will kiss him since he has confessed and she does. Then the minister dies his "death of triumphant ignominy before the people."(Ch.23) This scene furthers the themes of innocence, guilt, and sin.

How do I use my personal qualities to become a good teacher?

Without personally knowing you, this is a very tough question to answer. If I knew you, I could tailor my answer to focus on which of your personality traits could help you become a better educator.

I've been teaching for thirteen years, so I do consider myself an expert in my field; however, there is always room for improvement in my own pedagogy. I would also like to say that there is no single best mold for a teacher. Different teachers of different ages and different subjects all have different styles. What works for one teacher may or may not work for a different teacher, but I do believe all good teachers share some personality traits. I will discuss a few of those, and you can compare those to your own personal qualities.

One trait I believe is integral to being a teacher is patience. Regardless of the age group you teach, patience is going to be important. You will need patience when a class doesn't understand the lesson you are teaching. You will need patience when dealing with students who misbehave. You will need patience when dealing with parents who think they know more about how to do your job than you do.

I also believe most good teachers are creative thinkers. That doesn't necessarily mean being creative with arts, crafts, and bulletin boards. Creative thinking is necessary when a class of students flat out doesn't understand the concept you are teaching. You will need to come up with a different way of teaching the content, and what works for one class might not work for other classes. You can't possibly hope to plan out everything in advance, which is why creative thinking skills are necessary.

Third, good teachers like kids. If you don't like young people, don't be a teacher.

Fourth, good teachers know how to accept failure and shake it off. There are going to be times when you design a lesson you believe will work flawlessly, and every student will learn amazing things because of the brilliant way you designed it. Then, for one reason or another, it will all blow up in your face. Don't beat yourself up. Laugh it off and make it better.

Good teachers are honest with their students. If students catch you in a lie, you lose all credibility for a very long time. If you don't know something, it's okay to admit it.

Good teachers have a flexible attitude. There are going to be times when a lesson is going great. Kids are learning and having fun, and everything is on schedule. Then the fire alarm will ring. Everything will be thrown off, and you will have to adapt to the new situation you could not have possibly planned for in advance.

What are the three categories of resource constraints?

Strictly speaking, the resource constraints faced by a firm producing a product will vary according to the production technology. Making cars is very different from making sandwiches, and the two types of production will be subject to quite different resource constraints. But usually when thinking in terms of an individual firm, the three resources we are concerned about are capital, the machines that make the goods, labor, the people that run the machines, and raw...

But usually when thinking in terms of an individual firm, the three resources we are concerned about are capital, the machines that make the goods, labor, the people that run the machines, and raw materials, the ingredients that are fed into the machines that the goods get made out of. Different industries will require different amounts of each of these resources (compared to sandwiches, cars require much more capital and raw materials, but thanks to robots, proportionally not as much labor). In the short run, one or more resources is fixed, which constrains how much can be produced and often requires operating at less than optimal efficiency.

Another common resource constraint of many forms of production is land, or more generally natural resources; and finally sometimes you'll see financial capital listed as a resource, though really money is sufficiently different from other "resources" that it should probably be handled separately. Money can be made out of thin air; people and machines cannot.

What impact does Horovitz make through his play The Indian Wants the Bronx?

The main impact that Horovitz makes with his play The Indian Wants the Bronx is to spread awareness and also to encourage self-reflection and awareness of how one's actions and understanding, or misunderstanding, of others can cause problems. Arguably, the play is mostly about communication, and how miscommunication and misunderstanding is the root of most problems between people. Horovitz himself says that the play is about communication, and he tries to show that through the clumsy attempts at conversation that the boys share with Gupta, the Indian man who they harass on the street. This inability to communicate with Gupta eventually leads the boys to become frustrated. This frustration builds to a tragic conclusion, an act of violence committed against the Indian man, who was just attempting to visit his son.

At first, it appears that the boys' attempts at making conversation and interacting with Gupta are relatively tame. They make wisecracks but they are not ultimately cruel until they start to judge one another. It becomes clear that they have been raised in a very misogynistic, racist environment after they call each other "rotten jap" and "turkie-humper" in an attempt to one-up and pigeonhole the other person. It is this need for competition that betrays their internal strife and frustration at their own shortcomings.

In fact, this play speaks to a time when these masculine ideals and racist beliefs were not only prevalent, but expected. The boys only know how to communicate with one another in this way, and because the "Turk," as they call him, does not, they see him as the "other"—someone separate from themselves. The "other" for them is someone whom it is okay to take their anger out upon, or to lash out at with all of their internal frustration and pent-up emotion. The play exposes racism and sexism, potentially confronting audience members with their own shortcomings and forcing them to consider the impact they have on the world around them. It is especially powerful in that it allows its audience to see the situation unfolding objectively, from both the point of view of the boys and that of Gupta.

If Lance Armstrong were to be sued in a US Court for using illegal performance-enhancing drugs and perjury, should he be sued in a federal court...

If this is a question for a class, I do suggest you seek some clarification of the question. A situation in which someone would sue Lance Armstrong for the use of illicit drugs seems quite unlikely, and no one can sue another person for perjury. As you have stated this, these are both crimes. So, the question would appear to be whether Armstrong could be prosecuted in state or federal court. And the answer to that is that it depends. If Lance is in a particular state and in the United States and has violated the laws of either or both, they may both have jurisdiction, the state only may have jurisdiction, or the federal government only may have jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction lies in a criminal court and is almost irrelevant to the inquiry, since people are prosecuted only in criminal court, not in civil court.

Most criminal law is the domain of the states, but there are federal laws concerning drug use, so if there is a federal law that preempts a state law, jurisdiction would lie in a federal criminal proceeding. For example, many states now allow the use of marijuana, either medically, recreationally, or both. But federal law makes the use of marijuana a crime. So even a person in a state that allows its use can be tried in federal court in a criminal prosecution. We say that the federal law preempts the state law in a situation like this. I do not know which performance enhancing drugs Armstrong has taken and which are actually illegal. For instance, it may or may not be illegal to do an autologous blood transfusion, one performance-enhancing means athletes use, in a particular state or in the United States crimes code.

Which court system would have jurisdiction regarding perjury is a function of to whom Armstrong perjured himself. If he lied to a state official under oath, that state would have jurisdiction over him for this crime. If he lied to a Congressman or a federal marshal, the federal government would have jurisdiction over him.

You can see how little subject matter jurisdiction matters under circumstances such as these. Different courts are allowed to try different kinds of cases, so that a bankruptcy would need to be filed with the federal bankruptcy court and if I sue another person over a private contract, the federal courts are not likely to have jurisdiction. If I seek an injunction, I must file in a court of equity. But if a person is being prosecuted for a crime, he or she must, of course, be prosecuted in criminal court.

What are some quotes in Romeo and Juliet that describe the lovers' isolation from one another? I also need a quote which describes them having...

As Romeo is sneaking out of Juliet's bedroom on the morning after their wedding, Juliet has a sort of premonition that they will not see each other again for a long time. She asks Romeo if he thinks they will ever meet again, and he responds, "I doubt it not; and all these woes shall serve / For sweet discourses in our times to come" (3.5.52-53). These lines prove that he feels confident that the two will be together and that all their problems so far will actually serve as the basis for stories they will tell each other when they get old.

In this same interaction, however, Juliet says that she thinks "[she] sees [him], now [he is] so low, / As one dead in the bottom of a tomb" (3.5.55-56). She sees them, in her mind's eye, as somehow forever isolated from one another, despite Romeo's confidence. She sees him now as though he is dead, and they are separated by death (which is, of course, what will happen).

Then, when Juliet goes to the Friar's cell in a panic about her betrothal to Count Paris, she refuses to marry Paris. In fact, she is willing to die, isolated -- it seems -- from Romeo forever: "Be not so long to speak. I long to die / If what thou speak'st speak not of remedy" (4.1.67-68). She cannot abide the idea of being separated irrevocably from Romeo. In fact, at the end of the previous act, she'd said, "If all else fail, myself have power to die" (3.5.255). Juliet's isolation from Romeo and the events that befall her after he's exiled to Mantua make her rather wish for death than a life in which this isolation is continued.

What are the disadvantages of there being too much liquidity in a business?

There are very few disadvantages to liquidity per se, but in practice (and in a competitive financial market) there are downsides that more liquid assets (such as money) have over less liquid assets (such as factories).The most important one is return, or lack thereof; more liquid assets usually don't pay very much interest, and are usually not the sort of thing that directly earns revenue by itself. If you keep your wealth in cash...

The most important one is return, or lack thereof; more liquid assets usually don't pay very much interest, and are usually not the sort of thing that directly earns revenue by itself. If you keep your wealth in cash instead of investing it, you bear the opportunity cost of the return you could have made on those investments.

There are also often differences in how different assets are taxed; often more liquid assets are taxed higher than less liquid assets in an effort to incentivize investment.

In businesses specifically, excess liquidity is generally a sign that the company is being too risk-averse, and failing to invest in new ventures such as research that carry risk but can also yield great rewards. Cash is a safe asset (not perfectly safe, since there is inflation and currency exchange to worry about, but safer than most other assets), but in part because of this it actually yields a negative real return (due to inflation). Businesses often liquidate their assets and hold cash during recessions, because they fear the future; but this actually tends to exacerbate recessions by taking productive assets out of use and pulling cash out of circulation.

Wise business managers maintain a balance, keeping some liquidity in case they need it but not so much that they sacrifice the opportunity for investment returns.

Why did Henry VIII change his religion?

Until the 16th century, England was officially Roman Catholic and considered the Pope to be their religious leader. When Henry VIII, who lived from 1491 to 1547, decided he wanted to divorce his wife Catherine of Aragon, he had to ask for permission from the Pope. The Roman Catholic Church holds that marriage is for life, and only in exceptional circumstances may an annulment be granted. Because Henry wanted a divorce because Catherine was not giving birth to boys, the Pope turned down Henry's request. In 1534, Henry decided he was now the religious leader of England. With the Act of Supremacy, he established the Protestant Church of England. Though this formation was really motivated by his desire for a divorce, Henry was likely also inspired by the Protestant Reformation sweeping across mainland Europe.

In 1517, Martin Luther produced his Ninety-Five Theses, a criticism of the decadence and wrongdoings of the Roman Catholic Church. This inspired the Reformation throughout Europe, and Henry's Act of Supremacy officially brought the Protestant Reformation to England. From that point on, the culture of religion and Christianity in England was forever changed. Religious power no longer lay with some absent power; instead, it was vested in the hands of the ruling monarch.

How did the Fireside Poets influence American literature?

The Fireside Poets, a group that included Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, John Greenleaf Whittier, and other New England poets, popularized American forms of poetry. Writing in the 19th century, they produced works that made American literature even more popular than British literature in the early United States. They wrote for the common person, rather than for the literary classes, and used standard poetic forms and rhymes that made memorization and recitation of their works easy. As a result, many of their poems were used in the classroom, causing them to also be called "the schoolroom poets." For example, children used to have to memorize poems such as "Paul Revere's Ride" by Longfellow. In addition, many of the poets, such as Whittier and Longfellow, were abolitionists and used their journalistic and poetic works to speak out against slavery. An example is "The Slave's Dream" by Longfellow.

What ideas about how the advice of a parent or loved one can be a positive or negative force on an individual does Amy Tan develop in the story...

In the story "Two Kinds," Jing-Mei, the protagonist, constantly hears advice from her mother, who wants her daughter to become a prodigy of some sort. Finally, when Jing-mei thinks that she cannot live up to her mother's wishes, she has an outburst and accuses her mother of not loving her for who she is. Her mother responds:

"Who ask you to be genius?...Only ask you be your best. For you sake. You think I want...

"Who ask you to be genius?...Only ask you be your best. For you sake. You think I want you to be genius? Hnnh! What for! Who ask you!"

Her mother is telling her that she only wants her daughter to work hard--which is positive advice--but her daughter does not hear her mother's message. Instead, she thinks she has to be perfect to please her mother and gives up playing the piano until her mother dies. Then, she tries playing again, and thinks, "I played a few bars, surprised at how easily the notes came back to me." She realizes that she is actually adept at playing. She also realizes that the two songs she is playing--"Pleading Child" and "Perfectly Contented" are "two halves of the same song." In other words, she comes to know that she could've been more contented all along. She realizes in the end that her mother's advice was meant to be positive, but that she always interpreted it as negative.

How is Robert Frost's "The Road Not Taken" a metaphor for life?

Many people have interpreted Robert Frost's famous poem "The Road Not Taken" as a metaphor, or extended comparison, for life. In the poem, a man who is out taking a walk in the morning comes across a road that diverges, and he must decide which way to go. One path seems "less traveled by," although not significantly so. The man debates a long time about which way to go, knowing that he won't get a chance to try the other way once he makes his decision, and finally chooses the less traveled way. Then he imagines a point in the future when he will tell "with a sigh" that choosing the less traveled way "has made all the difference."

The process described in the poem is a lot like life. We start out in the "morning," or in our youth taking the standard path that our culture offers us. Then there comes a point where a significant choice looms ahead. It could be whether to go to college and where, or what profession to pursue, or what friends to associate with, or whom to marry. To follow the analogy of the poem, the decision is made on the basis of doing something that not everyone else has chosen. This reflects making a decision that is right for one's personal preferences and talents--not just pursuing what everyone else seems to be pursuing. In this sense, one makes an individualistic, non-conformist choice. It's a choice that can't be undone--once a person heads down a certain path in life, it's often hard, if not impossible, to go back and start over. What is the outcome, then? Later in life, the person looks back and sighs, realizing that the choice to follow his own path has "made all the difference," hopefully in a good sense--that it has produced a positive outcome and satisfaction by the time one reaches old age. Thus the poem can be interpreted as an extended metaphor for a significant decision that influences a person's life.

Towards the end of Duong Thong’s Novel Without a Name, Quan chooses not to execute an American journalist. Quan wonders why he disobeys orders he...

The fact that Quan spares the life of the American journalist indicates how disillusioned he has become with his original patriotic creed and Marxist justifications for fighting in the Vietnam War. Initially, Quan experienced bloodthirsty glee about violence, yet constant exposure to the brutality and senselessness of war has spurred an inner transformation in values; Quan transitions from an 'us versus them' mentality towards the enemy to one of universal understanding about a common humanity.

...

At the start of the novel, Quan is consumed by "hatred", "rage" and the "desire to kill", while at the end, he yearns for "the beauty of creation". The American journalist represents 'an innocent' because he is not an agent of war and is there to disseminate the truth of the situation to a wider audience. Killing him would reduce Quan to an institutional pawn of the war -- someone who blindly obeys orders without considering moral concerns from a subjective viewpoint.

Facing the role of executioner becomes a catalyst for introspection and reflection. Years earlier, Quan would have unhesitatingly carried out orders to kill the journalist because his sense of duty and belief in dogma obliterated the independent establishment of his own value system. Thus, Quan's decision to spare the journalist's life in defiance of his men's wishes represents a moment of triumph of the individual over the homogenizing mechanism of war.

How might Emily Dickinson's poem "I felt a funeral in my brain" represent women's quest for knowledge?

In her poem "I Felt a Funeral in my Brain," Dickinson describes the movements of a funeral disturbing the narrator's mind. Mourners are moving back and forth inside her head, and the service is beating "till I thought/My mind was going numb." The mourners lift a heavy box with their lead-like boots, and the heavens are ringing in her ears. Towards the end of the poem, a "plank in Reason" breaks, and she falls through...

This poem implies that reason is what keeps the mind together. It is represented by the symbol of a plank that underlies the entire mind. When this plank breaks and when reason fails, the author is left plunging without awareness of where she is heading. Therefore, this poem can be seen as her quest for knowledge and reason to keep her mind and faculties intact and to protect them against falling into chaos. Women need to have knowledge and reason to keep their minds together.

What does this mean: "Given a sizable tract in which to determine the optimum soil resistivity, some intuition is in order."

What this means is that you have an area of soil that is large enough to be mixed thoroughly, so that it can be considered uniform. In addition, the soil's resistivity means how much electrical resistance the soil loads in relation to a geometric constraint.

Where it implies "intuition is in order," what it is looking for is some intelligence on your part. You must conjure a way in your mind to determine this resistivity....

Where it implies "intuition is in order," what it is looking for is some intelligence on your part. You must conjure a way in your mind to determine this resistivity. This may mean you need to devise an experiment to determine resistivity, or if the question is a real life application rather than theoretical, ask a proper authority for data on the soil.

If you must run an experiment, you can build a rig pretty easily at home for imprecise measurements by making a small box with electric contacts at both ends, measuring the base resistance across with a multimeter, and then filling the box with soil to take another measurement. More measurements can be made to build a data set. Finally, just measure the cross sectional area and box length to calculate the resistivity from the resistance and dimensions.

Please explain the repetition used and its effect in "The Raven"?

One of the most memorable things about Poe's "The Raven" is the repetition of the word "nevermore" at the end of nearly every stanza. The bird probably only knows that one word, but it becomes a symbol of death. The constant repetition of "nevermore" make it seem that death itself is not only inescapable but even the thought of death becomes inescapable as one gets older and the fact of death becomes more and more stark. What the speaker of the poem finds most terrible about the fact of death is that it obliterates everything in eternal darkness. He asks the bird if there is any possibility that he might be reunited with his dead loved one Lenore in some afterlife, and the bird pitilessly and relentlessly repeats the same one word "as if his soul in that one word he did outpour." When any loved one dies we are likely to be haunted by the thoughts of what we should have said to them, or not said to them, while they were still alive. In the end the speaker can neither console himself with the possibility of finding "balm in Gilead" (hope in the promises of the Bible) nor forget about the question altogether. The black bird refuses to leave and has nothing more to say.

What is the subject matter and what are the themes developed in the poem "A Late Walk" by Robert Frost?

The speaker is commenting upon what he sees in the last days of autumn. The use of the adjective "late" in the title might indicate that it is late in the year as autumn approaches winter. The field has been mowed and all that is left of the garden are withered weeds, meaning the harvest has already occurred. This is more than just evidence that it is late autumn; it also suggests death and grief....

In the third stanza, the speaker watches the last brown leaf fall from a solitary tree. This is a melancholy image which clearly symbolizes death as well as the upcoming winter. In the final stanza, the speaker finds himself where he began, suggesting the cycle of life. He finds the last "faded" aster (flower) and promises to give it to an unspecified person. Perhaps he is taking the flower to someone's grave, but it is just as likely that the speaker is near death himself. In this case, the fading flower represents the speaker's own fading life as he prepares to be reunited with his lost loved one.

The end of things is a theme in this poem. Autumn signals the end of the year in nature. This is paralleled by the speaker's death and/ or the death of his unspecified "you" in the last line. Note that "you" might still be alive. If this is the case, the speaker endeavors to deliver one last flower before the speaker fades from this life. However a reader might interpret these scenarios, the idea of being reunited brightens an otherwise grim poem.

The product of two numbers X and Y is 3 less than the sum of the numbers. How many such integer pairs of X and Y are possible.

First we need to write the problem in mathematical language i.e. we need to write an equation.

Product of two numbers `xy,` sum of two numbers `x+y` and since the product is less by 3, we have

`xy=x+y-3`

Write `y` in terms of `x.`

`xy-y=x-3`

Factor the left side.

`y(x-1)=x-3`

Check whether `x=1` gives an integer solution.

`0=-2`

`x=1` does not gives us an integer solution so we can assume that `x ne1` which allows us to divide by `x-1.`

`y=(x-3)/(x-1)`

Now we know...

First we need to write the problem in mathematical language i.e. we need to write an equation.

Product of two numbers `xy,` sum of two numbers `x+y` and since the product is less by 3, we have

`xy=x+y-3`

Write `y` in terms of `x.`

`xy-y=x-3`

Factor the left side.

`y(x-1)=x-3`

Check whether `x=1` gives an integer solution.

`0=-2`

`x=1` does not gives us an integer solution so we can assume that `x ne1` which allows us to divide by `x-1.`

`y=(x-3)/(x-1)`

Now we know that in order to get an integer solution `x-3` must be divisible by `x-1,` bearing in mind that `x` is an integer as well. The only thing remaining to do is to check whether those two numbers are divisible for some values of `x.` We will start with values of `x` such that `x-1=-1` or `x-1=1` because those are certainly integers.

`x=0`

`y=(-3)/(-1)=3`

`x=-1`

`y=(-4)/(-2)=2`

`x=-2`

`y=(-5)/(-3)!inZZ`

`x=-2` is not a solution. If we keep trying with the smaller and smaller numbers we will get fractions that get closer and closer to 1, but we will never get an integer.

Let us try greater numbers. We already know that `x=1` is not a solution so we will skip that.

`x=2`

`y=-1/1=-1`

`x=3`

`y=0/2=0`

`x=4`

`y=1/3!inZZ`

Again, we see that `x=4` is not a solution and nor is any integer greater that 4.

We can conclude there are 4 such integer pair numbers and they are

`(-1,2), (0,3), (2,-1)` and `(3,0).`

What are the descriptions of social customs in Beowulf?

Beowulf depicts several social customs of its time, and one of the most significant customs is the process of gift giving. Within the world Beowulf describes, the process of giving gifts is seen as supremely important, and it is especially important to the relationships of lords or kings and their warriors. Usually, kings gave fine gifts (such as rings, armor, weapons, gold, and other treasurers) to warriors who had distinguished themselves on the battlefield or who had shown great courage in general. As such, receiving a sumptuous gift from one's lord was a sign of one's importance within society, and the more gifts a warrior had, the more important he was deemed to be. It is accordingly a great honor when Hrothgar showers Beowulf with gifts, as they function as physical proof of his prowess as a warrior and his status as a hero. Indeed, scarcely a great deed in the poem goes by without a solemn exchange of gifts between the parties involved, and so we can assume that the giving of gifts was a vital social custom at the time of the conception of Beowulf.

What overall conclusions can be drawn about the society depicted in the story "Harrison Bergeron"? [Consider how people must function and what has...

The society of Kurt Vonnegut's short story is one of forced equality, an equality that diminishes talent, intelligence, and beauty. Individuality exists no longer.

With the use of technical manipulation and the addition of three amendments to the Constitution, everyone is now "finally equal." But, it is an equality in mediocrity. For, Diana Moon Glampers, the Handicapper General to whom Hazel Bergeron bears a strong resemblance, is the standard. In fact, as Hazel talks to...

The society of Kurt Vonnegut's short story is one of forced equality, an equality that diminishes talent, intelligence, and beauty. Individuality exists no longer.

For those like George Bergeron and especially his son Harrison, as well as the pretty ballerinas, mandatory handicaps and masks serve to equalize their looks if they are prettier or their brains are keener. For instance, George must wear forty-seven pounds of bird shot around his neck. When he has certain thoughts, a twenty-one-gun salute fires in his head. The Bergeron's son, Harrison, is only fourteen, but he has been put into prison for plotting to overthrow the government. His creativity has, unfortunately, been channeled into revolutionary activities because his natural aptitudes have not been fostered. Stymied as he has been, Harrison also has to tote a plethora of handicaps.

This forced equality and oppressive prison sentence has caused Harrison to rebel. When he comes to the television station, he attempts to free the beautiful ballerina that he makes his empress. Together they "leaped like deer on the moon." Ironically, it is Diana Moon Glampers who fires a double-barreled ten-gauge shotgun, killing them, and making them equal again.

While all this occurs, the television goes off in the Bergeron home, and it blacks out whenever something happens to someone. This technology is numbing, and distracting, rather than intellectually stimulating.

What are two examples of deus ex machina in The Man who Came to Dinner by George S. Kaufman and Moss Hart?

The Latin phrase deus ex machina was originally used to describe a specific plot device used in Roman and Greek theater. Many Greek and Roman tragedy writers used this device to resolve complicated plots, which could not be resolved otherwise. Today, the same phrase is used to describe a fictional situation where we are presented with something completely unexpected but also implausible, which suddenly helps resolve the plot. The resolution usually comes in the form of a new event or character.

The first example of a deus ex machina is the arrival of Banjo. Sheridan Whiteside, up to this point, has been an insufferable tyrant to everyone around him, including his assistant Maggie. He has, in fact, broken up Maggie's relationship with Jefferson by bringing Lorraine Sheldon into the picture, a vain and superficial (albeit beautiful) actress. There is no apparent way to solve the situation, and, in any case, Whiteside appears not to care about anyone but himself, so there really would be no reason for him to suddenly become a decent human being. However, Banjo, his friend who is also a famous Hollywood comedian, pushes Whiteside to be a better person. Together, they decide to do something to eliminate Lorraine, as she now represents a big problem for Maggie's relationship.

At this point we encounter the second deus ex machina. Banjo and Whiteside decide that the best way to get rid of Lorraine is to trap her in an ancient mummy case, which conveniently has been delivered to Whiteside earlier in the story (although not for that purpose). Even more conveniently, Banjo happens to have a plane, so the next step is to put the mummy case containing Lorraine on his plane and then fly her out to Nova Scotia. As is plain to see, this is a totally implausible situation; however, it allows the plot to detangle and find its resolution.

Why is Great Expectations by Charles Dickens a bildungsroman novel?

A bildungsroman is often called a coming-of-age novel because it is usually a story about the mental and moral growth of a young person into adulthood. Great Expectations is definitely a bildungsroman because it is mainly concerned about the experiences that form Pip's character until he is twenty-three. The novel begins when he is ten years old and meets the escaped convict in the churchyard. The climax is in Chapter XXXIX when Pip is twenty-three years old and meets that same convict again. During these thirteen years, Pip has become a London gentleman. There has been some improvement in his character because he has worked assiduously to educate himself. An illiterate working boy in Chapter I, Pip now he has the manners of a gentleman. His early years as the foster son of an honest working man give him a moral foundation unknown to the typical London gentleman. Pip is the narrator of the entire novel, and it is credible he has the ability to write a novel like Great Expectations and that his extensive reading gave him taste, values, and understanding. Unfortunately, Pip's acquired understanding and sensitivity make him realize that, like many gentlemen and ladies, he has also become a fop and a parasite. He didn't mind that so much when he thought Miss Havisham was his secret patron and that he would be able to marry Estelle, but his world collapses when he finds out his patron was Abel Magwitch, the escaped convict, who supported Pip and now feels he owns him. Pip has not become a true gentleman, just Magwitch's idea of a gentleman. This discovery is part of the bildungsroman. Pip's decision to stay with Magwitch and help him escape from England is the culmination of his coming of age. In the end, Pip achieves maturity, humility, self-reliance, and an understanding of himself and humanity. One of the important things Pip finally comes to understand is that fine gentlemen and ladies are sustained by the humble working men and women of this world.

In Much Ado About Nothing, act 1, scene 1, Benedict talks about having a recheat winded in his forehead and a bugle in an invisable baldrick, and...

You're right on the money. Benedick is convinced that any woman he married would cheat on him. This would make him a cuckold, and cuckolds were indeed depicted as having horns. (Incidentally, there was another term for cuckolds in the Renaissance: wittol. The distinction is that cuckolds didn't know about the adultery, while wittols knew and tolerated it.)

Let's hit the language first, because Shakespeare's having a lot of fun here. A "recheat" is a hunting call, played on a bugle. It's sounded to call back the hounds tracking the prey. So not only is Benedick creating the image of physical horns on his forehead, the universal symbol of cuckoldry, but he's also implying that he would need to ask his wife to stop cheating on him. That would not be a fun conversation.

A baldrick is a belt that goes over one shoulder and holds something that needs carrying on the opposite hip. A hunter would hang his bugle on his baldrick. So suddenly Benedick has transformed the bugle from a metaphorical horn to a metaphorical penis. If his wife disappeared from home to hang out with other men, Benedick wouldn't have a place to stick his bugle, hem hem. It's interesting to note that by comparing women to baldricks, he might be suggesting they surround their lovers, wrap them up, and hang all over them. He's clearly not into the clingy types.

Note too that Benedick is using this whole extended metaphor to associate love with hunting ... which might give us a bit of insight into why his love life hasn't been very successful.

Now to "cuckold" itself. The work comes from "cuckoo," the bird that notoriously lays its eggs in other birds' nests so they will do the work of raising its chicks (the official term for this is "brood parasitism"). The connection is pretty obvious—the cuckold's wife is out getting impregnated by other men, so the cuckold will be stuck raising a child that's not biologically his.

The explanation behind the horns is a little harder to track down. A popular theory is that they represent deer horns. Male deer fight to establish dominance; the winner gets the girls. The cuckold, like the defeated deer, has no chance to mate. Another theory suggests that the horns hark back to Roman soldiers. Victorious soldiers were apparently given horns to wear as a symbol of their glory. But soldiers are away from home a long time, and, well, what's a girl to do while she's waiting?

A pretty wild speculation comes from the fact that, back in classical antiquity, when people castrated roosters (to make them capons—better for eating), they also cut off the roosters' spurs (back claws) and grafted them to their combs (the crests on top of their head). The poor creature would look like it was walking around with a floppy set of horns. Cuckolds, like capons, are castrated in the sense that they're not able to reproduce. No baldricks available for their bugles.

Discuss how the play Oedipus Rex is a direct reflection of Greek culture. Then use specific examples from the play to defend your answer.

The play Oedipus Rexis a reflection of Greek culture because the play asserts the importance of the fate that the gods decree and the inability of mortals to avoid that fate. Oedipus's fate is to kill his father and marry his mother, and though he tries, he cannot avoid the fate decreed to him. In the end, he realizes that the fate he tried to avoid has come true, and he wishes that he'd...

The play Oedipus Rex is a reflection of Greek culture because the play asserts the importance of the fate that the gods decree and the inability of mortals to avoid that fate. Oedipus's fate is to kill his father and marry his mother, and though he tries, he cannot avoid the fate decreed to him. In the end, he realizes that the fate he tried to avoid has come true, and he wishes that he'd been killed instead of living out his fate. He says that if he'd been killed:

"I’d not then be my father’s slayer, nor called the groom of her whence I was born. Abandoned by the gods, child of sacrilege, sharing the source of those I myself sired. Were some evil greater still than evil, his, too, would be Oedipus’ lot" (lines 1383-1388).

In the end, Oedipus recognizes that he has been cast aside by the gods and that the only way to have avoided his fate was to have died before it came true. The inevitability of the gods' decrees and the inability of mortals to avoid the fate decreed by the gods are part of Greek culture.

In addition, Oedipus's downfall is brought about by his hubris, or pride or arrogance. When he summons Tiresias, the seer, at the beginning of the play, he begs Tiresias to tell him who killed Laius, the former king. Tiresias says that Oedipus is guilty of great evil, but Oedipus foolishly disregards what the seer says. When Tiresias says that there is strength in the truth, Oedipus responds, "There is, but not for you. You don’t have this, since you are blind in your ears and mind and eyes" (lines 390-391). Oedipus arrogantly refuses to believe what Tiresias says. However, Tiresias, as a blind seer, knows and sees more than Oedipus does.

The blind seer was a reflection of Greek culture, which believed that a blind man could know more about fate and the future than a seeing man like Oedipus who is hubristic. Tiresias says to Oedipus, "You, even though you see clearly, do not see the scope of your evil, nor where you live, nor with whom you dwell" (lines 433-435). Tiresias knows that he can see more and know more as a blind man than Oedipus does, as Oedipus is a man with sight who is metaphorically blind to his own failings and to fate.

Does Squeaky's attitude change by the end of the narrative of "Raymond's Run"?

By the end of "Raymond's Run," Squeaky certainly changes her attitudes as she begins to see Raymond as a person in his own right, and she realizes that others, such as Gretchen, are not necessarily antagonistic toward her.

As she prepares to run in the May Day fifty-yard dash, Squeaky happens to notice her brother Raymond:

I see that ole Raymond is on line on the other side of the fence, bending down with his...

As she prepares to run in the May Day fifty-yard dash, Squeaky happens to notice her brother Raymond:

I see that ole Raymond is on line on the other side of the fence, bending down with his fingers on the ground just like he knew what he was doing.

The race begins, and Squeaky gives all her attention to winning; however, as she nears the finish line, she notices Raymond on the other side of the fence, running with his arms down and his palms turned up:

running in his very own style, and it’s the first time I ever saw that and I almost stop to watch my brother Raymond on his first run.

For the first time, after she crosses the finish line and wins the race, Squeaky does not celebrate her win; instead, she delights in what her brother has accomplished. She recognizes that he does, indeed, "know what he's doing." Squeaky is proud of Raymond and decides to focus on him as the winner rather than upon herself:

It occurred to me that Raymond would make a very fine runner. Doesn’t he always keep up with me...? And he surely knows how to breathe. . . if I’ve lost this race. . . or even if I’ve won, I can always retire as a runner and begin a whole new career as a coach with Raymond as my champion.

Clearly, Squeaky now perceives Raymond as a person in his own right whom she can serve, not as the brother she must protect and have as a dependent. Squeaky then looks at Gretchen and smiles, no longer considering her an adversary, but instead recognizing Gretchen's ability for the first time:

Cause she's good, no doubt about it. . . And she nods to congratulate me and then she smiles. And I smile. We stand there with this big smile of respect between us. It’s about as real a smile as girls can do.

Now, Squeaky perceives Gretchen in a positive light; in fact, she even considers asking her to help her coach Raymond. Squeaky's remarks directly contrast her earlier comments about the insincerity of smiles among girls. It is apparent that she has come to trust Gretchen, whereas before she suspected her of insincerity.

Where is the summary of Chapter 4 of Blink by Malcolm Gladwell?

If you follow the link below, you’ll find a brief summary for each chapter of Blink.

Chapter Four is titled “Paul Van Riper’s Big Victory: Creating Structure for Spontaneity.” Here Gladwell uses examples from the U.S. military, fire fighters, emergency room personnel, and even a comedy improvisation troupe to analyze how people in stressful situations make successful spur-of-the-moment or spontaneous decisions. Each one of these groups straddles a line between needing as much information as possible, and acting as quickly as feasible. The studies that Gladwell presents show that having more information at one’s fingertips can actually mean less success. Yes, a high degree of past practice is involved, and yes, using instincts that draw on that experience are key factors. But people have no time to scrutinize every piece of information on the spot. This is particularly noticeable in the examples of the military war game in the Middle East and the Cook County Hospital emergency room in Chicago. They have to go with brief details based on the whole picture. Gladwell summarizes it this way:

There are, I think, two important lessons here. The first is that truly successful decision making relies on a balance between deliberate and instinctive thinking. … The second lesson is that in good decision making, frugality matters.

In other words, less can be more.

Based on the literature concerning intervention strategies for family planning for women on Medicaid 14-65 living in poverty: Are there any...

Dehlendorf et al. (2010) (see the reference below) found that there are significant racial/ethnic and socio-economic differences in the rates of unintended pregnancies among women. This research suggests that the provision of patient-centered reproductive healthcare services can improve the ability of women from different backgrounds to make "informed choices" about their reproductive health.

In addition, the Office of Adolescent Health of the HHS (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) is looking at ways to prevent teen pregnancies, which cost the government anywhere from $9.4 to $28 billion annually (see the link below). There is evidence that expanding teens' access to Medicaid-based health services and using media to expand safe sex health campaigns can reduce teen pregnancy. The Affordable Care Act of 2010 expands healthcare services for adolescents and offers models of care and clinical training that concentrate on family planning. These models include directing healthcare providers to screen teens for sexually risky behaviors and to counsel them about these behaviors.

The CDC (Centers for Disease Control), at the link below, also has guidelines about preventing pregnancy and STDs (sexually transmitted diseases). These guidelines are based on the literature, which suggests that healthcare providers play a critical role in intervening to prevent pregnancy and STDs. Healthcare providers should screen their patients as part of the clinical interview about their sexual histories and counsel them about how to reduce sexually risky behaviors. Counseling should reflect respect and a non-judgmental attitude. The Office of Population Affairs (OPA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published "Providing Quality Family Planning Services (QFP)" in 2014 to provide guidelines about family planning care. This care provides guidance about preventing care and spacing births. See the Kaiser Family Foundation report for more details.

References:

Christine Dehlendorf, MD MAS, Maria Isabel Rodriguez, MD,Kira Levy, BA,Sonya Borrero, MD MS, and Jody Steinauer, MD MAS. Disparities in Family Planning. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Mar; 202(3): 214–220.

Kaiser Family Foundation, Women and Health Care in the Early Years of the Affordable Care Act: Key Findings from the 2013 Kaiser Women’s Health Survey, May 2014.

Kamb ML, Fishbein M, Douglas JM, Jr., et al. Project RESPECT Study Group. Efficacy of risk-reduction counseling to prevent human immunodeficiency virus and sexually transmitted diseases: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1998;280:1161–7.

What are the autobiographical elements in Shakespeare's The Tempest?

Beginning in the late 1800s, critics saw elements of Shakespeare in the character of Prospero, the sorcerer in the Tempest. Even Coleridge, in his essay on the play, mentioned this connection. Prospero is a sorcerer with a great deal of self-control, and in his magic, scholars see reflections of Shakespeare's genius for conjuring characters and plots. In addition, Prospero gives up his magic arts at the end of the play, which parallels how The...

Scholars such as Paul Beauregard also believe Prospero's character is a sign of Shakespeare's Catholicism. In the epilogue of The Tempest, Prospero says, "And my ending is despair/ Unless I be reliev'd by prayer." Beauregard sees these lines as a reflection of Shakespeare's belief in prayer to achieve salvation, which was a Catholic idea, not a Protestant one. Protestants believe in faith alone as a way to achieve salvation.

In "The Postmaster" by Tagore, what is the relationship between the postmaster and Ratan?

The relationship between the postmaster and Ratan is an emotionally imbalanced one.

The postmaster’s needs are met in his relationship with Ratan. He finds a companion even though he is isolated from others. He finds someone who helps him pass the time in Ulapur. When he is with Ratan, the postmaster is able to relive the joys of his family and his past life in Calcutta. At the same time, the postmaster benefits from Ratan’s loyalty towards him. She waits on him with extreme devotion, taking care of him when he falls ill and never leaving the front of his home. It is clear that the postmaster's needs are sufficiently met in this relationship. Ratan selflessly gave the postmaster whatever she could.

When the postmaster tells Ratan he is leaving, it is the only time she insists on reciprocity. She asks to be a part of his life in Calcutta. The dismissiveness in his response reflects how her needs were a distant second to his in their relationship. He received what he needed at the time, and now he no longer requires her because he is going “home.” Tagore illustrates a relationship where two desperate people who met in one particular moment needed one another at that instant. In this relationship, one person’s needs were met, while the other's remained unfulfilled despite giving so much. Contrasting the postmaster’s content ending with Ratan’s pathetic state of “wandering about the post office in a flood of tears” shows the relationship’s emotional imbalance.

Why do people enjoy films and books where people are hurt or their character is destroyed?

This might sound like people are quite horrible, for enjoying the misery of others, but this is a human trait. I am not sure that "enjoy," though, is always the correct word. We are deeply interested in the misery of others, and sometimes this is actual enjoyment.

First, I would say that it is consoling to us to know that others suffer, as we suffer in life from time to time. Even in fiction, there...

First, I would say that it is consoling to us to know that others suffer, as we suffer in life from time to time. Even in fiction, there is a kind of "misery loves company" dynamic.

Second, watching or reading about the suffering of others is a kind of emotional release for people. I have a friend who watches Steel Magnolias over and over again and says, "I love that movie so much. It makes me cry no matter how many times I've watched it."

Third, watching or reading about others in misery can be a learning experience, teaching us something about ourselves or something about others. I have gained insights into myself and other people through reading and movies.

Fourth, when the people who suffer in books and movies are deserving of their fates, it makes us feel like the world is a fair and orderly place. Often it seems to us that the bad are rewarded and the good are punished. A movie or book that rewards the good and punishes the bad is quite satisfying to watch.

Fifth, there is a dynamic called schadenfreude. This is experiencing satisfaction over someone else's misery. If you have ever had a really bad argument with someone, and then that someone tripped and fell, there is a little childish part of us that says "Serves you right!" and takes pleasure in the pain. I have also observed this dynamic when someone married his "mistress" and the marriage did not go well. There were those who took pleasure in that result. This dynamic can also be the result of the thought that if something bad happens to someone else, it has not happened to you. This is magical thinking. If lightning strikes someone else, it can certainly strike you, too, but nevertheless this can be our response.

Some of this makes it sound as though human beings are not very nice, but the fact is that we have a side to us that does enjoy watching suffering. The reasons are not necessarily evil, though.

What were three important things stated in the Ordinance of Nullification?

One important thing the nullification ordinance says is that in 1828 and again in 1832 Congress passed tariffs that were supposed to collect revenue from foreign imports, but in reality had a different aim, namely the:

...protection of domestic manufactures and the giving of bounties to classes and individuals engaged in particular employments, at the expense and to the injury and oppression of other classes and individuals...

The nullifiers meant that the tariffs passed by Congress were intended to protect industry by placing duties on manufactured goods imported from other countries. This meant that Americans would be more likely to purchase American manufactured goods, which were produced almost exclusively in the Northeast, and would be cheaper than foreign goods. This was considered bad for Southern planters, mostly because it had a tendency to raise prices on the goods they purchased.

A second point raised in the Ordinance was that by passing the tariffs, Congress had:

exceeded its just powers under the constitution, which confers on it no authority to afford such protection, and bath violated the true meaning and intent of the constitution, which provides for equality in imposing the burdens of taxation upon the several States and portions of the confederacy...

Here, they argued that Congress was required by the Constitution to distribute the burden of taxation equally, and that the burdens of protective tariffs were borne (if indirectly) disproportionately by the Southern states. So in passing a law so clearly benefiting the people of one region over another, they had violated the Constitution.

A third point, and the one with the most historical significance, was that in light of the alleged abuses of the tariffs, and of their supposed violation of the Constitution, South Carolina would "nullify" it, or simply refuse to allow it to be enforced within its borders:

[The tariffs] ...are null, void, and no law, nor binding upon this State, its officers or citizens; and all promises, contracts, and obligations, made or entered into, or to be made or entered into, with purpose to secure the duties imposed by said acts, and all judicial proceedings which shall be hereafter had in affirmance thereof, are and shall be held utterly null and void.

They went on to say that attempts to enforce the tariffs by force on the part of the federal government would lead South Carolinians to dissolve "their political connection with the people of other States." This threat got to the heart of the issue--South Carolina was denying the ability of the federal government to pass legislation like the tariffs, and they were asserting the right, which had been earlier explained by Vice President John C. Calhoun, to leave the Union if their right to do so was not respected. This began the Nullification Crisis of 1832-33.

In the book Jacob Have I Loved, how did the main conflict affect the ending?

In Jacob Have I Loved, the main conflict was the bitterness and jealousy that Louise felt toward her twin sister, Caroline. Caroline got more attention and praise when they were growing up. At birth, Caroline was weak and sickly, while Louise was strong. Caroline was given excellent care and attention as a baby because of this. In the story, Louise described her feelings about their birth:

I was the elder by a few minutes....

I was the elder by a few minutes. I always treasured the thought of those minutes. They represented the only time in my life when I was the center of everyone's attention. From the moment Caroline was born, she snatched it all for herself (Chapter 2).

For many years, Louise held onto bitterness toward her sister. She was envious of the praise and attention Caroline received. Caroline was fair and beautiful. She was a talented singer and often belittled Louise. When they grew up, Caroline studied music and Louise became a midwife. One evening, she delivered twins. One twin was strong, but the other was weak. She attentively cared for the weaker twin. Then she remembered the other twin. She recalled how she had been left alone at birth because she was the strong one. She called attention to the other twin because she did not want him to be alone. Though Louise cared for the sickly twin with compassion, she also made sure that the stronger twin was remembered. She told his grandmother:

"You should hold him... Hold him as much as you can. Or let his mother hold him."

What is an example of an interior monologue in The Ballad of the Sad Cafe by Carson McCullers?

An interior monologue presents the innermost thoughts of a character in a direct way (which refers to a style in which the reader can hear the thoughts of the character directly) or in an indirect way (which means in a style in which the character comments or interjects). In The Ballad of the Sad Cafe, there are several examples of direct interior monologues, such as the following about Miss Amelia:

"She closed the place completely,...

"She closed the place completely, lighted the lamps, and sat solemnly over her grits. The reason for this was not that Miss Amelia feared the snowfall. It was simply that she was unable to form an immediate opinion of this new event, and unless she knew exactly and definitely what she thought of a matter (which was nearly always the case) she preferred to ignore it" (page 57).

In this interior monologue, the reader gains access to what Miss Amelia is thinking about as the snow falls. The reader could not know all this information simply from reading about Miss Amelia's movements. Instead, the narrative gives the reader an understanding of what Miss Amelia's motivations and feelings are as she closes her cafe, sits over her grits, and thinks with uncertainty about the snowfall.

According to Montresor, what makes a perfect crime in "The Cask of Amontillado"?

Montresor feels like a crime is not the perfect crime unless you get away with it.

This story is about a man who meticulously plans and carries out another man’s murder. He gives no reason for the murder except for some unmentioned, vague “injuries” of which we get no specifics. Nonetheless, Montresor feels he has cause to murder Fortunato.

I must not only punish but punish with impunity. A wrong is unredressed when...

Montresor feels like a crime is not the perfect crime unless you get away with it.

I must not only punish but punish with impunity. A wrong is unredressed when retribution overtakes its redresser. It is equally unredressed when the avenger fails to make himself felt as such to him who has done the wrong.

Basically, what Montresor is saying here is that if he does not get away with the murder, he will have failed to achieve perfect revenge. Therefore, he plans to get Fortunato at Carnival time, when he will be drinking and feeling lighthearted. This will allow Montresor to catch him off guard. To lure Fortunato in, Montresor tells him he has a special cask of wine for him to evaluate.

Montresor’s plan is to take Fortunato into the catacombs and brick him into the wall. By the time Fortunato realizes what is happening, it is too late. At the end of the story, we learn it has been fifty years since Montresor bricked Fortunato up into the wall, and he has apparently been able to get away with it.

I hastened to make an end of my labour. I forced the last stone into its position; I plastered it up. Against the new masonry I re-erected the old rampart of bones. For the half of a century no mortal has disturbed them.

It seems Montresor did get away with it. So who is he telling the story to? Does he have a guilty conscience? What is the significance of the line “In pace requiescat” (rest in peace)? Is it intended ironically, or does Montresor feel bad? We can only speculate answers to these questions.

What is the valency of sodium, magnesium, aluminium, chlorine, oxygen, and nitrogen?

In an atom, the electrons found in the outermost energy level are called valence electrons and these participate in chemical reactions between atoms. The atomic number of an atom indicates the number of protons it has in the nucleus. In a neutral atom, there will be an equivalent number of electrons orbiting around the nucleus.

Sodium has an atomic number of 11. This means means there are 11 protons in the nucleus and 11 electrons...

Sodium has an atomic number of 11. This means means there are 11 protons in the nucleus and 11 electrons in orbitals around the nucleus. The first energy level can hold 2 electrons, the next can hold 8. Therefore, the third energy level has 1 electron which is the valence electron.

Magnesium has an atomic number of 12. Following the logic used in the previous example, there would be 2 valence electrons in the third energy level.

Aluminum has an atomic number of 13 and would have 3 valence electrons.

Chlorine has an atomic number of 17. It has 7 valence electrons.

Oxygen has an atomic number of 8. It has 6 valence electrons.

Nitrogen has an atomic number of 7. It has 5 valence electrons.

An easier way to find valence electrons is by looking at the main group numbers in the periodic table. For example, oxygen is in group 6 and it has 6 valence electrons. The second link shows the main groups of atoms and their valence electrons.

Who are the characters in Act 1 of Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing? What happens in the first act?

In Act 1 of Much Ado About Nothing, Shakespeare begins setting up the two central conflicts. The first conflict is between Prince Don Pedro and his illegitimate brother Don John. As an illegitimate brother, Don John is not entitled to the crown and is jealous of Don Pedro's position as ruler of Argon. Out of jealousy, Don John will do anything he can to overthrow his brother, even if all he can...

In Act 1 of Much Ado About Nothing, Shakespeare begins setting up the two central conflicts.

The first conflict is between Prince Don Pedro and his illegitimate brother Don John. As an illegitimate brother, Don John is not entitled to the crown and is jealous of Don Pedro's position as ruler of Argon. Out of jealousy, Don John will do anything he can to overthrow his brother, even if all he can do is disgrace his brother by tricking his brother's dear friends.

A third major character Shakespeare uses to set up the first conflict is Claudio, a prized soldier and friend of Don Pedro who has just returned from the war. In the first act, Claudio falls in love with Hero, and Don Pedro promises to woo her for him since her father is already reserving her for Don Pedro. However, upon learning of their plans, Don John makes plans of his own to sabotage the courtship by making Claudio believe Don Pedro is wooing Hero for himself.

Two more characters Shakespeare uses to develop the second major conflict in the play are Beatrice, cousin of Hero, and Benedick, another prized soldier and friend of Don Pedro. Beatrice and Benedick secretly feel more affection for each other than either one cares to admit and hide their affection behind a war of wits. Benedick even declares he hates women and promises to be a bachelor all his life. Towards the end of the opening scene, Don Pedro promises that he'll see Benedick "look pale with love" (1.1.227), a promise that leads to trickery in the second act.

What is an example of a community problem that can be solved through the scientific method?

When problem solving, knowing the scientific method can come in handy. For problems plaguing a community (parking, pool hours, neighborhood fees, recycling bins), community members can apply the scientific method to develop solutions.

The scientific method beings with a question (perhaps stemming from an existing problem). For example, a community member may notice the entire neighborhood has overflowing recycling bins on recycling pick-up day. Since recycling pick-up only happens on Mondays, the community member may ask: Do we need an additional recycling pick-up day to support the amount of recycled material in our community? To investigate this issue, the community member can apply the scientific method.

1) Ask a question: The community member began by asking, "Do we need additional recycling pick-up days to support the amount of recycled material in our community?"

2) Do background research: The community member may start to ask neighbors and other community members what their experiences are with recycling. Do they feel adequately supported by the frequency of recycling pick-ups? The community member may conduct a survey (through mail, over the phone, in person) to get answers to questions about recycling. Finally, the community member may ask leaders from other neighborhoods what their recycling pick-up frequency is.

3) Construct a hypothesis: After investigating the issue, the community member will develop a hypothesis. For example, the community member may say, "This community would be better served by a twice-weekly recycling schedule to accommodate the amount of recycled material."

4) Test hypothesis: The community member may then lobby the neighborhood to include an extra day of recycling; this process is an experiment.

5) Analyze results: The community member will then re-investigate the issue to determine if his or her hypothesis is supported in the experiment (adding another recycling day).

6) Draw conclusion: The community member will conclude that either the hypothesis was supported and the solution was appropriate or the hypothesis was not supported and the solution was not appropriate. In this step, the community member may decide the issue is solved or determine more research and experimentation is needed to solve the problems plaguing the community.

Who died in Out of the Dust?

Out of the Dust, by Karen Hesse, follows the tragic circumstances of Billie Jo Kelby, a little red-headed girl living in Dust Bowl era Oklahoma with her father, "Daddy," and pregnant mother, "Ma." The Kelby family is struggling to survive as tremendous dust storms destroy the crops of farmers in the Northwestern region of the state; even Daddy's own wheat crop, which he was able to plant by getting a loan to finance the...

After Daddy leaves a can of kerosene by the stove while Ma is making breakfast one day, Ma accidentally mistakes the flammable liquid for water and starts a fire. Ma flees the house to get Daddy's help; meanwhile, Billie Jo picks the can up and throws it out the door, trying to prevent the whole house from starting on fire. The kerosene douses Ma, who happened to be re-entering the house at that exact moment, and sets her aflame.

Billie Jo tries to put out the fire, but Ma is horrifically burned. Ma ends up going into labour a few days later and tragically dies during childbirth. Franklin, the new baby, also perishes shortly after delivery. These deaths shake Daddy and Billie Jo's world and create huge distance between the once close father and daughter.

Did Reconstruction help or hurt the South and why?

Depending on your point of view, Reconstruction can be viewed as harmful or helpful to the South. I will explain both points of view so you can then make a decision.

There are ways Reconstruction helped the South. Before the Civil War, the South’s economy was primarily agricultural. After the Civil War, the economy of the South became more diverse. New industries were built in the South. While the South still had a lot of farming, there were other kinds of jobs available as a result of Reconstruction. Another change is that the railroads expanded into the South as a result of Reconstruction. Before Reconstruction, most people traveled in the South by water. Most products were shipped by water. That changed after Reconstruction. African-Americans also got new freedoms and new rights. African-American males could vote, and some held political office. While some of these improvements were temporary, it was a step forward.

It could be argued that Reconstruction hurt the South. The South regressed after Reconstruction ended. The attitudes of many white southerners didn’t change. Many of the rights African-Americans had gained were eliminated or significantly curtailed. Reconstruction created a lot of resentment in the South. Many southerners believed that Reconstruction was forced upon them. They rebelled against the Republican Party and refused to vote for their candidates for many years. This led to the development of hate groups such as the KKK, which thrived in the South for a significant period of time. Some southerners believed the growth of industries ruined the southern way of life. The rural and relaxed atmosphere was changed to some degree by the expansion of industries into the South.

Now it is your turn to decide. Did Reconstruction help or hurt the South?

Why is Christian education a necessity in the modern age?

A Christian would likely choose Christian education because it helps strengthen the faith "triangle." The three parts of that triangle are church, home, and school. A family can effectively teach a child from a Christian perspective at home. That teaching might include Bible stories, basic tenets of faith, and behavior from a Christian perspective. Going to church will further deepen and bolster a child's faith education. He or she will be a part of the larger Christian community by attending church.

Attending a Christian school will even further integrate faith into that child's life. Church is maybe 90 minutes per week, which, if that is the only time a person spends on his or her faith every week, is not a lot of focus on faith and religion. Family time can increase that, but for at least 35-40 hours per week a child is in school, not in church or spending time with his or her Christian family. Attending a Christian school allows a child to learn the standard curriculum mandated by the state while at the same time having it taught from a Christian perspective. The faith base and standard education are woven together instead of being held separately, which public schools require.

Christian families also might choose Christian education because private, Christian education often hold students to higher standards than public schools. Consequently, test scores and college admittance rates are frequently higher for students in private, Christian schools.

Christian families also may choose Christian education because their child is more likely to be surrounded by friends and families who share the child's basic understanding of morals and behavior. This reinforces what the family teaches at home and what the church teaches on Sundays.

Churches often encourage Christian education because students educated in Christian schools are more likely to make church attendance a part of their life for their entire life. A study was done on this very concept a few years ago. It is called the Cardus Education Survey. I've attached the findings for you in the 'Sources' section below.

As for Christian education being a necessity in the modern age, I can't confidently claim it is an absolute necessity. I teach in a Christian school, and believe in all of the advantages that I wrote above. I also believe a child can receive a good education from a public school and grow up to be a strong Christian as well. If a family's goal is to teach a child that the Christian faith is all encompassing, and that faith is integral to all aspects of life and subjects, then only having the child learn about faith and God at home and in church presents the child with a lopsided Christian worldview. In that light, Christian education is necessary to educate a child about God and religion in as many aspects of his or her life as possible.

Why did Modernists use the omniscient narrator less often than their predecessors in world literature?

Narrative style changed significantly after World War I, which is considered the peak of Modernism, particularly in literature.

Eighteenth- and nineteenth-century literature is very often characterized by the presence of a third-person omniscient narrator who knows the characters' thoughts and motivations, not unlike God hovering over the narrative. When characters spoke for themselves, the print would be italicized to mark the shift from the third-person to first-person perspective. This motif tells us that, before the postwar period, readers were, perhaps, not attuned to sudden shifts in perspective when reading prose. The italicized print let them know that a character was sharing his or her thoughts.

Due to the pervasive influence of psychoanalysis after the First World War, stream of consciousness became a common narrative tool. The works of Virginia Woolf, James Joyce (particularly Ulysses), and William Faulkner are marked by stream of consciousness. This narrative device allows the author to shift suddenly from a third-person voice (if that is what the author has employed) to a first-person voice, to slip from dialogue to inner monologue, or to shift from the mind of one character into that of another.

Free-indirect discourse, another narrative device which emerged during the Modernist period, was influenced by stream of consciousness. Free-indirect discourse is a literary device which occurs in prose narratives written in the third-person omniscient voice. In the narrative, there is a sudden merging between the narrator’s voice, which is otherwise distant and observant, and that of the character who is speaking or having a thought. The narrator suddenly takes on the voice of the person or persons speaking, instituting their dialects or speech patterns. This technique may cause a bit of confusion for an inattentive reader, for the change can occur as soon as the next paragraph while, in the following paragraph, the narrator will restore the traditional third-person voice. Zora Neale Hurston's Their Eyes Were Watching God employs free-indirect discourse so that the narrator's voice can merge with that of Janie, the novel's protagonist.

Modernist literature is very much concerned with interiority -- that is, the private lives and thoughts of characters in novels. If the Victorian era was defined by determinism, the Modernist era was defined by subjectivity. The First World War shattered previously held truths, leaving much of the world in a state of existential crisis, which was reflected in literature and art. What mattered then were not the stories people had been told which described existence, but instead, the stories each of us could tell, as we experienced them.

Individual perspectives and perceptions overruled conventions. Suddenly, people's minds were revealed, even when those minds revealed thoughts that were vulgar, ignorant, or erotic. The pace of the narrative moved at the pace of life. The narrative mimicked the rapid fire of people's thoughts, which were often disjointed. Novelists became less concerned with continuity than with portraying events, ideas, and feelings as they actually occurred.