With a 0.5 M solution: How many moles of NaCl would there be in 1,000 ml?

I believe your question is meant to ask how many grams of NaCl would be needed to make a 0.5 M solution in 1,000 ml; if not, please message me.

By definition, you already know how many moles, because it is part of your question-- 0.5, or 1/2 mole. A 1 molar solution of a substance means one molecular weight of molecules in 1 liter, usually of water. One liter is equal to 1,000 milliliters,...

I believe your question is meant to ask how many grams of NaCl would be needed to make a 0.5 M solution in 1,000 ml; if not, please message me.

By definition, you already know how many moles, because it is part of your question-- 0.5, or 1/2 mole. A 1 molar solution of a substance means one molecular weight of molecules in 1 liter, usually of water. One liter is equal to 1,000 milliliters, so we also have your final volume. A mole of a compound such as NaCl (salt) is defined as the sum of the molecular weights of each component (in grams) as we find on the Periodic Table. The molecular weight of NaCl is 58.44 grams. If we added that amount, it would be a one molar solution, but we want 1/2 molar. One half of 58.44g is 29.22 g. This is the amount of NaCl needed to make a 0.5 M solution. 

As a side note, when you make such a solution in labs, you would dissolve your salt in a bit less than 1,000 ml to start with. After the salt dissolves, you would bring the amount up to exactly 1,000 ml.

Who is Old Major in Animal Farm ?

Old Major is the oldest pig, a "prize Middle White boar" on Manor Farm. He is described as  

...twelve years old and had lately grown rather stout, but he was still a majestic looking pig, with a wise and benevolent appearance in spite of the fact that his tushes had never been cut (4). 

Most important, Old Major is the ideological inspiration for the animals' revolution and the formation of Animal Farm. His speech to...

Old Major is the oldest pig, a "prize Middle White boar" on Manor Farm. He is described as  

...twelve years old and had lately grown rather stout, but he was still a majestic looking pig, with a wise and benevolent appearance in spite of the fact that his tushes had never been cut (4). 

Most important, Old Major is the ideological inspiration for the animals' revolution and the formation of Animal Farm. His speech to an assembly of all the animals in Chapter One makes the animals understand that they are exploited on the farm, that Jones views them only as commodities to be used up and discarded. "The whole of our labor," he tells the animals, "is stolen from us by human beings" (7). Men were the enemy, he told them, and only by overthrowing Man could the animals ever be free. He went on to teach the animals a song, "Beasts of England" that would become the anthem of Animal Farm, at least until the pigs banned it. Old Major died soon after his speech, but it would become a founding moment on the road to overthrowing the humans and establishing what they hoped would be an ideal society of animals. 

It is important to understand that Animal Farm is meant to be an allegory of the Russian Revolution and the establishment of the Soviet Union. In this context, Old Major should recall the revolutionary writings of Karl Marx, whose writings, particularly the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital, are echoed in animal form in Old Major's speech. Like Old Major, Marx was long dead when the Russian Revolution broke out, and the course of events in the Soviet Union was far from what he had envisioned.

Why was Frankenstein in the Arctic?

Victor Frankenstein begins the story (which is actually near the end of the story, chronologically) in the Arctic because he has chased the "daemon" to whom he gave life there.  One day, when their ship was hemmed in by ice, Captain Walton and his men saw a dog sled in the distance, going north, and driven by something that looked like a man except that it was very much larger. 

The next day, when the...

Victor Frankenstein begins the story (which is actually near the end of the story, chronologically) in the Arctic because he has chased the "daemon" to whom he gave life there.  One day, when their ship was hemmed in by ice, Captain Walton and his men saw a dog sled in the distance, going north, and driven by something that looked like a man except that it was very much larger. 

The next day, when the ice has begun to break up, a man who we later find out is Victor has floated up to the ship on a piece of ice.  Although he only has one living dog remaining to pull his sled, and despite the fact that "His limbs were nearly frozen, and his body dreadfully emaciated by fatigue and suffering," he will not come aboard the ship until he knows which way they sail.  Despite the fact that he would certainly die on the ice, alone, he will only get on the boat if it is going in the same direction as the creature, who he intends to pursue until one or both of them are dead.  Once he learns that they travel "towards the northern pole," he is then willing to come aboard.

This is why he's in the Arctic, to seek revenge on the daemon who killed almost everyone he ever loved.

What's an example of an anecdote from "Self-Reliance"?

Firstly, I think you will find an anecdote much easier if you understand what exactly that is. An anecdote is usually an interesting short story, sometimes humorous, about a person or incident. It is used to engage readers as well as illustrate a point. For example, take a look at the passage below from Emerson’s essay:

I remember an answer which when quite young I was prompted to make to a valued adviser, who was...

Firstly, I think you will find an anecdote much easier if you understand what exactly that is. An anecdote is usually an interesting short story, sometimes humorous, about a person or incident. It is used to engage readers as well as illustrate a point. For example, take a look at the passage below from Emerson’s essay:

I remember an answer which when quite young I was prompted to make to a valued adviser, who was wont to importune me with the dear old doctrines of the church. On my saying, What have I to do with the sacredness of traditions, if I live wholly from within? my friend suggested, — "But these impulses may be from below, not from above." I replied, "They do not seem to me to be such; but if I am the Devil's child, I will live then from the Devil." (“Self-Reliance”, Ralph Waldo Emerson)

One of the key phrases here is “I remember” which draws your attention to Emerson telling a story about himself as a young boy. Emerson uses some humor in stating that he is the “Devil’s child.” Essentially, he is using this anecdote to further the purpose of his essay; that is, to rely on your self as the title suggests. Emerson is attempting to explain, by using an anecdote, that even if he were the Devil’s child, he would still embrace his identity and opinions as an individual while encouraging his readers to do the same. Nothing could ever convince him to change or rely on someone, or something, other than himself. Anecdotes usually work as a very effective method of persuasion.

Why do you think the Jeweller is dissatisfied with his life?

In the short story “The Duchess and the Jeweller” by Virginia Woolf, the Jeweller is a dissatisfied with a life that includes the finest material things, servants, and a burgeoning jewelry business. But why? Oliver Bacon’s story includes flashbacks to his life as a poor, small boy when his mother constantly berated him to use common sense and to make something of himself. He becomes the richest, most respected jeweler in London who has admirers...

In the short story “The Duchess and the Jeweller” by Virginia Woolf, the Jeweller is a dissatisfied with a life that includes the finest material things, servants, and a burgeoning jewelry business. But why? Oliver Bacon’s story includes flashbacks to his life as a poor, small boy when his mother constantly berated him to use common sense and to make something of himself. He becomes the richest, most respected jeweler in London who has admirers in the business all over Europe. What he does not have is someone to love, someone to share the fruits of his labor with. He is in love with the daughter of the Duchess of Lambourne and he sells his soul to be with her by giving the Duchess money to pay her gambling debts by buying fake pearls from her. Again, he has a flashback to his mother as he stands before her portrait. He justifies his actions by telling himself he will get to spend a weekend with Diana, the daughter of the Duchess, and other aristocrats that will be in attendance.

How did the founders embed the principles of the Constitution?

The Founding Fathers have embedded the principles of the Constitution. There were ways these principles were firmly put into the document. The concepts of separation of powers and checks and balances are intertwined throughout the Constitution. The Constitution goes to great lengths to specify that each branch of government has a different job to do than the other branches of government. They wanted to prevent any branch from getting too much power.

The Founding Fathers also wanted to be sure that no branch of government had too much power. Besides giving each branch a different job to do, the Founding Fathers gave each branch of government the power to limit the actions of other branches. For example, while Congress passes laws, the President can reject or veto them. Congress, however, can override the veto.

The Founding Fathers wanted it to be clear that the federal government and the federal laws take priority over the state government and the state laws. For example, statement governments can’t pass laws that go against federal laws. They also made it clear that the government gets its power from the people.

What is one incident, action, or piece of dialogue that confirms a character is a subjective character in Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird?

When asking about a subjective character, you might be referring to the "subjective character of experience," which is a psychology term coined by psychologist Thomas Nagel in his very influential paper titled "What is it Like to Be a Bat?" Through using the term, he argues that all conscious beings see their environment differently, and it is possible to speak of that beings own subjective view and experience of his/her own environment. All characters in Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird see their environment subjectively, with the exception of Atticus, who always strives to see things from others' points of view. Eventually, other characters learn from Atticus about how to see from others' perspectives.

One good example of a character who only sees from a subjective view is Aunt Alexandra. Unlike her brother Atticus, Alexandra is very stuck in her ways. In particular, she has very old-school views about what society should value. She sees the Finches as very important members of society because they have a long history of being wealthy, educated landowners. As a result of her views, she attempts to get her brother to raise his children to believe their family is special. When she first moves into the Finch household to help Atticus raise his children, at her prompting, Atticus goes into Jem's room to make the following speech to his children:

Your aunt has asked me to try and impress upon you and Jean Louise that you are not from run-of-the-mill people, that you are the product of several generations' gentle breeding-- ... and that you should try to live up to your name-- (Ch. 13)

However, when Scout breaks down in tears, Atticus recants. He implies that he doesn't agree with his sister's view of what is important and tells his children to forget what he had said, to forget about the importance of behaving like a Finch.

Since Aunt Alexandra sees herself and the Finch family as very special, she looks down her nose at others, especially African Americans and farmers. She refuses to understand Atticus's desires to treat Calpurnia as one of the family and even to understand why he is defending Tom Robinson. In addition, when Scout says she wants to invite her schoolmate Walter Cunningham home for lunch once school starts up again, Aunt Alexandra refuses to permit it; she even stoops so low as to say, "[H]e--is--trash," which angers Scout to the point of tears and shows us that Aunt Alexandra is unable to see her environment from any perspective but her own (Ch. 23).

Why was Thomas Jefferson's authorization of the Louisiana Purchase controversial?

Thomas Jefferson’s authorization of the Louisiana Purchase was controversial. The decision was a hard one for Jefferson to make, even though, to many people, it seemed like the obvious decision was to buy the land that was being offered to us by France.

The Louisiana Purchase would have doubled the size of the country if we made the purchase. It would have given us control of the Mississippi River as well as the port at...

Thomas Jefferson’s authorization of the Louisiana Purchase was controversial. The decision was a hard one for Jefferson to make, even though, to many people, it seemed like the obvious decision was to buy the land that was being offered to us by France.

The Louisiana Purchase would have doubled the size of the country if we made the purchase. It would have given us control of the Mississippi River as well as the port at New Orleans. The Mississippi River and the port of New Orleans were essential for western farmers and for our western trade. The farmers depended on the river and the port to get their products to market. It seemed like it was an obvious decision to buy the land.

However, the Constitution said nothing about the President having the authority to buy land. Those who believed in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, including Thomas Jefferson himself, believed we can only do what the Constitution specifically says we can do. Thus, a person who interpreted the Constitution in a strict manner felt it wasn’t possible to make the land purchase because the Constitution didn’t specifically say the President could buy land. Thus, for some people, the decision to buy this land was very controversial. Fortunately, the President was persuaded to buy the land, and the United States doubled its size for $15 million.

What is a good quote that shows how Aunt Alexandra pressures Scout to follow gender norms?

"I could not possibly hope to be a lady if I wore breeches; when I said I could do nothing in a dress, she said I wasn't supposed to be doing things that required pants." (Lee 108)

Aunt Alexandra pressures Scout to be a "Southern Bell" by condemning her for wearing "breeches." Alexandra is constantly making Scout aware of her unladylike appearance and attitude. Aunt Alexandra is the quintessential Southern lady who values social affairs...

"I could not possibly hope to be a lady if I wore breeches; when I said I could do nothing in a dress, she said I wasn't supposed to be doing things that required pants." (Lee 108)

Aunt Alexandra pressures Scout to be a "Southern Bell" by condemning her for wearing "breeches." Alexandra is constantly making Scout aware of her unladylike appearance and attitude. Aunt Alexandra is the quintessential Southern lady who values social affairs and feminity. According to Aunt Alexandra, Scout needs to stop wearing overalls and begin to wear dresses like a stereotypical Southern female. Alexandra supports the idea that females should only partake in certain activities and views Scout with contempt for her "tomboyish" ways. Southern females were expected to be docile, religiously pious, well-mannered individuals who remained indoors and isolated from physical activities. Scout is the polar opposite of a meek, socially conscious Southern female. Scout is a rough young girl who enjoys fighting and playing outdoor games. Scout's father allowed her to play with the boys her entire life, and Aunt Alexandra takes on the task of transforming Scout into a "proper" lady.

Which chemical property could cause something to catch on fire?

Properties of matter are things that you can observe about matter. By describing the properties of different substances, you can distinguish them from one another. 

There are two types of properties of matter:

• 
  Physical Properties: When you observe or measure the physical properties of a substance, you are observing properties that do not change the substance itself. For example, when the color of a substance changes, this does not necessarily represent a chemical change. The...

Properties of matter are things that you can observe about matter. By describing the properties of different substances, you can distinguish them from one another. 

There are two types of properties of matter:

• 
  Physical Properties: When you observe or measure the physical properties of a substance, you are observing properties that do not change the substance itself. For example, when the color of a substance changes, this does not necessarily represent a chemical change. The substance itself is of the same composition. Examples of physical properties: density, mass, volume, color, conductivity.

• 
  Chemical Properties: When you observe or measure the chemical properties of a substance, you are observing properties that change the substance itself. For example, in order to observe the chemical property of reactivity, you have to observe the substance undergoing a chemical reaction. When a substance undergoes a chemical reaction, it becomes a different substance. Examples of chemical properties: reactivity, flammability.

Flammability is the chemical property that determines whether something will burn or catch on fire. Flammability is a chemical property because in order to observe flammability, you have to observe the substance undergoing a chemical change. 

What is Manley Pointer's motive for humiliating Hulga?

Manley Pointer evidently has a fetish for objects related to disability, specifically for parts which have been tooled to replace what has been lost. He has a compunction to collect such objects from those who have become dependent on them. He tells Hulga as much:

 I've gotten a lot of interesting things, he said. One time I got a woman's glass eye this way.

Manley sees Hulga's leg as a piece he can add to his collection, and he seems to have deliberately targeted her when he noticed her disability. It appears that his primary motive was to get hold of her leg all along. Also, it seems as if he resents Hulga's belief that she is more intelligent than him and that she looks down on him.

Furthermore, it becomes evident that he also wants to corrupt Hulga because he takes out whiskey, playing cards with dirty illustrations on them, and a blue box that might contain condoms. The fact that he has them hidden in a Bible indicates the depth of his perversion. It is ironic that he wants to corrupt Hulga because she had the same idea earlier; she had been thinking about seducing him. He assumes complete control once he removes her leg and places it out of her reach.

Manley perceives Hulga's question about him being "good country people" as an insult and states that her belief about him does not make her any better than him. 

But it ain't held me back none. I'm as good as you any day in the week.

Manley believes that he is better than Hulga because he has easily misled her. He becomes angry that she dare insinuate that he is a Christian. He sees the act of believing in religion as nonsense. He venomously declares:

I may sell Bibles but I know which end is up and I wasn't born yesterday and I know where I'm going!" 

He eventually tells Hulga that she is not that smart and that he has not believed in anything since he was born. When he leaves Hulga helpless, it is apparent that he thinks that she deserves being humiliated because of her supercilious attitude towards him. It becomes clear that his manipulation gives him a sense of power and achievement.

In "The Sniper," examine how the sniper feels upon first realizing that he has killed his enemy.

Upon first realizing that the sniper has killed his enemy, he shows excitement.

O'Flaherty describes the sniper with a driving focus when he starts his mission.  This can be seen in the story's opening as the sniper possesses "the cold gleam of a fanatic."  The sniper's physical appearance is described as "thin and ascetic," communicating an almost- spiritual commitment to his mission. 

The sniper's purpose is recognized when he shoots and hits his target. He "uttered...

Upon first realizing that the sniper has killed his enemy, he shows excitement.

O'Flaherty describes the sniper with a driving focus when he starts his mission.  This can be seen in the story's opening as the sniper possesses "the cold gleam of a fanatic."  The sniper's physical appearance is described as "thin and ascetic," communicating an almost- spiritual commitment to his mission. 

The sniper's purpose is recognized when he shoots and hits his target. He "uttered a cry of joy."  When the sniper first realizes that he has killed his enemy, he is happy that he has accomplished the job that he set out to do. However, O'Flaherty is deliberate in suggesting something more to the sniper. The sniper begins to realize the full implications of what he has done.  When the sniper is forced to think about killing his enemy, "the lust of battle died in him." His initial excitement is replaced by "remourse," as "sweat stood out in beads on his forehead."  What was once happiness is now replaced with the sniper "cursing the war, cursing himself, cursing everybody."  These details help to offset the sniper's initial feelings of happiness and enthusiasm that he felt upon first realizing that he killed his enemy.

What is the mood of Eyes on the Prize?

An inspirational mood defines Eyes on the Prize.

The mood in a work of literature is the emotional atmosphere of a given work. The struggle that surrounds Eyes on the Prize can be seen as very depressing but also creates inspired feelings.

The brutality of Emmett Till, the physical suffering of those who marched in Selma, and the hatred so many white people displayed towards African-Americans are painful to witness.  However, Eyes on the Prize...

An inspirational mood defines Eyes on the Prize.

The mood in a work of literature is the emotional atmosphere of a given work. The struggle that surrounds Eyes on the Prize can be seen as very depressing but also creates inspired feelings.

The brutality of Emmett Till, the physical suffering of those who marched in Selma, and the hatred so many white people displayed towards African-Americans are painful to witness.  However, Eyes on the Prize is successful as a work of literature because it triggers a change within the reader.  I think that its inspirational mood moves a modern audience because of its articulation of the depth the Civil Rights Struggle.  For every example of savage cruelty, a counter-response of resistance is evident.  Dr. King's boycotts and the speeches by leaders like Malcolm X and Stokely Carmichael are examples of how injustice can be met with determination to overcome it. 

An inspirational mood is felt because the reader realizes how many people struggled and fought for the rights that so many enjoy today.  It is understood that the march towards equality and acceptance are campaigns that must continue to be waged today.  The mere title of "Eyes on the Prize" comes from a gospel song that calls out for people to persevere in the face of obstacles.  This ignites feelings of inspiration because it allows us to understand that our purpose is not to accept injustice but rather battle through it.

In "The Most Dangerous Game", how does General Zaroff get his game to hunt?

After Rainsford hears of General Zaroff’s game, he is horrified.  He calls the general a murderer. The general considers the hunt a very civilized game.  He tells Rainsford,

“Dear me, what a righteous young man you are! I assure you that I do not do the thing you suggest.  That would be barbarous.” (pg 6)

He very carefully outlines for Rainsford how the game is played.  He traps the sailors with the use of lights...

After Rainsford hears of General Zaroff’s game, he is horrified.  He calls the general a murderer. The general considers the hunt a very civilized game.  He tells Rainsford,

“Dear me, what a righteous young man you are! I assure you that I do not do the thing you suggest.  That would be barbarous.” (pg 6)

He very carefully outlines for Rainsford how the game is played.  He traps the sailors with the use of lights that indicate a channel where no channel exists.  There are only jagged rocks.  The ships crash, and Zaroff takes the men and imprisons them in his cellar.  He still thinks he is civilized when he says,

“I treat these visitors with every consideration.  They get plenty of good food and exercise.  They get into splendid physical condition.  You shall see for yourself tomorrow.” (pg 6)

Zaroff then tells Rainsford about his training school.  Once they are trained, Zaroff “suggests” to one of them that they go hunting. 

“I give him a supply of food and an excellent hunting knife.  I give him three hours’ start.  I am to follow, armed only with a pistol of the smallest caliber and range.  If the quarry eludes me for three whole days, he wins the game.  If I find him…… he loses. “ (pg 6)

Rainsford asks two questions at this time.  First, what if the man wins?  He is told that it has never happened.  One almost won, but the general brought out his dogs, and that was the end of that hunt.  Secondly, Rainsford wants to know what happens if the person refuses to hunt.  Zaroff explains,

“I give him his option, of course.  He need not play that game if he doesn’t wish to.  If he does not wish to hunt, I turn him over to Ivan.  Ivan once had the honor of serving as official knouter to the Great White Czar, and he had his own ideas of sport.  Invariably, Mr. Rainsford, invariably they choose the hunt.” (pg 6)

A knout was a whip used in Russia.  So Ivan had been the person who whipped people for the Great White Czar of Russia.  The candidates for the game would prefer to handle their own fate against Zaroff than be whipped to death.  Zaroff felt he was giving them a fair choice. 

The desire for the Glorious Revolution came from England’s response to the absolute rule of which monarch?

The Glorious Revolution of 1688 occurred after English supporters of Parliament solicited the aid of William III (William of Orange) to overthrow James II. The English Civil War, which was fought between 1642 and 1651, established the conflict of the Glorious Revolution. Charles I sparked the Civil War after attempting to diminish parliamentary power and revert the Church of England to Catholic practices. After the Civil War, Charles II was put into power. He agreed...

The Glorious Revolution of 1688 occurred after English supporters of Parliament solicited the aid of William III (William of Orange) to overthrow James II. The English Civil War, which was fought between 1642 and 1651, established the conflict of the Glorious Revolution. Charles I sparked the Civil War after attempting to diminish parliamentary power and revert the Church of England to Catholic practices. After the Civil War, Charles II was put into power. He agreed to limited powers, but he died without an heir in 1685. His brother, James II, took the throne of England and Ireland. James II made it clear that he would return to the ways of Charles I by using monarchal power to invalidate the laws of Parliament. In short time, Parliament rose up against James II.

How does Jackson start to foreshadow the ending in paragraphs 2 and 3 of "The Lottery"?

Only with the benefit of hindsight does the second paragraph of Shirley Jackson’s short story “The Lottery” suggest the dark, macabre climax yet to come. As readers of Jackson’s story know, the “lottery” of the title, the details of which comprise much of the narrative, is an annual ritual whose origins remain murky. The town’s leading proponent of the tradition, Old Man Warner, references the genesis of the proceedings as being somehow linked to the...

Only with the benefit of hindsight does the second paragraph of Shirley Jackson’s short story “The Lottery” suggest the dark, macabre climax yet to come. As readers of Jackson’s story know, the “lottery” of the title, the details of which comprise much of the narrative, is an annual ritual whose origins remain murky. The town’s leading proponent of the tradition, Old Man Warner, references the genesis of the proceedings as being somehow linked to the farming season (“Used to be a saying about 'Lottery in June, corn be heavy soon’”). It is clear, however, that whatever the original purpose of the lottery, its importance now lies primarily in its mere existence. The town has held the lottery every year for generations, and no one dares speak out against it now, lest he or she risk the wrath of the citizenry.

If there is a passage in the second paragraph of “The Lottery” that suggests foreboding, it would be the description of one of the assembled children, Bobby Martin, having “already stuffed his pockets full of stones” while other boys similarly set about finding the “smoothest and roundest stones.” We know that the town’s boys are ritualistically collecting rocks, although we still do not understand why.

The discussion of stones in paragraph two only begins to assume greater importance with the subtle but distinctive reference in the third paragraph to the subdued mood with which the adults are responding to each other’s attempts at humor:

 Soon the men began to gather. Surveying their own children, speaking of planting and rain, tractors and taxes. They stood together, away from the pile of stones in the corner, and their jokes were quiet and they smiled rather than laughed.

The repeated references to piles of stones in these two paragraphs is clearly intended to convey a sense of their importance. What makes this passage especially significant, however, is the description of the adults’ reaction to jokes that “were quiet” and that elicited smiles rather than laughter. This passage injects into the narrative an element of tension previously absent. It presages the further development of Jackson’s theme by describing a palpable sense of unease among the assembled parents.

How can we convert ethane to ethanoic acid?

Ethane can be converted to ethanoic acid or acetic acid by catalytic oxidation. There are a number of ways, depending upon the catalyst, to achieve this conversion. The commonly used catalysts for this conversion include, protonated pentasil-type zeolite (or, H-ZSM-5), Fe/ZSM-5, `MoV_(0.25)Nb_(0.12)Pd_(0.0005)O_x` , etc. 

These catalysts require a high temperature and high pressure for achieving the acetic acid formation. For example, H-ZSM-5 works at a temperature of 393 K and a pressure of 3 MPa....

Ethane can be converted to ethanoic acid or acetic acid by catalytic oxidation. There are a number of ways, depending upon the catalyst, to achieve this conversion. The commonly used catalysts for this conversion include, protonated pentasil-type zeolite (or, H-ZSM-5), Fe/ZSM-5, `MoV_(0.25)Nb_(0.12)Pd_(0.0005)O_x` , etc. 

These catalysts require a high temperature and high pressure for achieving the acetic acid formation. For example, H-ZSM-5 works at a temperature of 393 K and a pressure of 3 MPa. Another key to successfully converting ethane to acetic acid, is the application of an oxidizer. Hydrogen peroxide is a commonly used oxidizer. Each catalyst selectively converts a fraction of ethane to ethanoic acid or acetic acid. For example, Fe/ZSM-5 has a conversion rate of about 56%, with a selectivity of 70% towards acetic acid.

Hope this helps. 

What do self-reliance and civil disobedience have in common?

Both are concepts based on essays written by two Transcendentalists in the 1840s—“Self-Reliance,” by Ralph Waldo Emerson, published in 1841; and “Civil Disobedience,” then called “Resistance to Civil Government,” by Emerson’s main protégé, Henry David Thoreau, published in 1849. Both speak to the power of the individual and the importance of people to step up and to claim their individuality, their opinions, and their personalities. Conformity is wrong. Embrace your nonconformity, your individuality. But while...

Both are concepts based on essays written by two Transcendentalists in the 1840s—“Self-Reliance,” by Ralph Waldo Emerson, published in 1841; and “Civil Disobedience,” then called “Resistance to Civil Government,” by Emerson’s main protégé, Henry David Thoreau, published in 1849. Both speak to the power of the individual and the importance of people to step up and to claim their individuality, their opinions, and their personalities. Conformity is wrong. Embrace your nonconformity, your individuality. But while Emerson speaks more generally about individual words and deeds, Thoreau addresses the specifics of how an individual can coexist with a government which he disagrees with. He uses his own example from an incident in July 1846, when he spent a night in jail because he had not paid the state poll tax. It should be noted that while we now associate Thoreau with any act of “civil disobedience,” the truth is that he never used this term in his essay or in any of his writings. The title of his essay was changed by a publisher or editor when it was re-printed after Thoreau’s death in 1862.

How does President Kennedy want his audience to respond to this difference in his inaugural speech?

President Kennedy was an excellent public speaker. In his inauguration address, President Kennedy was trying to inspire the nation, especially younger Americans, to become more involved in helping others either at home or abroad.

President Kennedy wanted to inform people that times were changing. A new generation was in charge, and new ideas were being presented. He wanted Americans to start to consider how they could serve the government instead of wondering what the government...

President Kennedy was an excellent public speaker. In his inauguration address, President Kennedy was trying to inspire the nation, especially younger Americans, to become more involved in helping others either at home or abroad.

President Kennedy wanted to inform people that times were changing. A new generation was in charge, and new ideas were being presented. He wanted Americans to start to consider how they could serve the government instead of wondering what the government would do for them. He wanted people to go to underdeveloped countries to help people become more educated, to provide medical care for those in need, and to help improve their nutrition and diet. The Peace Corps was created to help achieve these goals.

President Kennedy also wanted people to work to improve conditions in the United States. He wanted people to advocate for civil rights for all people. He wanted people to help those who were less fortunate in our society. He wanted people to become more active to cure the problems that existed in our society.

With his positive message and his positive speech, President Kennedy tried to inspire all Americans, and especially the younger generations, to reach new heights and to do more for those who needed help in our society.

In Romeo and Juliet, what does Juliet mean when she says "That which we call a rose / By any other word would smell as sweet"?

In this instance, Juliet is referring to the importance of a name in contrast to the essence of the object to which it refers. She is essentially saying that even if a rose was called something else it would retain its characteristics such as, for example, its sweet smell. She emphasizes that the name of something does not change its nature.

Juliet makes this remark in Act 2, scene 2. She has learnt that Romeo,...

In this instance, Juliet is referring to the importance of a name in contrast to the essence of the object to which it refers. She is essentially saying that even if a rose was called something else it would retain its characteristics such as, for example, its sweet smell. She emphasizes that the name of something does not change its nature.

Juliet makes this remark in Act 2, scene 2. She has learnt that Romeo, the young man she is infatuated with, is a Montague. She is a Capulet and the two families have been involved in a squabble with each other for generations. This means that Romeo is her enemy and that she should not, therefore, have any association with him.

Juliet is quite distressed about the situation but does not allow it to affect her feelings for Romeo. Her sentiment is an expression of how deeply she feels for the young man. She has been overwhelmed by him and does not care whether he is a Montague or not. As far as she is concerned, it is not Romeo's name that makes him who he is. He could have had an entirely different name and she would have loved him all the same.

She has previously stated, though, that she would prefer it if he should abandon his name and deny his heritage. If he cannot do so, she will be happy if he should declare his love for her. She will then, in turn, forsake her own name:

O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo?
Deny thy father and refuse thy name;
Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love,
And I'll no longer be a Capulet. 

She does not believe that being a Montague means that she should dismiss him. Montague, is after all, only a meaningless name and does not constitute any integral part of a body. Romeo shares this sentiment. He expresses his own sentiments after hearing what Juliet has said about the matter:

I take thee at thy word:
Call me but love, and I'll be new baptized;
Henceforth I never will be Romeo.

The two impetuous lovers then embark on a very dangerous affair fraught with risk and complication. Their overwhelming passion and naive belief that their love will persevere eventually ends in tragedy.

Why does Atticus say that Jem's behavior is inexcusable?

Mrs. Dubose is an elderly lady who lives on the same street as the Finch family.  Whenever Jem and Scout walk by, she calls out rude comments to them.  Atticus has taught his children to be polite and respectful, so they do not respond to her in rudeness.

One day, Mrs. Dubose calls out especially rude things.  She uses a racial slur to describe their father's defense of Tom Robinson.  Jem becomes enraged.  He marches...

Mrs. Dubose is an elderly lady who lives on the same street as the Finch family.  Whenever Jem and Scout walk by, she calls out rude comments to them.  Atticus has taught his children to be polite and respectful, so they do not respond to her in rudeness.

One day, Mrs. Dubose calls out especially rude things.  She uses a racial slur to describe their father's defense of Tom Robinson.  Jem becomes enraged.  He marches off, and then grabs Scout's baton.  He goes back to Mrs. Dubose's house and hacks off the tops of her beloved camellia bushes with the baton.  When Atticus gets home from work, he confronts Jem:

Two geological ages later, we heard the soles of Atticus’s shoes scrape the front steps.  The screen door slammed, there was a pause—Atticus was at the hat rack in the hall—and we heard him call, Jem!"  His voice was like the winter wind.

Atticus switched on the ceiling light in the livingroom and found us there, frozen still.  He carried my baton in one hand; its filthy yellow tassel trailed on the rug.  He held out his other hand; it contained fat camellia buds (To Kill a Mockingbird, Chapter 11).

Atticus asks his son if he did it, and Jem confesses.  He tells his father why he is angry.  He understands his son's anger, but tells him that "to do something like this to a sick old lady is inexcusable."  Atticus suggests that Jem apologize to Mrs. Dubose, which he does.  Jem tells his father that he is truly not sorry, and Atticus is disappointed in him.

What are quotes that support that there is no love in Romeo and Juliet?

Initially, I thought that your question couldn't be answered.  Romeo and Juliet is dripping with love and love quotes.  It's probably why Romeo and Juliet are the quintessential love couple.  However, there is the Act 2, Scene 3 sequence between Friar Lawrence and Romeo where the friar spends more time pointing out Romeo's false loves than he does supporting Romeo's feelings.  Take these lines for example.  

Is Rosaline, whom thou didst love so...

Initially, I thought that your question couldn't be answered.  Romeo and Juliet is dripping with love and love quotes.  It's probably why Romeo and Juliet are the quintessential love couple.  However, there is the Act 2, Scene 3 sequence between Friar Lawrence and Romeo where the friar spends more time pointing out Romeo's false loves than he does supporting Romeo's feelings.  Take these lines for example.  

Is Rosaline, whom thou didst love so dear,
So soon forsaken? young men's love then lies
Not truly in their hearts, but in their eyes.

In those lines, the friar is essentially saying that young men's hearts are not capable of feeling love.  What they are actually feeling is the lustful attraction that their eyes are drawn to.  Like the looks of a pretty lady?  Well that must be love.  

A few moments later, Friar Lawrence says this line:

Thy love did read by rote and could not spell.

In other words, he is telling Romeo that Romeo's words and thoughts of love were not his own.  Romeo was only reciting love stuff that he had read and learned somewhere else.  On top of that, Romeo was saying it badly.  That also supports your idea that there is no love.  There is only saying meaningless drivel that other people have described as love. 

What is the tone of Romeo and Juliet?

Romeo and Juliet is arguably the most famous story in the English language, and so the tone can be hard to pin down since it is so universal. However, there are certain elements within Romeo and Juliet that really elucidate the tone of the play. I've listed some of these elements below:

1. 
   LOVE - The love between Romeo and Juliet is the central focus of the play.


2. 
   THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS - Romeo and Juliet...

Romeo and Juliet is arguably the most famous story in the English language, and so the tone can be hard to pin down since it is so universal. However, there are certain elements within Romeo and Juliet that really elucidate the tone of the play. I've listed some of these elements below:

1. 
   LOVE - The love between Romeo and Juliet is the central focus of the play.


2. 
   THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS - Romeo and Juliet both desire to pursue their romantic love, despite the wishes of their families, because it makes them happy.


3. 
   BETRAYAL - Romeo and Juliet both betray their families. 


4. 
   DEATH - Many deaths happen in the play, and they are mostly results of the family feud. 

Due to these elements, a person could argue that the tone of Romeo and Juliet is tragically romantic. The love between Romeo and Juliet is one of the most famous romance stories of all time, but this love is rushed and results in many tragic deaths. The combination of these two factors creates a tragically romantic tone. 

How is Magwitch presented in Great Expectations, and how does this change throughout the novel? Use quotations to help explain.

Pip's attitudes towards Magwitch change throughout the novel. We first see Magwitch through the child Pip's frightened eyes. To this young child, the convict is terrifying:

Hold your noise!" cried a terrible voice, as a man started up from among the graves at the side of the church porch. "Keep still, you little devil, or I'll cut your throat!

A fearful man, all in coarse gray, with a great iron on his leg. A man with no hat, and with broken shoes, and with an old rag tied round his head. A man who had been soaked in water, and smothered in mud, and lamed by stones, and cut by flints, and stung by nettles, and torn by briars; who limped, and shivered, and glared, and growled; and whose teeth chattered in his head as he seized me by the chin.

"Oh! Don't cut my throat, sir," I [Pip]pleaded in terror. "Pray don't do it, sir."

But for all his terror, Pip treats the convict with compassion. Magwitch never forgets this. 

The next time Pip meets Magwitch, having learned it is Magwitch, not Miss Havisham, who has provided the money that has set him up as a gentlemen, he is repelled and horrified to think he owes his status to a convict. He is also distressed that he is harboring a convict, and is responsible for keeping him safe from arrest. This is the adult Pip, who is snobbish and class conscious. As Dickens well knew, our attitudes towards the world change as we grow up:

Nothing was needed but this; the wretched man, after loading wretched me with his gold and silver chains for years, had risked his life to come to me, and I held it there in my keeping! If I had loved him instead of abhorring him; if I had been attracted to him by the strongest admiration and affection, instead of shrinking from him with the strongest repugnance; it could have been no worse.

But by the end of the novel, Pip has changed again. His heart has softened, and he has been humbled. Now he can see the good in Magwitch beneath the outer wrapping and he genuinely wants to help him:

For now, my repugnance to him had all melted away, and in the hunted wounded shackled creature who held my hand in his, I only saw a man who had meant to be my benefactor, and who had felt affectionately, gratefully, and generously, towards me with great constancy through a series of years. I only saw in him a much better man than I had been to Joe.

Unlike a lesser novelist, Dickens portrays a character who changes and grows, developing compassion towards others through his own suffering.

"Everything has to evolve or else it perishes." How does this apply to Finny from A Separate Peace by John Knowles?

This quote "Everything has to evolve or it perishes" fits Phineas from A Separate Peace perfectly. Phineas is young, athletic, strong, and has a highly energetic personality. He looks forward to serving in the war effort because of these fabulous qualities. He has so much energy for life in him that he could accomplish anything he sets his mind to. All he has to do is pass high school and start his life's journey and he will soar like an eagle. Ironically, though, Phineas breaks his leg and is confined to a wheelchair for a few months at the beginning of his senior year. He eventually evolves to using a cane, which shows his progress in healing; but then he never gets a chance to progress past using it because he breaks his leg again!

Not only does Phineas decline physically, he also declines psychologically. After the first broken leg, Phineas realizes that he won't be able to go to the war and he becomes depressed. He doesn't admit this depression to anyone, of course, but it slowly leads him into denial about the war. Before he broke his leg for the first time, Phineas would talk about the news from the war; but after the broken leg, he outwardly declares that there is no World War II. His best friend Gene becomes very concerned about him at that point.

Referring to the Roaring Twenties, Phineas concocts a theory about the war being a lie and shares this with Gene as follows:

"Well what happened was that they didn't like that, the preachers and the old ladies and all the stuffed shirts. So then they tried Prohibition and everybody just got drunker, so then they really got desperate and arranged the Depression. That kept the people who were young in the thirties in their places. But they couldn't use that trick forever, so for us in the forties they've cooked up this war fake" (115).

Clearly, Phineas is on the decline here. He can't evolve like others in his class because he can't compete like he normally had. So he creates in his mind a world in which he doesn't feel as left out. It's as if he is using his own insecurities to create a reality in which he feels competent. The reality is, however, he is perishing, not evolving. Sadly, it all ends horribly when he breaks his leg for the second time and he physically perishes due to surgical complications. 

What is an example of hyperbole in Act 1, scene 3 of Romeo and Juliet?

Hyperbole is a figure of speech that is an obvious exaggeration created for effect or emphasis.

An exaggerated character herself, the Nurse enters the scene in Act III with yards of clothing catching the wind, prompting Mercutio to call out, "A sail, a sail!" Previously in Act I, Scene 3, she employs hyperbole for emphasis to Juliet. As Juliet's mother suggests a husband to her daughter in the form of the young nobleman Paris, the Nurse attempts to underscore Paris's attractiveness by expressing her glowing praise for him:

A man, young lady! Lady, such a man
As all the world--Why, he's a man of wax. 1.3.77-78

With these words, the Nurse tries to convince Juliet that Paris is as great as any man in the world. Moreover, he is as perfect as a wax model; it is as though he were sculpted and given perfect features and perfect proportions. Then, after Lady Capulet comments that no summer in Verona is as handsome, the Nurse adds, "He's a flower, in faith, a flower!" (1.3.80)

By this expression she means that Paris is as handsome as the summer to which Lady Capulet alludes in the previous line ("Verona's summer hath not such a flower").

Does Rainsford's perspective on hunting shift throughout the story, "The Most Dangerous Game"? Give evidence to support your answer.

Rainsford’s perspective on hunting does shift when he becomes the hunted instead of the hunter.  At the beginning of the story, Rainsford is on a boat headed for Rio and a hunting trip up the Amazon River. He hopes to have a good hunt for jaguars.  Whitney, his friend and fellow hunter, comments that hunting is a great sport for the hunter, but not for the jaguar. Rainsford responds,

“Don’t talk rot, Whitney…..You’re a big-game hunter, not a philosopher. Who cares how the jaguar feels.” (pg 1)

Whitney thinks maybe the jaguar cares how it feels.He thinks that they do understand one thing, fear.

“The fear of pain and the fear of death.” (pg 1)

Rainsford strongly disagrees.  He tells Whitney that the hot weather is making him soft.  He replies,

“The world is made up of two classes --- the hunters and the huntees.  Luckily, you and I are the hunters.” (pg 1)

When Rainsford meets Zaroff, he suddenly becomes the “huntee”. When Zaroff sends Rainsford out onto the island during their “game”, Rainsford becomes a series of animals.  First, he creates an intricate trail for Zaroff to follow recalling the, “dodges of the fox” (pg 7). When General Zaroff easily follows that trail, Rainsford tries to hide in a tree.

“Rainsford’s impulse was to hurl himself down like a panther.” (pg 8)

Zaroff smiles,and Rainsford realizes that the general is just playing with him,

“The Cossack was the cat; he was the mouse.  Then it was that Rainsford knew the full meaning of terror.” (pg 8)

Finally, when General Zaroff brings out his whole pack of dogs, Rainsford realizes how an animal feels when it is being hunted.

“The hounds raised their voices as they hit the fresh scent.  Rainsford knew now how an animal at bay feels.” (pg 9)

Rainsford continues to refer to himself as an animal even after General Zaroff tells him he has won the game. 

“I am still a beast at bay…” (pg 9)

Rainsford has changed his opinion.  He now knows how an animal feels when it is being hunted. 

My copy of the story is from the internet so the page numbers may not coincide with your copy.  

In the novel "To Kill a Mockingbird," when Miss Maudie's house burns down, how does this symbolize or relate to racism?

Possibly the most significant reference to racism in the incident of Miss Maudie's burning house would be the 'morphodite' snowman.

In Chapter 8, Jem and Scout use snow from Miss Maudie's yard and soil from their own back yard to build a snowman. Jem first builds the snowman by forming the snowman's body and head with soil. When Scout protests that no one has 'ever heard of a nigger snowman' before, Jem tells her to be patient, because the snowman 'won't be black long.' Sure enough, as soon as the earthy snowman is packed with fresh, white snow, it begins to take on the look of a typical snowman. Above all else, the snowman even looks like Mr. Avery, who the children detest. As matters stand, Scout and Jem are extremely proud of their creation.

Later that night, Scout is woken up gently by Atticus: Miss Maudie's house is burning. What is most interesting about this fire is the panoramic view of the scene we get from the children's perspective; all of Maycomb seems to be fighting the fire. Men and cars throng the street where Miss Maudie's house is located. More men are pushing the old Maycomb firetruck to the scene of the fire. Meanwhile, other men are helping to retrieve and to save some of Miss Maudie's furniture from the burning house. Even Atticus is in on the action; he is seen carrying Miss Maudie's most prized possession, her oak rocking chair, out of the house.

In the meantime, Boo Radley covers Scout up with a blanket while she is entranced by the chaotic scene before her. She doesn't realize what Boo has done for her until later. As the fire recedes and the activity dies down, both Jem and Scout are sad that their snowman has also been destroyed.

As far as a symbol for racism, the fire foreshadows the trial by fire that will test the societal integrity of Maycomb in the wake of the Tom Robinson trial. Also, the destruction of the black and white snowman represents the racism that will threaten the peace and solidarity of both the black and white citizens of Maycomb.

We definitely see how racism affects everyone, both black and white, as the trial commences. For example, the children encounter racism from Lula, a member of Calpurnia's congregation, who doesn't want the children to attend the predominantly black church. Meanwhile, Aunt Alexandra thinks that Atticus should dispense with Calpurnia's service, as she thinks that Calpurnia will prove to be a bad influence on the children, particularly Scout. The most egregious case of racist behavior would have to be that displayed by Mr. Ewell.

In the end, just as some of Miss Maudie's most prized possessions were able to be saved from the fire, Maycomb manages to preserve some element of integrity and decency in the wake of the trial. For example, Boo Radley's kind gesture with the blanket foreshadows the part he plays in saving Scout and Jem from Mr. Ewell's attack later in the novel. Another example is Calpurnia's defense of the children when Lula's ugly behavior surfaces.

The message is that, although the fire destroys Miss Maudie's house, it doesn't destroy the resilience of the human spirit. Likewise, racism does not destroy the best elements of Maycomb society despite its polarizing destructiveness.

Did the military have any role in the confirmation of plate tectonics by identifying the sea floor magnetic striping patterns?

Yes.  The military played a role in providing further evidence toward modern day plate tectonic theory.  

Specifically, it was the United States Navy that provided the evidence.  During World War II, the commander of the attack transport U.S. Cape Johnson in the Pacific Ocean was Harry Hess.  Before the war, he was a geology teacher at Princeton, and during the war Harry Hess used naval sounding gear to continually map sea floor and assuage his...

Yes.  The military played a role in providing further evidence toward modern day plate tectonic theory.  

Specifically, it was the United States Navy that provided the evidence.  During World War II, the commander of the attack transport U.S. Cape Johnson in the Pacific Ocean was Harry Hess.  Before the war, he was a geology teacher at Princeton, and during the war Harry Hess used naval sounding gear to continually map sea floor and assuage his scientific curiosity.  What he discovered was that the sea floor was not a huge, wide open, flat plan.  Rather it consisted of large mountain ranges and deep trenches.  

During post war time, Hess continued to analyze the increasing amount of information about the sea floor.  One more thing that Hess discovered was that the age of the sea floor was newer closer to the ridges and older farther away from the ridges.  Additionally, he also discovered that the sea floor didn't contain crust as old as continental crust.  Hess correctly concluded what that information means.  It means that Earth's crust is continually recycled as the sea floor spreads at the ridges and is subducted at the trenches.  This "sea floor spreading" also pushes the continents along with it and results in what Alfred Wegener called "continental drift."  

As for the magnetic striping, Vine and Matthews were the two scientists that looked closely at this feature of the ocean floors.  Their data, together with Hess's navy data, gave sea-floor spreading the proof it needed to be widely accepted and eventually become modern day plate tectonic theory. 

Why did the Allies win World War I?

There were reasons why the Allies won in World War I. One reason was the entrance of the United States into the war on the side of the Allies. The United States joined the Allied side when Germany resumed the sinking our merchant ships without warning in 1917. As a neutral nation, we had the right to trade with any country, including countries at war. When Germany sank our ships without warning, they violated our...

There were reasons why the Allies won in World War I. One reason was the entrance of the United States into the war on the side of the Allies. The United States joined the Allied side when Germany resumed the sinking our merchant ships without warning in 1917. As a neutral nation, we had the right to trade with any country, including countries at war. When Germany sank our ships without warning, they violated our rights as a neutral nation. The entrance of the United States was a key event in the war. Our troops were rested since they hadn’t been fighting when the war began. The troops from both sides had been fighting for almost three years when we joined the war. We not only gave the Allies fresh troops, but we also provided them with needed supplies and weapons.

Another factor contributing to Germany’s defeat is they weren’t able to carry out their war plan. German hoped to score a quick, decisive victory on the western front. Then they were going to concentrate on the eastern front. By not winning quickly in the west, Germany had to fight a two-front war for a good part of the war. The fighting was very costly in terms of life, property, and money for all of the countries. Having to split their forces hurt Germany in World War I. When Germany’s last attempts to break through the Allied lines in the west failed in 1918, Germany was on the defensive and retreating until the war ended in November 1918. There were reasons why Germany lost in World War I.

In Arthur Rowe's The Essence of Jesus, how do the portraits of Jesus compare/contrast between the four Gospels of the New Testament? Consider...

In his introduction, Rowe states that the essence of Jesus involves who he was as a person as well as his teachings. Starting with the four gospels, which Rowe calls "our earliest sources," Rowe attempts to outline who Jesus is.

Chapter 1 reviews the few extra-biblical references to Jesus in the earliest period following his death: Josephus, the Jewish historian, and Tacitus, the Roman historian. They add little to the gospel record, Rowe says, but...

In his introduction, Rowe states that the essence of Jesus involves who he was as a person as well as his teachings. Starting with the four gospels, which Rowe calls "our earliest sources," Rowe attempts to outline who Jesus is.

Chapter 1 reviews the few extra-biblical references to Jesus in the earliest period following his death: Josephus, the Jewish historian, and Tacitus, the Roman historian. They add little to the gospel record, Rowe says, but Josephus notes that Jesus "was a doer of startling deeds." 

For Rowe, distinctive portions of Matthew's portrait of Jesus include a genealogy that connects Jesus back to such Old Testament figures as Abraham, an extended birth story that includes Jesus' father Joseph's dream, and an emphasis on appealing to an audience of early Christians who came from Jewish roots or felt the need for better grounding in Jesus' connection to Judaism. 

In contrast, Mark has no birth story and was probably written as reassurance to early Christians who were enduring persecution. Mark also may have hoped to encourage people who were shy about their faith or who felt they had failed in being faithful, as Peter at times felt he had. Finally, Mark wanted to "correct the false picture of Jesus as a wonder worker" and instead to focus on his crucifixion as "integral" to his mission.

Luke emphasized Jesus' role as a prophet. This tone is set from the beginning, with a story of Jesus' birth that includes the angel's prophetic message to Jesus about his destiny. Luke could well have been writing to gentile converts to Christianity, in other words, people who had never been Jewish, and, also, possibly, wealthy people.

Rowe notes the gospel of John is in a "different key" from the other gospels. It begins with a "majestic prologue" that identifies Jesus as no less than the Word or Logos of God. This gospel focuses on miracles and the crucifixion. John wrote this book to bring people to the faith or to encourage them in their faith. 

Despite these differences, the four gospels share common elements: all tell of John the Baptist, the baptism of Jesus, the temptations of Jesus, Jesus' public ministry, the fact that he challenged people, the fact that he taught people, the fact that he had a turning point in which he began to tell the disciples about his coming death, the Passion (the last week of his life, culminating in his crucifixion) and the concept that Jesus rose from the dead. 

What kind of war is a civil war?

The term "civil war" is a bit misleading if you ask me.  At no point should anybody ever consider war to be civil.  Oh certainly civil gentlemen may fight in the war, but their actions are far from civil when the end goal is to kill more opponents than the opponent can kill.  There's nothing civilized about destroying your opponent by killing.  There's nothing civilized about killing.  

The Merriam-Websterdictionary defines "civil war"...

The term "civil war" is a bit misleading if you ask me.  At no point should anybody ever consider war to be civil.  Oh certainly civil gentlemen may fight in the war, but their actions are far from civil when the end goal is to kill more opponents than the opponent can kill.  There's nothing civilized about destroying your opponent by killing.  There's nothing civilized about killing.  

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines "civil war" as a war being waged "between opposing groups of citizens of the same country."  

A civil war is a war like any other war.  There's violence and bloodshed.  The difference is that it's being fought between fellow countrymen.  Often a civil war will pit family member against family member and friend against friend.  That is the case in "The Sniper."  The text tells the reader that a civil war was being fought.  

"Republicans and Free Staters were waging civil war."

Then over the course of the next 1000 words or so, the reader reads a riveting narration of the cat and mouse game being fought between two enemy snipers.  The main character sniper is wounded, but he is ultimately victorious.  Unfortunately, his victory is quickly turned into a hollow victory.  

Then the sniper turned over the dead body and looked into his brother´s face.

The enemy sniper turned out to be his brother.  So while the sniper may have won this battle and killed the enemy, what good did it do him?  That's a powerful point that the author is raising about civil war.  There are no real winners.  

How did the narrator change when Mack died in Boys and Girls?

In Boys and Girls, Mack's death opened the narrator's eyes. She realized that Flora would be next, which forced her to realize the connection she had with the female horse. Flora, like her, was wild, free and did what she wanted. She didn't have the connection with Mack that she had with Flora, and once Mack was dead, she knew Flora would be next, because that was why they had the animals to begin with....

In Boys and Girls, Mack's death opened the narrator's eyes. She realized that Flora would be next, which forced her to realize the connection she had with the female horse. Flora, like her, was wild, free and did what she wanted. She didn't have the connection with Mack that she had with Flora, and once Mack was dead, she knew Flora would be next, because that was why they had the animals to begin with. It made the narrator not only relate to her, but feel bad for her.

Once her family decides it's Flora's turn, she doesn't want to take part in it, to the point where the narrator has the chance to stop Flora from leaving, but doesn't close the gate. When her brother tells on her, she knows her dad will never look at her in the same way, and she begins to accept the expected role of her gender in the time period.

Hope that helps! There is a lot more on this topic, but this should get you started. Check out the link for more information.

How believable is the play The Bear?

The play The Bear is pretty unbelievable, when you really think about it. Here is a man who is owed money, a woman who has locked herself up in her house because her cheating husband died, and they go from hate to love in a total of about ten minutes.

Smirnov comes to the house angry. He is a businessman owed money from pretty much everyone, and he owes money to the bank. So he...

The play The Bear is pretty unbelievable, when you really think about it. Here is a man who is owed money, a woman who has locked herself up in her house because her cheating husband died, and they go from hate to love in a total of about ten minutes.

Smirnov comes to the house angry. He is a businessman owed money from pretty much everyone, and he owes money to the bank. So he goes from customer to customer demanding his money, and each has a more ridiculous reason for not paying him. He comes to Popova, who is in herself a pretty ridiculous character. After her husband's death, she finds out he has been cheating on her, so to prove to him what real love is, she locks herself in her house, refusing to come out for anyone.

Is this realistic? Parts of it are, of course. But the chairs all break under Smirnov, her servant is a bit outrageous, and then there's the whole idea of the duel. Smirnov is so enraged that he decides to duel Popova, a woman, and she accepts, then asks how to shoot a gun. Would someone get into a duel who never shot a gun? Of course not.

Then there's the fact that they fall in love, which is pretty ridiculous as well. Smirnov goes from wanting to kill this woman to love in about a minute, and she eventually accepts his love.

In short, the play is a farce.

When Beatty talks to Montag, what is his explanation for what happened to Clarisse and her family?

Beatty tells Montag that Clarisse and her family were odd and dangerous.

Clarisse McClellan is a neighbor of Montag’s and she makes a big impression on him.  She teaches him to look at the world differently.  She does this by asking him if he is happy.  Clarisse is not like the other people in Montag’s world.  She is able to slow down and appreciate the world around her.

Was it only an hour ago, Clarisse McClellan in the street, and him coming in, and the dark room and his foot kicking the little crystal bottle? Only an hour, but the world had melted down and sprung up in a new and colourless form. (Part 1)

Although Clarisse turns his world upside down, Montag loses track of her.  At first she is there sitting outsider her house every day for a week.  Then she disappears.  He has no idea what happened to her. His life feels empty.  Then one day Mildred tells him that she is “gone.”  She has been run over by one of the many speeding cars (“beetles”).  Mildred never mentioned it.

The fact that a girl’s death makes so little impact is disturbing enough, but Montag also misses the role in his life that Clarisse played. She made him question himself, and through that he became alive.

Montag mentions to Beatty that the “girl next door" was killed.  Beatty also dismisses the act.  He says that Clarisse’s family was odd.

“…She was a time bomb. The family had been feeding her subconscious .... She didn't want to know how a thing was done, but why. … You ask Why to a lot of things and you wind up very unhappy indeed, if you keep at it. The poor girl's better off dead." (Part 1)

Beatty says that “queer ones” like Clarisse and her family do not happen often, fortunately.  Beatty would not consider a bunch of kids running over a girl like Clarisse as a bad thing.  That is just what kids do—Clarisse said it herself, when she explained to Montag the depravity of kids her age.  Montag is upset by Clarisse’s disappearance and her death, but to Beatty it is just an everyday occurrence.

In order to keep a population docile, you focus on entertainment to the detriment of thinking.  In Montag’s society there are no intellectual pursuits.  People watch television, and books are illegal.  Reading is against the law, but killing is not.  Their priorities are all out of whack.  They have lost touch with their humanity.

In The Great Gatsby, who is Miss Baker and what does she do professionally?

Miss Baker, or Jordan Baker, is a childhood friend of Daisy's who is staying with the Buchanans for the summer at their home in East Egg. We first see her in Chapter 1, when Nick Carraway visits Daisy and Tom at their home for dinner and meets Miss Baker there.

Although Nick finds her attractive, he is also a bit fascinated by her because she looks familiar, yet he is sure that he's never met...

Miss Baker, or Jordan Baker, is a childhood friend of Daisy's who is staying with the Buchanans for the summer at their home in East Egg. We first see her in Chapter 1, when Nick Carraway visits Daisy and Tom at their home for dinner and meets Miss Baker there.

Although Nick finds her attractive, he is also a bit fascinated by her because she looks familiar, yet he is sure that he's never met her before. Later on, he learns that she is the famous professional golfer, Jordan Baker, and he vaguely remembers some scandal that she was linked to in the newspapers. It had to do with a cheating incident that she was involved in during a golf tournament. This revelation, together with her professed carelessness whenever she found herself behind the wheel of a car, comes to have significance by the end of the novel, when Nick realizes that Daisy, Tom and even Jordan Baker all represent the careless people, who

   " . . . smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made . . ."

Jordan Baker had a fleeting romantic interest in Nick, but it wasn't meant to last very long and it had ended long before the summer was over.

Hey everyone! I'm having trouble with my essay introduction. I'm supposed to be writing about the loss of innocence in three books, Jane Eyre by...

Jane Eyreis my favorite novel, so it's a pleasure to help you write about it in your essay. I normally tell students to try and avoid generic phrases using the word "society" because it can seem very vague and generic. The way to try and use more exacting language is to ask yourself what you mean when you refer to "society" and its expectations. Do you mean a specific culture at a specific time...

Jane Eyre is my favorite novel, so it's a pleasure to help you write about it in your essay. I normally tell students to try and avoid generic phrases using the word "society" because it can seem very vague and generic. The way to try and use more exacting language is to ask yourself what you mean when you refer to "society" and its expectations. Do you mean a specific culture at a specific time and place? Are you referring to the different socioeconomic groups that make up society and how social expectations differ among classes? Certainly the issue of class is an important one in Jane Eyre, since Jane's early years are directly affected by her relatives' decision to more or less disown her after the death of her parents. Instead of giving a comfortable life as a ward who is provided for, she is abandoned to an orphanage and a life of hardship. This affords her many lessons at an early age. Children who experience cruelty and hardship while young miss out on the joy and carefree enjoyment of childhood, and Jane's childhood at the orphanage was not a happy one.

The first example of a loss of innocence that affects Jane is the death of her friend Helen in the orphanage. Helen has tuberculosis which worsens over time, and the poor living conditions of the orphanage make it impossible for her to get better. Helen is Jane's only friend, and this loss is a major event in forming Jane's character; she learns to be extremely self-reliant and independent, and is wary of trusting others or asking for help when she needs it. This loss of innocence at an early age, i.e. the realization that she cannot rely on others to do the right thing, makes her somewhat cynical but also instills a deep sense of integrity that is tempered by her honesty and compassion.

What reason do Tom and Huck each have for fearing they will go to the Devil and not to heaven?

Interesting question! In the book The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain, superstition influences Tom and Huck. Consequently, the boys evaluate where they will go after they pass away.

Because of their superstitious beliefs, Tom and Huck fear that they will soon pass away. After Tom and Huck visit a graveyard, a stray dog howls nearby, which incites their superstitious-based conversation. Consequently, Tom and Huck begin discussing where they will go when they pass...

Interesting question! In the book The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain, superstition influences Tom and Huck. Consequently, the boys evaluate where they will go after they pass away.

Because of their superstitious beliefs, Tom and Huck fear that they will soon pass away. After Tom and Huck visit a graveyard, a stray dog howls nearby, which incites their superstitious-based conversation. Consequently, Tom and Huck begin discussing where they will go when they pass away. They both agree that they have done too many bad things to go to heaven.

According to Tom, he will not go to heaven. He states that he could have been better and more like Sid. He purposefully chose not to obey and be like Sid. As the text reveals, he believes that he will not go to heaven because he frequently is:

“playing hookey and doing everything a feller’s told NOT to do”

Huck also believes he will not go to heaven. In Huck’s mind, Tom has a much better chance of going to heaven than him. According to Huck,

“I reckon there ain’t no mistake ‘bout where I’LL go to. I been so wicked.”

Thus, both of the boys beliefs are impacted by superstition. After this event, they fear that they will go to hell due to their misbehaviors and wickedness.

I need help writing my 5 paragraph essay on "The Necklace." What do you suggest?

"The Necklace" is a story whose most prominent element is theme; specifically, the theme of materialism. This, then can be the topic, and to arrive at a thesis ask, "So what about materialism?"

One answer is that Madame Loisel cannot be happy in her marriage as she values material things more than spiritual ideals. For, Madame Loisel's belief that beautiful things and luxury are essential to her happiness is the fallacy that leads to the ruin...

"The Necklace" is a story whose most prominent element is theme; specifically, the theme of materialism. This, then can be the topic, and to arrive at a thesis ask, "So what about materialism?"

One answer is that Madame Loisel cannot be happy in her marriage as she values material things more than spiritual ideals. For, Madame Loisel's belief that beautiful things and luxury are essential to her happiness is the fallacy that leads to the ruin of her happiness, comfort, and her physical beauty. (This equals a thesis statement.)

The five-paragraph essay contains a thesis that has three opinions in it. So, the three opinion parts of the thesis are (1) ruin of happiness, (2) loss of comfort, and (3) destruction of her appearance. Forming topic sentences out of these three opinion concepts will start off each of the body paragraphs. For example, the topic sentence for the first paragraph can be something like this:

Madame Loisel is always discontent with her social situation and does not appreciate her husband's love (supported by the text quotation):

She grieved incessantly, feeling that she had been born for all the little niceties and luxuries of living.

Mme. Loisel looks at her home and what is in it as inadequate, feeling she has been born for nicer things. She does not appreciate what she has, [give examples] nor does she appreciate the affection her husband holds for her [give examples].  For instance, he is willing to postpone his purchase of a rifle in order to provide her money for a new dress for the ball to which they are invited. But, this is not enough; she feels that she needs a necklace for the dress....

_________________

Another idea that can be worked into an essay is how Madame Loisel's false pride leads her down a path in which, as Robert Frost writes in "A Road Not Taken," "way leads to way." Her plan of deception that she is a charming lady at the ball, one who has material possessions, leads to her demise. For, her false pride does not permit her to apologize to her friend, Mme. Forestier, who has lent her the necklace, and tell her that she has lost it. Instead, she assumes that the necklace is made of diamonds, and she mortgages everything, impoverishing herself and her husband because of her false pride in order to replace it. She holds this false pride to the end, as years later she boasts to Mme. Forestier that she has paid for this necklace now after many years only to learn that the original was a mere imitation.

How does Keisha help her friends in the novel, Tears of a Tiger?

When Keisha wrote an essay on “the Importance of Friendship”, she says,

“Without friends, life would be boring, lonely, and meaningless. “ (pg 117)

Keisha sees the importance of a good friendship.  When the accident happens, she and Rhonda band together to give as much support as they can to the boys involved.  Rhonda starts dating Tyrone, and Keisha is already dating Andy.  Andy is suffering the most.  He is the one who was driving the car when Robbie Washington died.  Robbie was his best friend.  Keisha tries to support him by encouraging him to get his homework done and get to school on time. When Andy had his license taken away until he turns twenty-one, she has her mother drive them to the mall and places they want to go.  She tries to lift his spirits when they are low.  Andy tells his psychologist,

“She’s there for me when nobody else is.” (pg 75)

Keisha believes that,

“Friends make life exciting. … Going downtown alone is no fun. Going downtown with a friend can be an adventure.  (pg 117-118)

However, when they go to the mall, Andy gets depressed when he sees Santa.  He and Rob use to play tricks on Santa at the mall, so it brings back memories of a better time.  Keisha has to call her mother to pick them up.  Her friendship with Andy is beginning to drain her spirits. 

She ends her essay on friendship with,

“When the bad times come, like when Robbie died, a friend is the most important thing in the world.  Rhonda and I cried together, went to the funeral together, and tried to help the boys involved as much as we could.” (pg 118)

She is thankful for Rhonda.  Keisha has to share some of her woes concerning Andy with someone.  She says,

“Sometimes I feel so alone I just want to cry.  That’s why I’m thankful I have a good friend like Rhonda, who always has a strong shoulder for me to cry on.” (pg 118)

Andy leans heavily on Keisha, but, although she desperately tries to help him, his depressed state is more than she can handle.  However, she is a good friend and will not desert him. She writes in her diary,

“I’d like to ease up on our relationship a little, but I don’t know how without hurting him.  Well, he needs me, and he has been through a lot.  I’m sure not going to be the one to cause him any more pain.”  (pg 129)

Later, Andy, in an attempt at humor, acts badly at the talent show and is rude to Keisha.  She has finally had it and breaks up with him. 

The night before Andy’s suicide, he calls Keisha.  It is after midnight, and Keisha’s mother tells Andy that Keisha is asleep.  She is sure they will iron out their differences because Keisha cares a lot for him, but not that night.  It is too late.

After Andy commits suicide, the grief counselor has them all write letters to Andy.  Keisha writes,

“….The pain left by your absence is like a wound in our hearts that will not heal. ….So you are out of it and we have to stay here, feeling your pain as well as our own.  It really isn’t fair, you know.”(pg 176) 

However, she ends the letter with

“I love you……Wait for me.”  (pg 176)

What could Daniel not escape from that was aggravating to him in Chapter 5 of The Bronze Bow?

In Chapter 5 of The Bronze Bow, Daniel leaves Rosh's camp on the mountain to go to search for Joel, who he hopes will join Rosh's band. In the city of Capernaum, Daniel cannot escape the sight of the Roman soldiers. They are in the streets, on the docks, and in the marketplace. Daniel hates the Romans--his hatred of them for killing his father and uncle is the driving force of his life. Living on...

In Chapter 5 of The Bronze Bow, Daniel leaves Rosh's camp on the mountain to go to search for Joel, who he hopes will join Rosh's band. In the city of Capernaum, Daniel cannot escape the sight of the Roman soldiers. They are in the streets, on the docks, and in the marketplace. Daniel hates the Romans--his hatred of them for killing his father and uncle is the driving force of his life. Living on the mountain as he has for years, he has not had to see the Romans very much, although he lives for the day they will do battle and drive them out of Judea. As he watches the Romans with hatred, he is astounded that the Jews in the city go on about their business, paying no attention to the soldiers. He even sees some Jews joking with Romans, and he finds that "shameful." He believes Rosh would make them understand, and he questions why Jesus doesn't do anything against the Romans. So outwardly, he cannot escape the sight of the Roman soldiers, but more importantly, he is unable to escape his own hatred toward them.

What are the major similarities and differences between Thomas Hobbes' and John Locke's conception of the state of nature and the social contract?...

Hobbes argued that despite natural equality and liberty amongst individuals, the anarchy of pursuing survival made life "nasty, brutish, and short." Without the social bonds that emerge as the product of a state-constituted society, the free individual lives a solitary life in constant fear of violence and death. Therefore, he suggests the establishment of a supreme sovereign power (e.g. King/state) would be the only way to create order and peace as well as secure the...

Hobbes argued that despite natural equality and liberty amongst individuals, the anarchy of pursuing survival made life "nasty, brutish, and short." Without the social bonds that emerge as the product of a state-constituted society, the free individual lives a solitary life in constant fear of violence and death. Therefore, he suggests the establishment of a supreme sovereign power (e.g. King/state) would be the only way to create order and peace as well as secure the natural rights of equality and freedom. This supposedly rational decision, by the people, to acquiesce power (freedoms) to an absolute sovereign in exchange for laws and enforcement that make life possible is understood by Hobbes as an implied agreement, which he calls the "social contract."

In contrast, Locke argued that despite the anarchy and insecurity of a state (of nature) in which each individual rights the wrongs perpetuated against them, because man is a social animal, he mostly honors his obligations and thus the state of nature maintains relative peace. Locke did not view the people as acquiescing any of the natural rights of life and liberty to the sovereign ruler in this agreement -- but merely exchanging individual retribution for the new right of (supposedly) impartial protection of property backed by force. Thus for Locke, the sovereign ruler is not the master but the arbiter and can never hold absolute power since the natural rights of individuals check any abuse of authority. Whereas Hobbes argues that once the agreement was made to establish a sovereign ruler one must obey without the liberty to revolt, Locke argued that if the sovereign violated any natural right, the individual, or the people had the liberty (and obligation) to depose the ruler. This is because, for Hobbes, the contract was only amongst the people themselves - hence once the agreement was reached the sovereign was held to no limits (e.g. the sovereign can never violate the contract). Yet for Locke, the social contract was between the people and the ruler.

Modern politics is deeply influenced by both Locke and Hobbes. Locke, however, is more favorably viewed as the precursor to classic liberalism versus fascist or totalitarian regimes, which have been more closely associated with the legacy of Hobbes. Although, given that many modern (even liberal) 20th and 21st century states have arguably violated their citizens' natural rights (as most citizens' grievances are with the abuse of state power in itself), and yet persist without being overthrown, Hobbes may de facto have more relevance today than Locke.

Why does the nursery make the children lose their sense of what is right and what is wrong?

The nursery makes the children lose their sense of right and wrong because it is part of a high tech "Happylife" house that has taken over the parenting function. As their mother, Lydia Hadley, points out in the story, "the house is wife and mother now and nursemaid." For the children, the focal point of the Happylife house is the nursery's giant viewscreens. Beyond that, the house itself does everything for the family, including  feeding...

The nursery makes the children lose their sense of right and wrong because it is part of a high tech "Happylife" house that has taken over the parenting function. As their mother, Lydia Hadley, points out in the story, "the house is wife and mother now and nursemaid." For the children, the focal point of the Happylife house is the nursery's giant viewscreens. Beyond that, the house itself does everything for the family, including  feeding them and rocking them to sleep. Because of this, the parents feel displaced and increasingly concerned about the spoiled and demanding behavior of their children.

When the children become attached to the fantasylife displayed on the viewscreens, they become alienated from their real parents. They get used to the idea that they can do whatever they want. The nursery, where they spend the bulk of their time at home, starts to command their loyalty far more than their parents. But the viewscreens teach the children, literally, the law of the jungle, not the morality of human parents. The nursery, with its repeated images of lions devouring prey, teaches the children to be predatory. It reprograms their sense of right and wrong to teach that killing is normal.  When their access to the nursery is threatened, as well as the nursery itself, which the parents plan to shut off, it doesn't take long for the children to become like the animals the viewscreens have taught them to admire. 

Why did Hitler hate Jews, and why did he want to banish or destroy them?

Hitler's hatred of the Jews was clearly pathological, but it was also political. By portraying the Jews as racially inferior and scapegoats for everything that had gone wrong in Germany in the twentieth century, he was tapping into a strain of anti-Semitism that had tragically deep roots in European history. For centuries, many (but not all) Jewish people had been viewed as outsiders in central Europe, set apart from Christians by their religion and their...

Hitler's hatred of the Jews was clearly pathological, but it was also political. By portraying the Jews as racially inferior and scapegoats for everything that had gone wrong in Germany in the twentieth century, he was tapping into a strain of anti-Semitism that had tragically deep roots in European history. For centuries, many (but not all) Jewish people had been viewed as outsiders in central Europe, set apart from Christians by their religion and their customs. From time to time, leaders would engage in brutal pogroms, or systemized attempts to either dislocate or otherwise oppress and persecute Jewish populations within their borders. These pogroms often enjoyed considerable popular support among Europeans, especially in times of crisis. Hitler's hatred of the Jews grafted this strain of anti-Semitism onto a new, pseudo-scientific theory of race. He, like many people around the Western world, believed that race was the defining characteristic of nationhood and that racial conflict was the driving force behind history. He also believed that Germanic peoples, which he called "Aryans," were the purest and highest form of humanity, and he painted the Jews as the opposite, the lowest form. Yet he also claimed, as did anti-Semites around the world, that the Jews had been responsible, through their supposed manipulation of global markets, for both World War One and the Great Depression. So the Jews, for Hitler, were the embodiment of evil and of racial debasement (which were the same thing in his mind) and he based his rise to power in no small part upon the ascent of Aryan nationhood, a development that inevitably involved, in his mind, the final destruction of the Jews. So Hitler's brand of anti-Semitism was both old and tragically new--it combined ancient hatred with modern crackpot theories and sought to explain, under its own warped terms, the events of the twentieth century. That Hitler's hatreds, which were never exactly disguised, received such popular support among Germans, is one of the most chilling aspects of his rise to power.

What do we study in political theory, and why should we study it?

Political theory is the study of the philosophy and history of political thought. It includes the study of topics such as law, justice, and rights. Political theory is concerned with questions of ethics and legitimacy, such as: how should we govern? How should different social groups relate to each other? What is justice? Political theory is distinct from (but closely related to) political science. Whereas political science is the empirical study of how governments actually...

Political theory is the study of the philosophy and history of political thought. It includes the study of topics such as law, justice, and rights. Political theory is concerned with questions of ethics and legitimacy, such as: how should we govern? How should different social groups relate to each other? What is justice? Political theory is distinct from (but closely related to) political science. Whereas political science is the empirical study of how governments actually operate, political theory is more concern with the question of how governments ought to operate.

We should study political theory because it's important to think about how we ought to govern. Political theory is a way for us to examine the history of political thought, and our current assumptions and ideas. We can learn how these assumptions and ideas arise from an entire history of political thought. By learning about how contemporary political ideas arise, we can critically examine them, and improve upon them.  

How can the arts be considered a remedy for crimes committed against citizens?

Great question!

The arts are a remedy for injustice and inequality because of their ability to raise awareness and consciousness--to take a problem and show an audience a new way of understanding or relating to it.

Pieces of art can also function as rallying cries--echoing and lending legitimacy to felt injustices and inspiring people to take action.

Let’s look at some examples of both of these ways that art can help facilitate social change in the context of racial justice. Authors like Toni Morrison, rappers like Immortal Technique, Nas, and Talib Kweli, and comedians such as Dave Chappelle and Key & Peele have each, in very different ways, communicated the ways that racial injustice permeates society through art. For example, Morrison, in the book “The Bluest Eye,” focuses on the way that African Americans have accepted and internalized white beauty norms.

An example of the second type, where art can act as a rallying cry for social change is exemplified by the song “Alright,” by Kendrick Lamar. The four word chorus of this song, “We gon' be alright,” became a mantra for the Black Lives Matter movement, uniting protesters as they strove for social change in police violence towards African Americans.