What does Bluntschli tell Major Petkoff and Sergius about the orders to be given to the officers?

You can answer this question on two levels, the explicit and the implicit. On the explicit level, Bluntschli gives them explicit instructions to tell the men that they must leave at once, and make sure the orders are delivered by the deadline. His words indicate that they should take a threatening, authoritarian tone -- make the men know that any deviance from instructions will result in corporal punishment.

BLUNTSCHLI. You had better both see the...

You can answer this question on two levels, the explicit and the implicit. On the explicit level, Bluntschli gives them explicit instructions to tell the men that they must leave at once, and make sure the orders are delivered by the deadline. His words indicate that they should take a threatening, authoritarian tone -- make the men know that any deviance from instructions will result in corporal punishment.

BLUNTSCHLI. You had better both see the fellows that are to take these. [To Sergius] Pack them off at once; and shew them that I've marked on the orders the time they should hand them in by. Tell them that if they stop to drink or tell stories--if they're five minutes late, they'll have the skin taken off their backs.

After Sergius leaves, Bluntschli also asks Petkoff to go after him and make sure the instructions get carried out.

On the implicit level, Bluntschli's words imply his criticism of the way things usually get done by these Bulgarian officers.

Bluntschli is a seasoned, pragmatic, efficient, and professional soldier. He knows from experience that messengers are liable to dally without threat of strict discipline -- perhaps especially after the declaration of peace and the demobilization of many troops. Bluntschli has seen, from observation, that Sergius is full of romantic, unrealistic notions about military matters, and so he thinks Sergius needs this practical advice. Left to his own devices, Sergius is liable to address his men as if they will discharge their orders purely out of honor and devotion to him as their noble superior.

This suspicion is corroborated by Sergius's immediate reply to Bluntschli's instructions:

SERGIUS [rising indignantly] I'll say so. And if one of them is man enough to spit in my face for insulting him, I'll buy his discharge and give him a pension. [He strides out, his humanity deeply outraged].

To Sergius, Bluntschli's approach is insulting, because it presupposes that the men aren't intrinsically motivated by honor and heroic ideals. Petkoff -- favorably impressed by Bluntschli's competence and less obsessed than Sergius with heroics -- doesn't show indignation. He also seems more open to the implicit message. Petkoff has already acknowledged that he is less adept than Bluntschli in the handling of practical military matters.

How would you explain the four chief elements of Canada's political culture: community, freedom, equality, and attitude toward and expectation...

According to Chapter 3, "Canadian Political Culture" by Stephen Brooks, in James Bickerton's book Canadian Politics(5th edition), the four crucial dimensions of Canadian politics are community, freedom, equality, and attitude towards the state (page 46). With regard to community, the author states that the "search for national identity unites successive generations of Canadians" (page 46). He believes that Canadians' constant search for a national identity helps to define the country. Canadians define their national...

According to Chapter 3, "Canadian Political Culture" by Stephen Brooks, in James Bickerton's book Canadian Politics (5th edition), the four crucial dimensions of Canadian politics are community, freedom, equality, and attitude towards the state (page 46). With regard to community, the author states that the "search for national identity unites successive generations of Canadians" (page 46). He believes that Canadians' constant search for a national identity helps to define the country. Canadians define their national identity based on a political culture rather than in an ethnic or racial way. He believes that this political culture has resulted in a modus vivendi that exists most of the time between anglophone and francophone Canadians.

Canadians' conception of freedom is different than that of Americans, in that they believe that it requires more frequent government interference with the market and with individual liberties. Canadians have a more positive conception of freedom, which requires the government to act, than a negative conception of freedom (as Americans do), which requires the government not to get involved in people's lives. Canadians also support equality to a greater extent than Americans do, including a publicly funded healthcare system. Canadians support government intervention to make their society more egalitarian. Canadians value equality of results, while Americans tend to value equality of opportunity. Finally, as mentioned earlier, Canadians tend to expect more government intervention and help than Americans do. The Canadian government is more active in wealth redistribution than the American government is, and it also provides more social services and collects a higher percentage of people's income as taxes than does the government in the U.S. 

In "Those Winter Sundays" by Sheffey, how does the speaker convey his feelings so powerfully to the reader?

In "Those Winter Sundays," the poet, Robert Hayden, conveys his meaning to the reader using various devices. For example, he uses auditory images, such as the "the cold splintering, breaking." The auditory details capture the sound of the fire and emphasize the way the fire that the father creates warms up the cold house. The author also uses repetition, such as "What did I know, what did I know," in the second-to-last line of the...

In "Those Winter Sundays," the poet, Robert Hayden, conveys his meaning to the reader using various devices. For example, he uses auditory images, such as the "the cold splintering, breaking." The auditory details capture the sound of the fire and emphasize the way the fire that the father creates warms up the cold house. The author also uses repetition, such as "What did I know, what did I know," in the second-to-last line of the poem, which also emphasizes how little the author understood the ways in which the father sacrificed his comfort for his family. In addition, the author uses word choice, such as "blueblack cold" and "cracked hands." The author creates the new word "blueblack" to refer to that time between darkness and daylight, when it is very cold in winter. The author uses carefully chosen words such as "cracked" to give the reader an image of how hard the father works. 

In Maniac Magee, what is the relationship between Maniac and Grayson?

A standard way to answer this question is going to say that the relationship between Maniac and Grayson is a father and son type relationship.  Maniac has run away from home, and he is searching for some kind of family.  Grayson, for a short time, fills that role.  He takes Maniac in and acts as a supporting father should.  At times Grayson is a caretaker, and other times Grayson is a friend to Maniac.  Maniac...

A standard way to answer this question is going to say that the relationship between Maniac and Grayson is a father and son type relationship.  Maniac has run away from home, and he is searching for some kind of family.  Grayson, for a short time, fills that role.  He takes Maniac in and acts as a supporting father should.  At times Grayson is a caretaker, and other times Grayson is a friend to Maniac.  Maniac in turn sees Grayson as an authority figure.  Additionally, Maniac sees Grayson as a source of fatherly wisdom about life in general.  

The relationship does change at one point though to become a teacher and student relationship.  That occurs when Maniac decides to teach Grayson how to read.  I believe that Grayson and Maniac are practically made for each other, which is why it is so sad that Grayson dies.  

Is the US health care system a right or a privilege? Which should it be?

In the United States, people have drastically different opinions as to whether health care should be a right or a privilege, particularly around and since the passing of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). While no one can make someone agree with them, it is important to know about the two different major beliefs, and why people hold them.

1) Health care is a right: Those who believe health care is a right believe it is...

In the United States, people have drastically different opinions as to whether health care should be a right or a privilege, particularly around and since the passing of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). While no one can make someone agree with them, it is important to know about the two different major beliefs, and why people hold them.

1) Health care is a right: Those who believe health care is a right believe it is morally unjust that a person's ability to live a healthy and full life should be restricted by their income. Those who believe health care is a right argue that, while it is normal for rich people to have more than poor people, this should not be the case when it comes to basic necessities for existence. It is unethical and unjust for poor people to suffer just because they cannot afford health insurance. They argue providing health care for all is a part of the social contract all Americans participate in, just as much as providing roads or schools. We do not prevent the poor from driving on our roads or using fire and police services; it is not right that we have historically kept them from health care using the "free market" as an excuse.

Proponents of this position also point out that the vast majority of developed, first-world nations provide universal health care. The US is one of the very few developed nations that does not. In fact, countries that are otherwise known for having very poor human rights, such as Cuba and Saudi Arabia, still offer universal health care. 

2) Health care is a privilege: Proponents of this position feel that because health care is not included in the Bill of Rights or any part of the Constitution, it cannot be counted as an American right. In the US, health care is typically linked to employment, and this group feels health care is something you should get if you either contribute to society through work or if you are so disabled or young that you absolutely cannot work (even then, some feel children/ the elderly/ people with disabilities should be covered by means other than taxpayer-funded health care). This group argues that we do not fund many things through taxes, and that health care should remain one of them; it is a personal expenditure. In other words, it is part of the individual's contract with the free market, rather than a broader societal contract.

People who hold this position often contend that the American free market has driven us to have better health care than countries with universal insurance. They cite long wait times in countries with socialized medicine and claim that better doctors are available in the US because our approach allows us to pay doctors more. It is, however, important to note that the US can also be very uneven in service delivery, and there are areas or specialties in the US that also offer long wait times or poorer care.

Why did nature play such an important role in Helen's education?

Helen Keller had an interest in nature even as a toddler.  She loved to be out in nature.  It brought her both comfort and joy.  When learning, the study of nature was a topic of special interest to her.  She was especially drawn to science and geography for this reason.  Before she lost her sight and hearing, she enjoyed observing nature.  Helen recalled a memory from when she was one year old.  One day, she...

Helen Keller had an interest in nature even as a toddler.  She loved to be out in nature.  It brought her both comfort and joy.  When learning, the study of nature was a topic of special interest to her.  She was especially drawn to science and geography for this reason.  Before she lost her sight and hearing, she enjoyed observing nature.  Helen recalled a memory from when she was one year old.  One day, she was "attracted by the flickering shadows of leaves that danced in the sunlight on the smooth floor" (The Story of My Life, Chapter I).  After Helen became deaf and blind, she found solace in nature.  Her senses of smell and touch let her enjoy the beauty of nature.  When Helen was frustrated, she ran to the garden.  She especially loved the flowers there.

After Miss Sullivan came and taught Helen how to communicate, she began teaching her young pupil about nature.  Miss Sullivan took Helen to the river, where she finger spelled lessons into her palm.  The teacher taught her student everything about nature, from the rain to the sun to the animals.  Miss Sullivan taught Helen to appreciate the beauty of nature in new ways.  

One day, Helen was caught alone in a fierce storm.  She felt the air grow cold and she smelled a change in the air.  As the wind picked up speed, Helen hung onto a tree branch.  This experience taught her that nature could be dangerous.

Helen had a special interest in the study of physical geography.  She enjoyed learning about mountains, rivers, and other physical geographic features.  Helen found it to be "a joy to learn the secrets of nature" (The Story of My Life, Chapter XVII).

What does the message "MEDDLE AT YOUR PERIL!" mean, found in Avi's The Man Who Was Poe?

In chapter 4, Edgar Allan Poe, going by the name of Mr. Dupin, finds a note has been slipped into Edmund's tenement flat. The note is intended for Mr. Dupin and reads "MEDDLE AT YOUR PERIL!" (p. 39). To meddle is to interfere. The word peril means the same thing as the word danger and is used to refer to anything that can cause any form of serious injury or even death. Therefore, the message...

In chapter 4, Edgar Allan Poe, going by the name of Mr. Dupin, finds a note has been slipped into Edmund's tenement flat. The note is intended for Mr. Dupin and reads "MEDDLE AT YOUR PERIL!" (p. 39). To meddle is to interfere. The word peril means the same thing as the word danger and is used to refer to anything that can cause any form of serious injury or even death. Therefore, the message is warning Dupin that his interference could cost him serious injury or death. Later, Poe figures out exactly who had delivered the message and why.

By chapter 16, Edmund and Poe see a bill posted in the saloon that offers a financial reward to any person who has information on the whereabouts of Mrs. G. Rachett, Edmund's mother, and Poe figures out that Edmund's Aunty Pru posted the notice as soon as she reached Providence in search of Edmund's mother. Poe then figures out that Mr. Throck, a policeman of the Providence Night Watch, wrote the message because he is interested in solving the case himself he knows Poe is working on because Throck wants the reward money involved. Soon enough, Throck confesses to having written the warning message to Poe because Throck had been working with Edmund's aunt, up until she had been found dead at the docks, to find Mrs. Ratchett and still hopes to earn the reward money.