How does Scrooge transform from Stave One to Stave Two?

In Stave One of A Christmas Carol, Scrooge is described as a "tight-fisted hand at the grindstone" and as "hard and sharp as flint." He does not donate money to charity, does not want to give Bob the day off nor spend Christmas Day with his only family, his nephew, Fred. In short, Scrooge is a mean-hearted and miserly man who shuns society and everybody in it. 

His meeting with the Ghost of Christmas...

In Stave One of A Christmas Carol, Scrooge is described as a "tight-fisted hand at the grindstone" and as "hard and sharp as flint." He does not donate money to charity, does not want to give Bob the day off nor spend Christmas Day with his only family, his nephew, Fred. In short, Scrooge is a mean-hearted and miserly man who shuns society and everybody in it. 

His meeting with the Ghost of Christmas Past, however, brings great changes to Scrooge. The ghost, for example, forces him to relive a number of experiences from his youth, including his lonely days at boarding school and the end of his engagement to Belle. Through these experiences, the reader begins to see rather dramatic changes to Scrooge. These changes begin very early in the stave, when Scrooge is shown a glimpse of his school days:

To hear Scrooge expending all the earnestness of his nature on such subjects, in a most extraordinary voice between laughing and crying; and to see his heightened and excited face; would have been a surprise to his business friends in the city, indeed.

Gone is the miserable and pessimistic Scrooge, replaced by happiness and nostalgia. This is  a turning point in Scrooge's life which is further reinforced by seeing his former fiancée, Belle. Seeing her prompts feelings of guilt and regret, as Scrooge recognises the effects of his actions on others. He can no longer bear to relive such memories:

"Remove me!'' Scrooge exclaimed, "I cannot bear it!"

By the end of Stave Two, then, Scrooge's place on the road to redemption is well-established. His character is beginning to experience a positive transformation and this will grow in strength over the next two visits. 

What is a summary of Chapter Five of "The Canterville Ghost?"

At the beginning of Chapter Five, Virginia returns from riding with the Duke of Cheshire on Brockley Meadow when she tears her dress. As she enters the house through the back door (so as not to be seen by her mother), she sees the Canterville ghost looking very depressed in the Tapestry Chamber.

Virginia feels sorry for the ghost so she starts a conversation with him in which she reminds him that her brothers will...

At the beginning of Chapter Five, Virginia returns from riding with the Duke of Cheshire on Brockley Meadow when she tears her dress. As she enters the house through the back door (so as not to be seen by her mother), she sees the Canterville ghost looking very depressed in the Tapestry Chamber.

Virginia feels sorry for the ghost so she starts a conversation with him in which she reminds him that her brothers will soon return to school and everything will get better, as long as he behaves himself. The ghost replies by saying that he cannot behave himself because frightening people is his reason for existing.

As the pair converse, Virginia learns that the ghost murdered his own wife and, in retaliation, was starved to death by her brothers. Virginia is horrified by this revelation but her attitude changes when he tells her that he is tired because he has not slept for three hundred years. He wishes to rest eternally in the Garden of Death but cannot go there without her help, as the ghost explains:

"You must weep with me for my sins, because I have no tears, and pray with me for my soul, because I have no faith, and then, if you have always been sweet, and good, and gentle, the angel of death will have mercy on me."

Virginia is the only person in the Otis family who can help the ghost because she is a "golden girl" who can bring about his atonement. This is according to the prophecy which is written on the library window.

The chapter finishes as the ghost and Virginia pass through an opening in the wall and head towards the Garden of Death.

In The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini, what lesson can be learned from Amir's change throughout the novel?

There are many lessons to be learned from Hosseini's The Kite Runner. Perhaps the most powerful one is that we can overcome the scars and shortcomings of our upbringing to become good and happy people.  As the book opens, Amir is in a conversation with his old family friend, Rahim Khan, who offers him an opportunity to be a better person, to redeem himself from his wrongdoings.  Beginning the book this way, the author is probably letting us know what is to him the book's most important lesson.

Amir's childhood, in spite of his being raised in the lap of luxury, is far from idyllic in many ways. He lives in a culture in which there is a great deal of ethnic and religious prejudice, which affects his relationship with Hassan, who is a Shi'a Hazara, allowing Amir to consider Hassan and his father Ali beneath him. Amir has qualities and talents that his father, Baba, does not appreciate or value, a gift for storytelling and writing and a love of reading.  In fact, Baba considers Amir to be unmanly, which is apparent when Baba sits him down for a talk about sin and says, "I mean to speak to you man to man. Do you think you can handle that for once?" (17). Amir's relationship with Baba has undercurrents that cause Amir to be envious and even cowardly, as he senses some competition with Hassan for Baba's attention and affection.  He is unaware for many years that Hassan is Baba's son, too.  Amir's actions cause harm to Hassan and Ali that is irrevocable, and he carries the weight of guilt for them.  Added to this is having to flee to America, leaving a life of comfort and wealth behind to be lowly immigrants in a new and alien culture.  Amir's start in life is not the easiest.

In the new world, though, he begins to grow as a person, gaining a new appreciation for Baba and earning his respect.  He learns to navigate America, gains the courage to court Soraya, begins his writing career, and helps his father.  When he gets the call from Rahim Kahn, offering him "a way to be good again" (2), he has grown enough as a person to heed the call.  His mission in Afghanistan is to rescue Sohrab, the offspring of Hassan, who is now gone, from the hands of his old nemesis, Assef. He must overcome the resentments of his childhood, the scars of feeling himself to be an unloved child, and the cowardice and prejudices that had made him such a poor friend to Hassan.  In short, he is becoming a mature young man who now has the inner resources to vanquish the enemies within and without. 

That Amir is successful in his mission is a testament to the idea that we can get over our own childhoods and take responsibility as the people we want to be.  The playing field is seldom completely even as we begin our lives, but it is up to us to make the best that we can of what we are given. 

Explain what leads to Farquhar’s capture when attempting to destroy the bridge.

We do not understand why Farquhar is being hanged until we get to Part 2 of the story, which contains most of the exposition. Part 2 is a flashback. Farquhar is at his plantation with his wife when a man wearing a Confederate uniform rides up and asks for a drink of water. This man is a scout for the Union army. It does not seem likely that he has come to Farquhar's plantation for the specific purpose of tricking him into trying to burn down the Owl Creek bridge. But the scout must be on the lookout for possible saboteurs as well as collecting any other kinds of useful information he can, such as Confederate troop emplacements. He tells Farquhar something which might or might not be true.

The soldier reflected. "I was there a month ago," he replied. "I observed that the flood of last winter had lodged a great quantity of driftwood against the wooden pier at this end of the bridge. It is now dry and would burn like tinder."

There may have been "a great quantity of driftwood against the wooden pier at the end of the bridge" a month ago, but it should have been cleared away by now. The soldier may have been at the bridge much more recently than a month ago. When he sees Farquhar's keen interest in this real or fictitious driftwood, the scout must feel pretty sure that the plantation owner plans to try to set fire to the wood and do serious damage to the bridge.

Farquhar has really set himself up for his entrapment by asking:

"Suppose a man--a civilian and student of hanging--should elude the picket post and perhaps get the better of the sentinel," said Farquhar, smiling, "what could he accomplish?"

The author has intentionally caused Farquhar's wife to exit the scene so that her husband and the soldier can converse in private. She has gone to fetch water "with her own white hands;" that is, as a sign of special courtesy to the Confederate soldier rather than sending a black household slave to run the errand. If Farquhar's wife had been present, the two men might not have talked about the bridge and about the Federal advance. Farquhar might not even have told his wife he was leaving that night. She would have been terribly alarmed if she had known he was going to try to burn down a bridge single-handedly with many soldiers guarding it.

After the disguised Confederate scout drinks the water he rides off, and the section ends with the ominous words:

An hour later, after nightfall, he repassed the plantation, going northward in the direction from which he had come. He was a Federal scout.

We know that Farquhar will be riding right into a trap. The scout will warn the officers at the bridge to expect a would-be saboteur. Soldiers will be posted on the bridge and around it. Some of them will have dark lanterns. All will be under strict orders not to make a sound. Bierce does not have to describe how Farquhar is captured because we can imagine the scene all too vividly. Farquhar hitches his horse to a tree at some distance from the bridge and sneaks through the darkness carrying the incendiary fuel that will provide positive proof of his guilty intentions. Next morning he will be standing on the bridge waiting to be hanged, as described in the opening sentences of Part 1. 

Describe some of the history, principles, differences and similarities between Liberalism and Neorealism

Liberalism was based on 18th-century enlightenment. The guiding principle is that education and reasoning are important in improving the state of the world. This would be achieved through international cooperation and support for mutual interests.

The driving principle of realism asserts that it is "characteristic inherent in every human to seek supremacy". This further implies that states are in a permanent state of war, offensively or defensively based on their interests.

The two schools of...

Liberalism was based on 18th-century enlightenment. The guiding principle is that education and reasoning are important in improving the state of the world. This would be achieved through international cooperation and support for mutual interests.

The driving principle of realism asserts that it is "characteristic inherent in every human to seek supremacy". This further implies that states are in a permanent state of war, offensively or defensively based on their interests.

The two schools of thought are different in that:

The neorealists assert that the global conflicts are difficult if not impossible to resolve because most nations involved in the resolutions are doing as much as is viably possible. On the other hand, liberals believe that global conflict can be reduced by building up trust and improving the access to information. The liberals believe that this would reduce the impediment on cooperation among the different countries and international institutions.

The liberals believe that the institutions working to reduce conflicts are independent entities with the capacity to make mutually acceptable decisions. On the other hand, the neorealists argue that the institutions are basically, state mechanisms, where cooperation is based on the states’ special interests.

The two are similar in that:

• The neorealists and the liberals believe that not all state interests conflict.


• Further, states accumulate power for the purpose of securing their individual interests.

What does it mean to say that gender is socially constructed? What are the expectations for femininity? Masculinity? What happens when someone does...

According to many theories, gender is a social construct. This means that culture and society influence how men and women operate in the world they live in. It is not the same as sex, which is concerned with biological differences between men and women.

Generally speaking, society imposes certain stereotypes on all of us which we must embrace if we are to be accepted by it. So, what is a social stereotype? Social stereotype is a public belief about a certain behavior, social group, individual or social issue. We are supposed to abide by these stereotypes because if we do not, we will not be socially accepted. We will deviate from the norm and from what is expected from us. For example, children at a very young age already have an idea of what they are expected to do. Boys are not expected to play with barbie dolls because they learn from society (namely, their family) that barbie dolls are associated with girls, so girls should only play with them. What happens here is that they learn what behavior they should not adopt if they are to be in accordance with the typical male expectations.

So, who maintains these social rules? Family, friends, school, and the media all influence the way we operate. We constantly strive to live up to the social expectations that are imposed upon us, so that we can appear normal.

Some conventional female stereotype characteristics state that women are  "affectionate, dependent, emotional, friendly, kind, mild, pleasant, prudish, sensitive, sentimental, warm, and whiny" (Schneider 438). On the other hand, typical male stereotype characteristics include: "adventuresome, achievement-oriented, active, ambitious, coarse, independent, loud, robust, self-confident, stable, tough, unemotional" (Schneider 438).

Any serious deviation from these prescribed characteristics can lead to social condemnation of an individual and his/her alienation from society, which can lead to serious consequences.

Schneider, David J. The Psychology of Stereotyping. New York: Guilford, 2004. Web

How do we use the speed of light in the real world?

There are a number of uses of speed of light in our daily life. The SI unit of distance measurement, meter, is defined by using the speed of light. A meter is the distance travelled by light in 1/c seconds, where C is the speed of light. We use distance measurement several times a day (like the distance of a vehicle from us, during driving, etc.). Another application of speed of light is in lasers,...

There are a number of uses of speed of light in our daily life. The SI unit of distance measurement, meter, is defined by using the speed of light. A meter is the distance travelled by light in 1/c seconds, where C is the speed of light. We use distance measurement several times a day (like the distance of a vehicle from us, during driving, etc.). Another application of speed of light is in lasers, which travel at the same speed as light and are used in our daily life. Another application of speed of light is during driving, especially at night. The light of oncoming vehicles gives us an idea of their distance from us and is also used to figure out turns in the road. 

Hope this helps.

Who are camera man and smilin man in Toni Cade Bambara's "Blues Ain't No Mockin Bird"?

"Camera man" and "smilin man" are the names the narrator gives the two strange men trespassing on the Cains' property in Toni Cade Bambara's short story "Blues Ain't No Mockin Bird."As the story unfolds, the narrator is playing outside her Granny's house on a winter's day, soon before Christmas. She is playing on the tire swing with her third cousin Cathy, and their twin next-door neighbors, Tyrone and Terry. While the narrator is waiting...

"Camera man" and "smilin man" are the names the narrator gives the two strange men trespassing on the Cains' property in Toni Cade Bambara's short story "Blues Ain't No Mockin Bird."

As the story unfolds, the narrator is playing outside her Granny's house on a winter's day, soon before Christmas. She is playing on the tire swing with her third cousin Cathy, and their twin next-door neighbors, Tyrone and Terry. While the narrator is waiting for her turn on the swing, Granny comes out to the porch and orders the narrator to "tell that man we ain't a bunch of trees." It's then that the narrator and the rest of the children notice a man with a camera walking through the meadow, heading towards the Cains' house. Camera man approaches Granny, explains his desires to film her house, and compliments her possessions, directing the camera around the yard to take in "the pecan barrels, the sled, me and Cathy, the flowers, the printed stones along the driveway, the trees, the twins, the toolshed." When Granny gives camera man a hard time, a second man approaches, who the narrator calls smilin man.

The narrator calls him smilin man because he is "smilin up a storm" as he explains they are filming for the county for the sake of the food stamp campaign. He continues to smile as he notices Granny's vegetable garden and asserts that, if other people in Granny's social class grew their own vegetables, "there'd be no need" for food stamps.

In short, camera man and smilin man are there to film Granny's state of poverty and how she handles it in order to convince the county not to spend money on food stamps. They are there to make a mockery of Granny's poverty and the poverty in her social class.

How did Puritanism influence the movement of Dark Romanticism?

The link between Puritanism and Dark Romanticism is an indirect one.  Dark Romanticism really arose as a response to Transcendentalism.  Whereas the Transcendentalists focused on the goodness in human nature, all the wonderful things of which we are capable, the Dark Romantics were far more interested in the darker side of human nature and all of the awful things of which we are capable. 

The Puritans, who predated the Transcendentalists by some 150-200 years, were...

The link between Puritanism and Dark Romanticism is an indirect one.  Dark Romanticism really arose as a response to Transcendentalism.  Whereas the Transcendentalists focused on the goodness in human nature, all the wonderful things of which we are capable, the Dark Romantics were far more interested in the darker side of human nature and all of the awful things of which we are capable. 

The Puritans, who predated the Transcendentalists by some 150-200 years, were keenly aware of humanity's propensity toward extreme sinfulness.  They were an austere people, and they definitely believed in the depravity of human nature.  They felt that, before they were born, God determined whether or not they would be a member of the elect -- those who went to heaven -- and so they would spend their entire lives questioning everything.  Does my illness indicate God's displeasure with me, and thus that means I'm not a member of the elect?  Or maybe my illness indicates that God is testing me because I am one of the elect?  They were constantly trying to read signs to find out God's will, and they could never be certain.  Therefore, they tended to fixate more on our ability to do bad.  In a sense, then, Dark Romanticism duplicates this fixation.  Dark Romantics were certainly more fascinated and titillated by the darkness within us, and, many, like Hawthorne connected this darkness to the Puritans as well.

Compare and contrast the protagonist's isolation from the world and people around them in "Death by Landscape" and "To Room Nineteen."

The isolation of Lois and Susan compares in terms of betrayal being the cause; in terms of the doubts (e.g., about their children) and questions (e.g., whose fault) that are raised; in terms of inability to reconcile life aspects. The isolation of Lois and Susan contrasts more significantly and includes contrasts in age during events and at the beginning of isolation; in emotionalism and "intelligence"; in the roles of emotion and reason ("intelligence"); in the presence of despondency or absurdity in present life; and in the depth and effect of psychological instability.

Lois's and Susan's ages contrast during the stories narrative period. Lois's tragic story--while told as a frame story set at Lois's retirement from family life--occurs when she is young, telling of events between when she was nine and thirteen. Lucy comes to camp when Lois is ten and steps "sideways" to disappear when she is thirteen. Susan's story, told as a frame story retrospective ("This is the story ... about a failure in intelligence .... They were older when they married...") begins when she is in her late twenty's and ends when she is "fortyish." Lois's isolation begins while she is a child, contrasting with Susan's isolation, which begins when she is a wife and mother.

The chronological structure of Lois's and Susan's stories contrasts. Lois's story inside the frame is told in flashback, which isolates her throughout the story because her adult isolation is born in her childhood. This contrasts with Susan's story, which, within the third-person retrospective frame, is told in continuing chronological order. This dramatizes the beginning moments of Susan's isolation, beginning with Matthew's first confession of infidelity. Lois's isolation begins in the past and bleeds into the present, while Susan's isolation begins in the present and is carried into the future.

Lois's story and tragedy is founded in emotionalism in contrast with Susan's story and tragedy being founded in "intelligence," that is in reasoning, not feeling. Lois's emotion isolates her because she is too overcome with weeping to insist that Cappie understand the truth about the absence of anger in her last moments with Lucy. Susan's intelligence isolates her because she rejects and denies her emotions while questioning the truth and meaningfulness of her love, her marriage and her children. One is isolated because of emotionality, the other because of intelligence, or reasoning.

Ironically, Lois is snagged into isolation by Lucy's and Caddie's faulty reasoning, while Susan is snagged into isolation by hers and Matthew's disruptive emotions. Lucy reasoned that going back to Chicago would be bad and that it was not dangerous to venture too near the cliff edge (suggesting her disappearance was an accidental fall: "like a cry of surprise, cut off too soon"), and Caddie reasoned that there had to be a comprehensible cause that Lois could provide to Lucy's disappearance. Susan couldn't accept the reasonableness of or cope with her erupting emotions, and Matthew couldn't contain his lustful emotions.

Lois is isolated because she feel despondence in her present life ("present" since she was thirteen). Contrastingly, Susan is isolated because she experiences the turmoil of the "absurd" in her present life (present, extending into her future). Lois and Susan compare because both feel further isolation because both question the reality of their children's births. The adult Lois of the frame says that she "can hardly remember, now, having her two boys in the hospital, nursing them as babies," and Susan feels that "her children were not her own."

Both women further compare because both are unable to reconcile aspects of their lives. Although they fail to reconcile different aspects, they compare in that Lois is unable to reconcile the mystery of the landscapes ("something, or someone, looking back out"), while Susan is unable to reconcile the meaning of Matthew's actions (are they meaningful or absurd?).

Lois and Susan contrast in the depths of their isolation because Lois felt Lucy lived on ("She is here. She is entirely alive."), while contrastingly Susan felt her life to be a desert. In comparison, both women have the same unanswered question prying at the corners of their minds: Who is at fault? In comparison, both women are betrayed by a loved one. Contrastingly, Lois is betrayed by Lucy, whether through foolhardiness or despair, and Susan is betrayed by Matthew through his fits of adultery.  

Lois contrasts with Susan in that Lois suffers from the isolating, unremitting distraction of her tragedy and the projection of hope onto empty reality in landscape paintings, but Susan falls into the isolation of choking insanity, with the devil stranger tracking her and "the reflection of the madwoman" and her "meaningless tinkling laughter." In further contrast, Lois's isolation ends with Lucy alive with her, but Susan's isolation ends with tightly closed windows, a turned valve and escaping gas in a closed, isolated, room.

What is the central idea of poem "The Village Schoolmaster"?

The central idea of the poem is that the villagers respect the schoolmaster for his education.

The poem describes a small village school.  Most of the residents in the village do not have much education, but the schoolmaster knows a lot by their standards.  They are very impressed with him.  Both students and adults admire his knowledge.

The schoolmaster is strict but fair.  He is not described as a tyrant, although he clearly does punish students who deserve it. 

Yet he was kind; or if severe in aught,
The love he bore to learning was in fault.
The village all declar'd how much he knew...

Although he is stern and the entire schoolhouse knows when he is having a bad day, he also seems to be a pleasant fellow.  He tells a lot of jokes.  The students laugh even when they don’t think the jokes are funny.  After all, this man is their teacher!

The villagers are very impressed that this man can read and write, because many of them can’t.  They admire the fact that one man can know so much.

Amazed the gazing rustics rang'd around;
And still they gaz'd and still the wonder grew,
That one small head could carry all he knew.
But past is all his fame.

What is never in question is the schoolmaster's love of learning.  He inspires his pupils to feel the same.  Even though they are "rustics," they have a chance to get a good education because he has one and is passing it on to them.

The poem ends with a sense of nostalgia.  The last line of the poem says that the schoolhouse has been forgotten, or the teacher has.  As time marches on, teachers are replaced and students leave to other things.  

Still, in his day, the schoolmaster reigned supreme.  He ran his schoolhouse with efficiency and dedication.  He doesn’t seem to have lorded his knowledge over anyone, but the villagers admired and respected it.  They may not have thought it was necessary to know everything, but they valued it all the same.

Of course today, this kind of education no longer exists.  It is rare to find a one-room schoolhouse. There is no longer one person that the village all reveres, because the rural populace became more educated.  This is a good thing, but we all still find romance in the idea of a tiny village with a one-room schoolhouse that everyone in the village learns from.

Who was most responsible for Roylott's death in "The Speckled Band"?

Dr. Roylott is responsible for his own death, because his murder weapon turned on him.

Dr. Roylott trained his snake to kill his step-daughters.  Therefore, he is really the one to blame when the snake turned on him and killed him.  Holmes knew about the snake, but there was no way he could predict what it would do.

When Helen Stoner hires Sherlock Holmes, she explains that her sister died an unexpected and unusual death...

Dr. Roylott is responsible for his own death, because his murder weapon turned on him.

Dr. Roylott trained his snake to kill his step-daughters.  Therefore, he is really the one to blame when the snake turned on him and killed him.  Holmes knew about the snake, but there was no way he could predict what it would do.

When Helen Stoner hires Sherlock Holmes, she explains that her sister died an unexpected and unusual death and gives him some background on the family and Roylott.

Violence of temper approaching to mania has been hereditary in the men of the family, and in my stepfather's case it had, I believe, been intensified by his long residence in the tropics. 

Holmes and Watson come to Stoke Moran, where they see many unusual animals.  They sit quietly in their room in the dark.  Holmes waits next to a grate for the snake to appear.  They hear a whistle and follow the snake back to Roylott.  He is dead.

“It is a swamp adder!” cried Holmes; “the deadliest snake in India. He has died within ten seconds of being bitten. Violence does, in truth, recoil upon the violent, and the schemer falls into the pit which he digs for another. …”

Holmes says that when a doctor goes bad, he goes really bad.  Doctors are supposed to help their patients, and they are intelligent enough and know enough about the body to compose terrible crimes.  However, Roylott becomes the victim of his own brilliance when his own snake turns on him.

Holmes says it is all for the best when Roylott dies.  This saves them the cost and difficulty of a trial.  Helen Stoner now has nothing to fear (as long as she can get rid of all of those animals).  The case has a happy ending, for everyone except for Dr. Roylott that is! 

In To Kill a Mockingbird, how does Harper Lee use the trial of Tom Robinson to show some of the attitudes of Maycomb society

In To Kill a Mockingbird, the most obvious attitude of Maycomb society that author Harper Lee reveals through Tom Robinson's trial is one of racism. However, beyond racism, Lee uses certain characters and their reflection on Robinson's trial to show that Maycomb is taking baby steps towards creating a more just society.

Other than Atticus, who is very determined to give Robinson the best defense he can, despite the inevitability of losing the case before an all-white jury, Lee uses characters like Miss Maudie, Judge Taylor, and later Sheriff Heck Tate to depict that certain citizens in Maycomb are willing to acknowledge the unfair treatment of African-American citizens and to move towards establishing a more just society.

Through a speech of Miss Maudie's the day after the trial, we learn that some of Maycomb's citizens are willing to embrace justice. The day after the trial, Miss Maudie invites the children into her home to serve them cake to try to cheer them up, especially Jem. As they converse about the trial, Miss Maudie makes Jem and the other two children think deeply about why Atticus was called on to defend Robinson by asking the two following questions:

Did it ever strike you that Judge Taylor naming Atticus to defend that boy was no accident? That Judge Taylor might have had his reasons for naming him? (Ch. 22)

After being asked these questions, Scout reflects in her narrative that Miss Maudie has a substantial point: Normally, Maycomb's youngest lawyer, Maxwell Green, would have been called upon to take on a hopeless case defending an African American because, as Scout says, he "needed the experience" (Ch. 22). Miss Maudie further explains that Judge Taylor purposefully called on Atticus because he knew Atticus was the only lawyer who was good enough to "keep a jury out so long in a case like that"; in other words, calling on Atticus was Judge Taylor's best means of attempting to give Robinson as much of a fair trial as segregated Southern society would allow, especially before an all-white jury. In Miss Maudie's mind, this shows that some of Maycomb's citizens are willing to make small steps towards equality, or, as she notes to the children, "[W]e're making a step--it's just a baby-step, but it's a step" (Ch. 22).

Aside from Miss Maudie and Judge Taylor, Sheriff Tate makes a comment by the end of the book that portrays his guilty feelings for having given into Bob Ewell's command to have Robinson arrested, which, of course, inevitably led to Robinson's unfair trial and subsequent death. During the trial, Atticus undeniably proves through his cross-examination that only a left-handed person would have been able to hurt Mayella, and Robinson has been crippled in his left arm and hand since childhood. Though Sheriff Tate may have been too dense and distracted by racist beliefs to have been able to notice that at the time of Robinson's arrest, by the end of the book, Sheriff Tate shows he regrets his responsibility in Robinson's arrest and subsequent death. Sheriff Tate indirectly confesses his feelings of guilt concerning Robinson's death the night he strives to convince Atticus not to push for the prosecution of Bob Ewell's death since Sheriff Tate knows Arthur Radley killed Ewell to protect the Finch children:

I'm not a very good man, sir, but I am sheriff of Maycomb County. Lived in this town all my life an' I'm goin' on forty-three years old. Know everything that's happened here since before I was born. There's a black boy dead for no reason, and the man responsible for it's dead. Let the dead bury the dead this time, Mr. Finch. Let the dead bury the dead. (Ch. 30)

In saying he's "not a very goody man," Sheriff Tate is indirectly confessing to his errors in judgement, possibly due to racist prejudices. Furthermore, in his line, "There's a black boy dead for no reason, and the man responsible for it's dead," Sheriff Tate is referring to the fact that Robinson has been killed regardless of perfect innocence and pointing out that Bob Ewell was primarily responsible for Robinson's death, who is now dead also. Sheriff Tate's indirect confession that Robinson was wrongly killed serves as further evidence that some people in Maycomb, like Sheriff Tate, are willing to start moving towards creating a more just society.

In Julius Caesar, describe Caesar's physical weaknesses as they are outlined by Cassius.

In his first conversation with Brutus, Cassius makes him aware of just how feeble and human Caesar actually is. He clearly resents the general opinion in which Caesar is deemed a demigod and wishes to persuade Brutus that such a belief is a fallacy. In part, he relates the following encounter to prove his point:

... For once, upon a raw and gusty day,
The troubled Tiber chafing with her shores,
Caesar said to me 'Darest thou, Cassius, now
Leap in with me into this angry flood,
And swim to yonder point?' Upon the word,
Accoutred as I was, I plunged in
And bade him follow; so indeed he did.
The torrent roar'd, and we did buffet it
With lusty sinews, throwing it aside
And stemming it with hearts of controversy;
But ere we could arrive the point proposed,
Caesar cried 'Help me, Cassius, or I sink!'
I, as Aeneas, our great ancestor,
Did from the flames of Troy upon his shoulder
The old Anchises bear, so from the waves of Tiber
Did I the tired Caesar...

The implication is clear: Caesar was too weak to complete the swimming challenge and save himself from drowning. He relied on the much stronger Cassius to save him, which he did, like the heroic Trojan warrior, Aeneas.

... He had a fever when he was in Spain,
And when the fit was on him, I did mark
How he did shake: 'tis true, this god did shake;
His coward lips did from their colour fly,
And that same eye whose bend doth awe the world
Did lose his lustre: I did hear him groan:
Ay, and that tongue of his that bade the Romans
Mark him and write his speeches in their books,
Alas, it cried 'Give me some drink, Titinius,'
As a sick girl. Ye gods, it doth amaze me
A man of such a feeble temper should
So get the start of the majestic world
And bear the palm alone.

In addition, he informs Brutus about Caesar's other physical ailments. Not only is he weak, but he also suffers from what seems to be epilepsy. Cassius had seen him have a seizure and, as he had his fit, he turned pale and his eyes glazed. Caesar groaned because of his discomfort and requested a drink. Cassius cleverly contrasts the power that Caesar supposedly has, with the weakness he displays. He calls Caesar's lips 'coward', implying that Caesar himself is cowardly.

Furthermore, Caesar's steely-eyed command and his authoritarian look ebbs away once he is overcome by fainting spells. The tongue he uses to command others to write for him, becomes a feeble instrument begging for relief once he becomes ill. Cassius contends that Caesar has a poor constitution and he is amazed that such a frail individual should solely command such great authority and stature.

It is obvious that Cassius greatly resents the power that Caesar wields. The purpose of his conversation is to persuade Brutus to consider the fact that Caesar is not fit to govern. They can wield just as much power as Caesar does and are more equipped to lead Rome. It is thus imperative that they plot his overthrow. Brutus tells him that he will consider what Cassius has told him.

... What you have said
I will consider; what you have to say
I will with patience hear, and find a time
Both meet to hear and answer such high things.

How long is the Meadhall closed in Beowulf?

Line 62 of Part II reads,

Twelve years did the Scyldings' sovereign bear this trouble, having many woes and unending travails

and indicates that Grendel, a monster who has made his home in a subterranean region near to the Heorot Hall, Danish King Hrothgar's mead hall, becomes disturbed by the presence of the warriors who eat and drink, and he takes extended actions against the warriors. Finally, in the night he goes to the hall, curious to discover what...

Line 62 of Part II reads,

Twelve years did the Scyldings' sovereign bear this trouble, having many woes and unending travails

and indicates that Grendel, a monster who has made his home in a subterranean region near to the Heorot Hall, Danish King Hrothgar's mead hall, becomes disturbed by the presence of the warriors who eat and drink, and he takes extended actions against the warriors. Finally, in the night he goes to the hall, curious to discover what they do when they finish their drinking. When he sees them sprawled fast asleep and unsuspecting of any trouble, Grendel capitalizes on the situation and "snatches" up thirty men, crushing them, and carrying their bloodied bodies back to his lair. Waging war on the Danes, he returns the next night and again and again, killing more men; he returns until Herot Hall is empty: "So he reigned in terror and raged nefariously against one and all until that majestic building stood empty."

                    ...Though he lived
In Heorot, when the night hid him, he never
Dared to touch king Hrothgar's glorious
Throne, protected by God--God,
Whose love Grendel could not know. (II, 81-85)

Hrothgar is feckless (unable to achieve anything) against this monster because Grendel will not take ransom or any bribes as other (normal) medieval warriors would. It is not until Beowulf hears of Hrothgar's plight and decides that he will go to help the Danish leader that changes occur at Heorot, having been empty those long twelve years. 

What does Candy blame Curley's wife's for?

Candy was counting on sharing a real home with George and Lennie. He had invested his entire savings of three hundred dollars in buying the house and land. He comes to the barn to talk to Lennie because he keeps getting new ideas for improving the property and needs to talk to somebody about them. When he first sees Curley's wife lying there he thinks she is asleep.

"You oughten to sleep out here," he said disapprovingly; and then he was beside her and--"Oh, Jesus Christ!"

Candy blames the girl for coming to the barn and presumably flirting with Lennie, getting him sexually aroused, and then getting killed when he attempted to rape her. That is the scenario that all the men visualize, including George. They know Lennie was responsible because everybody else was playing horseshoes, and they know that Lennie is always in the barn playing with his puppy. They all assume it was an accidental murder in connection with an attempted rape. This is not really too far from the truth.

Candy doesn't blame Curley's wife for getting killed. He blames her for being flirtatious and promiscuous. This is really not true of her. She is only acting that way because she wants to become a movie star and she is trying out her charms on the men at the ranch. She is imitating women she has seen in the movies, including, no doubt, Jean Harlow. She doesn't really want to have sex with anyone, including her own husband. Lennie did not kill her in attempting to rape her but in attempting to keep her from screaming--although he might have tried to rape her if she hadn't started screaming.

So Candy blames Curley's wife unfairly. She was really just being friendly. She wasn't even trying to be flirtatious with Lennie, but she has been acting so flirtatiously on so many occasions that it is natural for Candy to assume this is what led to her death. He realizes that her death has ruined his chances of sharing a farm with George. Lennie has apparently fled the scene. He will either be killed by Curley and the other men, or else he will be captured and probably executed for murder--or else locked up in an institution for the criminally insane for the rest of his life. Without Lennie the farm dream is out of the question. Candy can't expect George to do all the hard labor while he contributes nothing but a little housekeeping. Besides, George and Lennie were partners; it was their dream. Candy can't hope to have the kind of relationship with George that George had with Lennie.

When George leaves and Candy is alone with Curley's wife, he vents all his anger, frustration, self-pity, and despair on the dead girl.

"You God damn tramp," he said viciously. "You done it, di'n't you? I s'pose you're glad. Ever'body knowed you'd mess things up. You wasn't no good. You ain't no good now, you lousy tart," He sniveled, and his voice shook. "I could of hoed in the garden and washed dishes for them guys." He paused, and then went on in a singsong. And he repeated the old words: "If they was a circus or a baseball game . . . we would of went to her . . . jus' said 'ta hell with work,' an' went to her. Never ast nobody's say-so. An' they'd of been a pig and chickens . . . an' in the winter . . . the little fat stove . . . an' the rain comin' . . . an' us jus' sittin' there." His eyes blinded with tears and he turned and went weakly out of he barn, and he rubbed his bristly whiskers with his wrist stump.

What foreshadowing is in Friar Laurence's speech about herbs and flowers? Please explain with textual evidence.

Friar Lawrence's speech, considered a soliloquy because he is speaking at length while alone on stage, at the beginning of Act II, Scene 3, serves three purposes.

First, in Shakespearean theaters no lighting or props were used so the language had to set the scene. In the opening lines the Friar uses both personification and a simile to inform the audience it is morning:

The gray-eyed morn smiles on the frowning night,Check’ring the eastern clouds...

Friar Lawrence's speech, considered a soliloquy because he is speaking at length while alone on stage, at the beginning of Act II, Scene 3, serves three purposes.

First, in Shakespearean theaters no lighting or props were used so the language had to set the scene. In the opening lines the Friar uses both personification and a simile to inform the audience it is morning:

The gray-eyed morn smiles on the frowning night,
Check’ring the eastern clouds with streaks of light,
And fleckled darkness like a drunkard reels
From forth day’s path and Titan’s fiery wheels.

In fact, it is the morning after Romeo and Juliet first meet and when Romeo shows up we know he has been up all night.

Second, and to directly answer your question, the Friar is telling us that he is something of a chemist who can concoct both medicine and poisons. While he is gathering flowers and weeds he comments:

Within the infant rind of this small flower

Poison hath residence and medicine power.

For this, being smelt, with that part cheers each part;

Being tasted, stays all senses with the heart.

The fact that he knows about medicines and poisons foreshadows his plot later in the play for Juliet to drink a sleeping potion and fake her death so that she will not have to marry Count Paris and will eventually be reunited with Romeo. From this speech we know he is capable of mixing such a brew.  Unfortunately, ...well, you know the rest of the story.

Third, Shakespeare is commenting on the nature of human beings. In this play, people who are essentially good (there is not a truly evil character in the play--at least not as evil as some of Shakespeare's true villains like Iago or Richard III) are led to tragedy. Shakespeare says that, like the weeds and flowers, every human being may display elements of both good and evil. The Friar says,

Two such opposèd kings encamp them still
In man as well as herbs—grace and rude will;
And where the worser is predominant,
Full soon the canker death eats up that plant.

What is a good theme for the topic "loyalty" in The Outsiders?

Depending on who is or isn't showing loyalty to whom, you could make a few different arguments about what S.E. Hinton is saying about loyalty in The Outsiders. I'll put my various theme statement suggestions in italics below. 

If you are thinking about Darry and Pony's loyalty to one another, you might say blood is thicker than water as a theme statement to describe how Ponyboy, Soda, and Darry all work together to be...

Depending on who is or isn't showing loyalty to whom, you could make a few different arguments about what S.E. Hinton is saying about loyalty in The Outsiders. I'll put my various theme statement suggestions in italics below. 

If you are thinking about Darry and Pony's loyalty to one another, you might say blood is thicker than water as a theme statement to describe how Ponyboy, Soda, and Darry all work together to be a family and stick together after their parents' deaths. You could also use Darry's decision to stay home and work full time instead of going to college as evidence of this. 

At the same time, Pony questions Darry's loyalty to and love of him through most of the book. A theme statement to describe this might be when family members can't trust one another, the home dissolves into chaos. After all, it was Darry's slap that causes Pony to run away, where he and Johnny get jumped and kill the Soc. And, toward the end of the story, Soda cries out that both Pony and Darry calling on his loyalty in their arguments is tearing him apart. 

Loyalty to one outside your class invites suspicion is a good theme to describe Cherry and Pony's relationship. Even though they are very similar in interests and temperament, and they get along well, Ponyboy is constantly suspicious of Cherry's motives in being his friend. At the same time, Cherry knows that being Pony's friend in a public way would be unwise, and so she keeps it private – suggesting that maybe true loyalty can't exist between social classes.

In Hamlet, what is ironic about the sailor's use of the term "ambassador"?

In Act 4, Scene 6, a sailor who is one of the pirates that attacked Hamlet's ship and ended up taking him prisoner, delivers a letter from Hamlet to Horatio. The sailor tells Horatio:

There's a letter for you, sir. It came from th' ambassador that was bound for England--if your name be Horatio, as I am let to know it is.

There does not seem to be anything especially ironic about the sailor's use...

In Act 4, Scene 6, a sailor who is one of the pirates that attacked Hamlet's ship and ended up taking him prisoner, delivers a letter from Hamlet to Horatio. The sailor tells Horatio:

There's a letter for you, sir. It came from th' ambassador that was bound for England--if your name be Horatio, as I am let to know it is.

There does not seem to be anything especially ironic about the sailor's use of the term "ambassador," except for the fact that Hamlet is now a prisoner of the pirates. Hamlet really was an ambassador bound for England. He did not know the bellerophonic contents of the letter he was carrying until he broke the seal and read it, but he was an ambassador nevertheless. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were only his attendants. They may not even have been able to speak English. Of course, they were also Hamlet's keepers, so to speak. Their mission was to make sure that Hamlet got to England and didn't perform any more mad pranks.

When the Danish ship was attached by pirates, Hamlet was first to counterattack them. This shows that he is capable of extremely courageous direct action when he doesn't stop to think. It is his introspection and his predilection for rational analysis that inhibit his other faculties. In his letter to Horatio, he says that he boarded the pirate ship all by himself.

On the instant they got clear of our ship, so that I alone became their prisoner.

Naturally Hamlet would have told his captors that he was an ambassador from the Danish court on his way to England. They would have no other source of information except what Hamlet told them. What he told them was the actual truth: he was an ambassador.

How strong should the national government be?

There are varying viewpoints about how strong the national government should be. Just about everybody agrees the government needs to have enough power to run our country, to defend our country, and to keep order in our country. Before the Constitution was written, these were real issues with our government under the plan created by the Articles of Confederation.

The real debate starts with how much more should the government be able to do. For...

There are varying viewpoints about how strong the national government should be. Just about everybody agrees the government needs to have enough power to run our country, to defend our country, and to keep order in our country. Before the Constitution was written, these were real issues with our government under the plan created by the Articles of Confederation.

The real debate starts with how much more should the government be able to do. For those who have a distrust of business owners, they would want the government to have a lot of power to control our economy and our businesses. They would say that businesses would do what is best for them. This may not be what is best for the workers, the environment, or the community. These people feel that without government programs to help the needy, the needy will suffer and be mostly ignored. These people believe that without many rules and regulations, the rich will get richer while the poor will get poorer. They also believe the government should work to prevent political corruption.

Those who distrust the government say it has too much power. These people believe that the government interferes too much in our lives and reduces our freedoms. They believe that too many government rules and regulations hinder economic growth and business investment. They believe too many government bureaucrats don’t use common sense and impose too many restrictions on our people. These people want to limit the government’s power to doing only what the government absolutely has to do in order to run our country. They will support the government having a military, protecting our freedoms, and creating economic opportunities. They want the government to encourage people to invest and to help our economy grow. This usually means supporting a lower tax rate. They won’t support a lot of government social programs.

The debate about the role of government is a fierce one today. It is a key issue dividing the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. Now that I have shared the thoughts of both sides of the issue, where do you stand on this topic?

What social issues did Muhammad address for Arabia, and in what ways did his Islamic teachings address them? In the class readings, social issues...

Armstrong details how Muhammad addressed issues of economic exploitation and social fragmentation in Arabia through teachings that emphasized spirituality over materialism and unity over division.

In the opening paragraph of Armstrong's first chapter, she indicates that Muhammad was "worried" about what he saw as a "crisis in Arab society."  He felt that economic advancement had taken over spiritual understanding.  She writes about how Muhammad's had personally seen his people embrace materialism and deemphasize spiritual notions...

Armstrong details how Muhammad addressed issues of economic exploitation and social fragmentation in Arabia through teachings that emphasized spirituality over materialism and unity over division.

In the opening paragraph of Armstrong's first chapter, she indicates that Muhammad was "worried" about what he saw as a "crisis in Arab society."  He felt that economic advancement had taken over spiritual understanding.  She writes about how Muhammad's had personally seen his people embrace materialism and deemphasize spiritual notions of the good: "In recent decades, his [Muhammad's] own tribe, the Quraysh, had become rich by trading in the surrounding countries.  Mecca had become a thriving mercantile city, but in the aggressive stampede for wealth some of the old tribal values had been lost."  He saw that this tendency extended into "making money at the expense of some of the weaker members of the tribe" thereby rejecting the nomadic code of looking after those who were less fortunate.  Muhammad recognized that one of the profound issues that plagued Arabian society was a desire for material accumulation at the cost of spiritual growth. 

Armstrong argues that Muhammad's fear of economic exploitation was rooted in a larger fear of social fragmentation.  She asserts that Muhammad noticed how Arab tribes were less interested in unifying and more interested in a "murderous cycle" where one tribe attacked another.  Armstrong suggests that "thoughtful people" like Muhammad believed that this social disunity contributed to the notion that the Arabs were a "lost people."

Muhammad's teachings were aimed remedying these situations.  He "listened" to existing current events amongst his people and used his teachings to address them.  Once he started sharing his message, Muhammad aimed it at members of the poorer clans.  He recognized that this audience was unhappy with the growing economic divide that defined Mecca.  Armstrong argues that Muhammad did not teach the Arabs new doctrines--"no new doctrines"--but rather brought "the old faith in the One God to Arabs."  He taught Arabs that private fortune building should not come at the cost of society and that the "weak and vulnerable" must be treated with respect.  His teachings that emphasized charity in the form of alms addressed the economic exploitation that troubled him.  

In teaching about the totality of the divine, Armstrong believes that Muhammad sought to address the disunity that was representative of life in the Arabian peninsula.  He affirmed that all people should "surrender" (Islam) their entire identities to the will of Allah.  This meant that all people should treat one another with social equality and care towards one another.  This teaching emphasized how everyone is the same in the eyes of the divine, and repudiated the tribal antagonism that then defined Arabian society.  His teachings offered a social and spiritual alternative to tribal antagonism and to existing issues amongst the people of the Arabian peninsula.

What quotes describe how Scrooge changes in A Christmas Carol (Stave 3)?

Scrooge begins to care about other people in Stave Three.

At the beginning of Stave Three, Scrooge has already begun to change.  The journey into his past demonstrated to him that he chose to be alone.  It also reminded him of the people who used to be in his life, and the pain that he has experienced in the past.

Scrooge is extremely reflective as he watches Christmas present unfold.  Part of the experience is seeing people go about their lives and be happy as they celebrate the holiday together.  When he watches his clerk Bob Cratchit and his family, he shows that he is changing by the question he asks the ghost about Tiny Tim.

“Spirit,” said Scrooge, with an interest he had never felt before, “tell me if Tiny Tim will live.”

“I see a vacant seat,” replied the Ghost, “in the poor chimney-corner, and a crutch without an owner, carefully preserved. If these shadows remain unaltered by the Future, the child will die.” (Stave 3)

Before this, Scrooge never paid any attention to Cratchit’s family and didn’t care about their health or anyone else’s.  He told the men collecting for charity that he supported prisons and workhouses, not charities.  Yet here he is, asking about Tiny Tim and feeling sad when he learns that he might die.

Another example of Scrooge’s change in perception and behavior is his reaction to Ignorance and Want.  These are the children hiding under the Ghost of Christmas present’s robe.  When Scrooge inquiries about them, the ghost throws his words back at him.

“Have they no refuge or resource?” cried Scrooge.

“Are there no prisons?” said the Spirit, turning on him for the last time with his own words. “Are there no workhouses?” (Stave 3)

The ghost is reminding his charge that he has a lot to atone for.  Scrooge was not a friend to his fellow man.  Now Scrooge is obviously a very different man.  He actually cares about Tiny Tim and the children.

When the third ghost appears, Scrooge tells him he is ready to learn whatever lessons the ghost has to teach.  In his mind, he is a new man.  He demonstrates this again when he sees his headstone, reminding the ghost that he would not have been shown the visions if there was no hope for him.

Dickens is telling us that anyone can change.  In the climax of the story, Scrooge’s own words are thrown back at him.  He realizes that, as Jacob Marley said, mankind is his business.  From this point on, Scrooge vows to change and he does.  Scrooge is a different man after his journey with the ghosts.  He allows people into his life, and does his best to help the needy anywhere he can.

A surfer is about to attempt to ride the biggest wave she has ever seen. Her heart is pounding with fear, and she is not sure if she can make it...

Achievement motivation acts on our desire for success.  What causes this desire varies greatly from individual to individual, and so we can’t say anything definitive about the surfer’s motivations (whether they are intrinsic or extrinsic, i.e. whether she is riding the wave for personal reasons or whether she chances it because she wants to improve for a contest), but we can say that she is attempting the massive and intimidating wave because she wants to be a better surfer.  The idea here is that our achievements define us, and she is motivated by the desire for excellence.  If she manages to ride the wave, she has made an achievement in her sport, which is cause for personal satisfaction.  Even if she doesn’t ride the wave, she has attempted, which is in itself a satisfaction.

The arousal theory of motivation is based on the idea that people seek out activities that will help them maintain an ideal level of arousal.  For example, if you’re bored on a Saturday night, your arousal levels are low, and you will most likely seek out some activity to stimulate you – going out with friends or seeing a concert, something tailored to the individual that maintains a balanced level of interest.  Under this theory, the we can assume that the surfer is a thrill-seeker, someone whose optimal levels of arousal are fairly high – in this case she chooses to ride the wave in order to raise her levels of arousal; that is, to keep herself interested and keep the activity relevant.  It is possible, however, that she is not a thrill-seeker – her fast-beating heart is a possible indication that she is over-shooting in seeking arousal, in which case her performance as she rides the wave will suffer. 

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is often represented as a pyramid of motivational factors; when a person’s most basic needs are met (those at the base of the pyramid), any actions performed by that person are said to be motivated by the needs defined on the next tier of the pyramid, working one’s way up to self-actualization, the highest motivator, which can only be “activated” after having secured all the needs on the pyramid prior to it.  In order, these needs are biological and physiological needs, safety needs, social needs, esteem needs, and self-actualization needs.  So a person who has just moved to a new town will only actively strive to meet new people (social) after he has found a secure place to stay (safety), and this only after he has satisfied those biological needs we all must satisfy to stay alive – proper food, water, health, etc.  In the case of the surfer, we can assume she is not struggling with any biological or safety needs – she feels secure in her abilities, her health, and the ultimate safety of the wave or else she wouldn’t attempt to ride it.  Social needs don’t explicitly factor in because there is no mention of anyone else in this scenario.  So we can assume that her motivation falls within either esteem or self-actualization.  Esteem needs are driven by a desire for achievement and independence, qualities which would emphasize the surfer’s abilities.  By attempting to ride the wave she is searching for the growth and affirmation of these qualities within herself.  If this need is self-actualization, she is seeking to realize her own potential.  We cannot know exactly which need she is fulfilling because they are driven by personal perceptions and goals.

The Canon-Bard Thalamic Theory is a theory of emotion that would explain the surfer’s pounding heart.  The surfer sees the wave, and it stimulates both the emotion fear and the physical reaction attributed to fear simultaneously.  This theory was proposed in opposition to other leading theories that the physiological responses to stimuli precede and cause the resulting emotion.  Instead, the emotion is interpretable only with reference to the physical manifestation.  Because a racing heart may be a sign of several different emotions, it is possible that what the surfer is feeling is not actually fear, but excitement, which would modify the arousal theory analysis above.

The opponent-process theory is another theory of emotion positing that the experience of a particular feeling at first may overshadow its opposite, but over time the opposing feeling will take precedence and edge out the initial feeling.  Addiction is a prime example of this: with prolonged exposure to some addictive substance, an individual’s feeling of pleasure after contact lessens, and it is instead the misery of withdrawal that forces the continued behavior.  So by stimulating one emotion, its opposite is also being stimulated, and with the lessening of the initial emotion the opposing emotion manifests itself.  Our surfer is feeling fear at the sight of the huge wave before her – according to this theory, she is also therefore experiencing the opposite of fear – this could be relief, it could be excitement.  As she rides the wave, this fear will dissipate and be replaced with whatever opposing emotion she is feeling, and as she continues in her surfing career, the more often she is faced with these intimidating waves, the more often she will approach them with excitement or relief, and the more her fear will diminish.  According to this theory she is unconsciously conditioning herself emotionally to these sorts of waves.

When would the degree of decentralization be greater?

Generally, we measure decentralization by measuring its opposite, centralization. There are actually formal measures of centralization in graph theory, which are based on what proportion of links are in by what proportion of nodes. A highly centralized network will have many of its links accounted for by a small number of nodes.

Since you asked this as a "social sciences" question, I assume you're most interested in examples from political and economic systems.

A more centralized government is one in which more decisions are made by the top decision-makers, rather than delegated to intermediate levels of leadership. For example, federal law is more centralized than state law, which is more centralized than city ordinances. Depending on what proportion of important laws are made at each level, a government could overall become more centralized or decentralized. There is reason to think, in fact, that the US government has become more centralized over time, with the federal government taking on more and more roles previously reserved for state governments. (Is this good or bad? Hard to say. But it's definitely more centralized.)

A government could also be considered more decentralized if decisions are made by a large legislative body instead of a single executive official. In this sense the US government has definitely gotten more centralized, as the role of the President has greatly expanded over time.

Businesses, or even whole industries, can also be consider more or less centralized. An industry with a handful of major corporations that control it (such as aircraft manufacturing) is more centralized than an industry with a large number of competing producers (such as tomato farming). Even within a company, decision-making could be more decentralized if the management structure is set up to delegate more authority to middle managers or employees instead of top executives.

It sounds like you might also be interested in circumstances that might lead to greater or lesser decentralization. This is a much harder question; there isn't a lot of consensus withing political science on why some governments become more centralized than others. It may be related to complex cultural and historical factors. We do have some reason to think that countries with a lot of easily-extracted natural resources (such as gold or oil) tend to have more centralized governments, because the government often forms around that particular extractive industry. But even then there are clear exceptions, such as Norway, which produces a lot of oil but has a very decentralized government.

In economics at least, we do have the concept of a natural monopoly, or more generally a natural oligopoly. In either case, this is an industry where, given the amount of demand, and operating at optimal efficiency, there is a fixed number of companies that would sell in that market. Either more or fewer companies entering the market would end up producing less efficiently. A natural monopoly is the special case when the optimal number of companies is exactly 1. You could also have a natural duopoly (2), a natural triopoly (3), and so on.

A good example of a natural monopoly is municipal water; the setup cost for water lines is very large, but the marginal cost of providing water is very small, so it makes the most sense in terms of efficiency for one company to set up to provide water and then provide it to everyone in the city.

In the presence of a natural oligopoly, centralization becomes greater. The smaller the oligopoly, the stronger this centralization becomes.

Water has a high specific heat because it has strong __________________.

Water has a high specific heat due to the strong polarity between its bonds.

Specific heat is the amount of heat required to increase the temperature of one gram of a substance by one degree Celsius.

Water is very polar. Polar substances are covalently bonded substances that contain partially positive and negative charges. The partial charges within a polar substance are the result of electronegativity differences between the atoms that share the bond. Electronegativity is the likelihood that an atom will attract a pair of bonded electrons. Amongst all of the elements on the periodic table, electronegativity ranges between approximately 0.7 to 4.0. Some periodic tables contain electronegativity values of each atom. The electronegativity difference between two atoms forming a bond can be used to determine the type of bond that will be formed between the two atoms, as identified below.

Electronegativity differences of less than 0.5 = nonpolar covalent

Electronegativity of 0.5 – 1.6 = polar covalent

Electronegativity difference of 2.0 or more = ionic bond

However, if there is a large electronegativity difference between two atoms but there is symmetry within the compound, then that compound will not display polarity. This is the reason why carbon dioxide (CO2) is not considered to be polar.

Hydrogen has an electronegativity of 2.1 and oxygen has an electronegativity of 3.5. Therefore, the electronegativity difference is 1.4. Thus, water is very polar. The polarity between water compounds results in a type of intermolecular force called a hydrogen bond.

Temperature is a measurement of the average kinetic energy of the particles within a substance. Kinetic energy is the energy of movement. Thus, in order for the temperature of a substance to increase, the particles that make up the substance need to gain kinetic energy and increase in movement.

Water has a high specific heat capacity because the heat added to water is initially used to overcome the hydrogen bonds. It is only when these bonds are broken that the water molecules begin to move freely. It is then that the kinetic energy of the molecules begins to increase, increasing the water’s temperature.

A manufacturing process fills soft drink bottles with a population mean equal to 12.074 ounces and a population standard deviation equal to 0.046...

We are given that the population mean mu=12.074, with a population standard deviation sigma=.046. We are asked to find the percentage of the population with the following properties:

(a) Find P(x<12.010):

We convert the data point by "normalizing": z=(x-mu)/sigma, so z=(12.010-12.074)/.046 or z is approximately -1.39. (Note that this is reasonable; the z score indicates how many standard deviations a score is from the mean and in which direction. 12.010 is less than 12.074 so...

We are given that the population mean mu=12.074, with a population standard deviation sigma=.046. We are asked to find the percentage of the population with the following properties:

(a) Find P(x<12.010):

We convert the data point by "normalizing": z=(x-mu)/sigma, so z=(12.010-12.074)/.046 or z is approximately -1.39. (Note that this is reasonable; the z score indicates how many standard deviations a score is from the mean and in which direction. 12.010 is less than 12.074 so z<0, and it is almost 1 1/2 standard deviations from the mean.)

Now P(x<12.010)=P(z<-1.39) (Assuming that the underlying population is approximately normal.)

Consulting a standard normal table, we find that the area of the curve to the left of -1.39 (or equivalently the probability of a random z being less than -1.39) is .0822.

So P(x<12.010 is approximately 8.22%

(b) P(x>12.172): convert to a z score; z=(12.172-12.074)/.046=2.13

Then P(x>12.172)=P(z>2.13)

If we are using a table we must be careful, as most tables give the area to the left; here we want the area to the right so we find 1-P(z<2.13)=1-.9834=.0166

So P(x>12.172)=1.66%

I need a thesis statement about how Romeo and Juliet are infatuated with each other and I have to somehow connect it to this monologue? The thesis...

You may want to explore a thesis statement such as, "In the monologue O serpent heart, William Shakespeare shows that Juliet is feeling conflicted about her feelings for Romeo."  Juliet has a powerful love for Romeo, yet she has also just found out that he has killed her cousin, Tybalt. While it may be expected that Juliet would not feel conflict because her hatred of Romeo that would result from his murderous actions toward her...

You may want to explore a thesis statement such as, "In the monologue O serpent heart, William Shakespeare shows that Juliet is feeling conflicted about her feelings for Romeo."  Juliet has a powerful love for Romeo, yet she has also just found out that he has killed her cousin, Tybalt. While it may be expected that Juliet would not feel conflict because her hatred of Romeo that would result from his murderous actions toward her family would replace her love for him, this does not happen.  From the monologue, and Shakespeare's use of oxymorons such as "beautiful tyrant," "damned saint," etc, suggest that Juliet also has two opposing emotions existing simultaneously within her.  Her love never wavers, and yet it is not as if she ignores her feelings of anger for Romeo's murderous deed either.  The simultaneous presence of these emotions causes Juliet much conflict.

In "The Leap" by Louise Erdrich,the narrator speaks of the three ways that she owes her existence to her mother. Identify the three ways and a...

The narrator tells the reader that she owes her existence to her mother three times.  The first time was during a circus act in which her mother, Anna of the Flying Avalons, lost her husband in a tragic trapeze accident.  While on the trapeze, blindfolded, their circus tent was struck by lightning.  Anna’s husband fell to his death.  She could have

“….grasped his ankle, the toe-end of his tights, and gone down clutching him.” (pg 2)

In which case, she would have died also.  Instead she grabbed a heavy wire and was lowered to the ground.  She was seven months pregnant at the time.  The narrator, for we never do know her name, says she thought she must have hemorrhaged because they kept her in bed for a month and half before the baby was born dead.

The second time is when she met her husband in the hospital.  We are all products of our mother and father.  If that mother or father should change, a different person would be created.  So, by the fact that her mother married her father and bore her, she owes her existence to her.

The third time was when the fire occurred in their home.  The narrator was trapped in her upstairs room.  There was no way that the firefighters could get to her.  Her mother, using her trapeze skills, swung herself up to the window, grabbed her daughter, and jumped to the trampoline below held by the firefighters. 

Foreshadowing is used in this piece.  The reader knows that the girl is going to survive the fire because in the third paragraph, she says,

                “I owe her my existence three times.” (pg 1)

There is symbolism in the lamb figurine on top of her sister’s grave.  The lamb represents a young one who had died.

As each event unfolds in the story, they become more personal to the narrator, increasing the tension.  The death of her mother’s first husband is separate from her life.  Her parents’ meeting was the cause of her life, and the fire was a survival story of her life.  Each one involved the narrator more and more. 

A ball is thrown vertically upwards with a speed of 27.3 m/s from a height of 2.0 m. How long does it take to reach its highest point? How long...

Consider the two parts of the ball's motion separately.

First, the ball is traveling upward. Since the initial velocity is directed up, and the gravitational acceleration is directed down, the ball will slow down and eventually stop. Then, it will start moving down. So, at the highest point, the ball's velocity is 0.

We can use this equation of motion to find the time it takes the ball to reach the highest point:

`v_f =...

Consider the two parts of the ball's motion separately.

First, the ball is traveling upward. Since the initial velocity is directed up, and the gravitational acceleration is directed down, the ball will slow down and eventually stop. Then, it will start moving down. So, at the highest point, the ball's velocity is 0.

We can use this equation of motion to find the time it takes the ball to reach the highest point:

`v_f = v_0 + at`

`v_f = 0` as discussed above, `v_0 = 27.3 m/s` and `a =-9.82 m/s^2` (negative, because it is in the direction opposite to initial velocity.)

Plugging these values into the equation results in

0 = 27.3 - 9.82t

From here `t = 27.3/9.82= 2.78 s`

The time it takes the ball to reach the highest point is 2.78 seconds.

To find how long it will take the ball to hit the ground afterwards, we first need to find the height of the highest point. Since we already know the time it took the ball to get there, we can use the equation

`h = h_0 + v_0t+at^2/2`

The initial height is `h_0 = 2m` , so

`h = 2 + 27.3(2.78) - 9.82(2.78)^2/2`  = 39.9 meters.

So the balls falls down from the height of h = 39.9 meters with initial velocity 0. The time it will take the ball to hit the ground is determined by

`0 = h +at^2/2`

`0 = 39.9 - 9.82*t^2/2`

From here `t = sqrt((2*39.9)/9.82) = ` 2.85 seconds.

It will take the ball 2.85 seconds after it reaches the highest point to hit the ground.

What would be a thesis statement using the role of the wife in the story "Cathedral"?

The wife was afraid that her husband would spoil the visit from the blind man whose name is Robert. Her husband is shy and awkward with strangers, and he is also obviously somewhat jealous of the special relationship that his wife had with Robert, as well as more than a little suspicious of what his wife has told Robert about him in their many communications. As the evening progresses, however, the wife is pleasantly surprised...

The wife was afraid that her husband would spoil the visit from the blind man whose name is Robert. Her husband is shy and awkward with strangers, and he is also obviously somewhat jealous of the special relationship that his wife had with Robert, as well as more than a little suspicious of what his wife has told Robert about him in their many communications. As the evening progresses, however, the wife is pleasantly surprised that her husband and Robert are getting along very well. She realizes that her husband has more sensitivity than she had given him credit for. He can appreciate the same good qualities in Robert that she appreciates in him herself. This experience will not only help to develop a three-way relationship between herself, her husband, and Robert, but it will improve the teetering marital relationship that was developing between her husband and herself. Robert's blindness has given him special psychic powers, so to speak. He has learned to see through other people's eyes. which gives him tolerance, sympathy, and understanding. Robert is able to form good relations with strangers quickly because he has had to be so dependent on other people. The visit the wife dreaded has turned out to have a sort of magical effect on the couple.

How did A Wrinkle in Time end?

As the last chapter of the novel opens, Charles Wallace remains trapped in IT. Mr. Murray and Calvin both offer to go rescue Charles Wallace, but Mrs. Whatsit tells them their plans will not work. Meg realizes that she is the only one who can save her brother, but this makes her angry.

Nevertheless, she tessers to Camazotz and goes to the CENTRAL Central Intelligence Building to find Charles Wallace. Mrs. Which had told her...

As the last chapter of the novel opens, Charles Wallace remains trapped in IT. Mr. Murray and Calvin both offer to go rescue Charles Wallace, but Mrs. Whatsit tells them their plans will not work. Meg realizes that she is the only one who can save her brother, but this makes her angry.

Nevertheless, she tessers to Camazotz and goes to the CENTRAL Central Intelligence Building to find Charles Wallace. Mrs. Which had told her that she will defeat IT because she has something IT does not have, but Meg does not know what that is.

She finds Charles Wallace, but instead of feeling love for her brother, she feels anger; IT has such great control of her brother that she barely even recognizes him. She begins to think that maybe anger is what IT does not have, so she focuses on her anger. However, anger does not free Charles Wallace.

Meg begins to realize that anger is negative, just like IT. Love, on the other hand, is positive; IT does not have and cannot understand love. She tries to love her brother rather than feeling anger toward IT. She thinks about what Charles Wallace was like when they were younger, before IT got a hold of him. She lovingly calls to him, and he responds! Meg's love frees Charles Wallace from IT.

Suddenly, Meg is back home with her family--all of her family.

How does Shakespeare present Juliet as being a strong woman in the play Romeo and Juliet?

Please see the links below that show different interpretations of Juliet. I tend to disagree with most of those readings. Of course, any analysis of a work of literature is totally subjective. It's instructive to note that Shakespeare was basing his play on a story that was already well known. He had no choices in how to plot the story, yet it could be said that he shows a young girl who changes and matures throughout the course of the drama.

Even though she is only 13 years old Juliet could be considered the strongest character in Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. At the beginning we meet a young girl who is both polite and obedient. She is the dutiful daughter of parents who barely know her. She is basically raised by her Nurse who is the person she depends on the most until the Nurse betrays her in Act III. In fact, we lose faith in the Nurse because she advises Juliet to give up Romeo and marry Paris. The Nurse doesn't understand the strength of Juliet's love.

When she meets Romeo she is instantly in love and we know, through later events, that her love is genuine. Unlike Romeo, who seems to fall in love with any pretty girl he sees, Juliet is thoughtful about her love for the son of Montague. In the balcony scene she tells Romeo to wait and to take some time to consider the love the two obviously feel for each other. She says, in Act II, Scene 2,

Although I joy in thee,
I have no joy of this contract tonight.
It is too rash, too unadvised, too sudden,
Too like the lightning, which doth cease to be
Ere one can say “It lightens.” Sweet, good night.
This bud of love, by summer’s ripening breath,
May prove a beauteous flower when next we meet.

Romeo, of course, is not to be put off. He is impetuous and urges her to marry him right away. Not wanting to lose him, Juliet agrees. Some may say that she too is impetuous, but it could also be said that Juliet knows what she wants and doesn't want to risk losing it. For the first time in her life she makes a decision on her own despite knowing it would be against her parents' wishes. Unlike most women of her time, she thinks for herself. Her life is simply not a pawn to be manipulated by her father.

Later in the play when Juliet's father wants her to marry Count Paris, she stands up for herself and refuses. Even though she risks everything she weathers the wrath of her father and stays loyal to Romeo. Even when the Nurse advises her to give up her love she stands fast and seeks out counsel from Friar Lawrence.

The truest example of her strength is demonstrated in her willingness to go along with the Friar's plan. Not many young girls would trust in a plan that involved drinking a potion which would place them in a deathlike state. In the best soliloquy of the play Juliet describes her fears and shows her steely determination to again be reunited with Romeo. In Act IV, Scene 3, she says,

O, if I wake, shall I not be distraught,
Environèd with all these hideous fears,
And madly play with my forefathers’ joints,
And pluck the mangled Tybalt from his shroud,
And, in this rage, with some great kinsman’s bone,
As with a club, dash out my desp’rate brains?
O look, methinks I see my cousin’s ghost
Seeking out Romeo that did spit his body
Upon a rapier’s point! Stay, Tybalt, stay!
Romeo, Romeo, Romeo! Here’s drink. I drink to
thee.

Finally, at the end Juliet again displays her determined love when she takes her own life in the wake of Romeo's poisoning. She goes from being a girl ruled by her father to a woman who can make her own decisions and go after what her heart tells her is right. 

As a reader when do you begin to sympathize with Farquhar before or after his introduction in section II? Why?

There are two ways in which a fiction writer creates identification, empathy, or sympathy with a character. One is to tell everything from that character's point of view. The other way is to give the character a problem with which it is easy for the reader to relate. In the opening of "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge" we are kept strictly in Peyton Farquhar's point of view. For example:

He unclosed his eyes and saw again the water below him. "If I could free my hands," he thought, "I might throw off the noose and spring into the stream. By diving I could evade the bullets and, swimming vigorously, reach the bank, take to the woods and get away home. My home, thank God, is as yet outside their lines; my wife and little ones are still beyond the invader's farthest advance."

Peyton Farquhar's problem is very simple and very easy to identify with. He is going to be hanged and he would like very much to be able to live. Wouldn't we all? In fact, it is his strong desire to live and to return to his plantation and his beautiful wife that shape the remainder of the story. Although he can't actually escape from the situation he is in, he fantasizes about doing so while he is falling to his death with the noose around his neck.

A problem in fiction usually involves a motivation. Farquhar's motivation is to escape. He has a real problem because he is surrounded by Union soldiers, has his hands tied behind his back, and has a noose around his neck. A problem is not necessarily solved in a story. For example, the problem of the unnamed protagonist in Jack London's story "To Build a Fire" is that he wants to get to safety without freezing to death. He has the problem because of his motivation to stay alive and get to the cabin where there will be shelter and warmth. Jack London's attitude towards the human condition is not much different from that of Ambrose Bierce. In spite of the protagonist's strong desire to survive, he ends up dying in the snow. We have been hoping all along that he would make it to shelter.

Peyton Farquhar's original motivation to burn down the Owl Creek Bridge was what got him into the situation he was in. Then his motivation evolved into wanting to get away. We identify with him from beginning to end. We are pleasantly surprised when it appears that the hanging rope broke and he is in the creek with a chance to escape. We identify with him up to the moment when he seems to have reached his plantation and is about to embrace his loving wife. We have been imaging ourselves to be in his predicament all along. It is the ability of human beings to identify with others that makes drama and fiction possible.

Then with his characteristic cynicism, pessimism, and nihilism, Ambrose Bierce shows us how foolish we are to expect miracles to happen for us in this world.

As he is about to clasp her he feels a stunning blow upon the back of the neck; a blinding white light blazes all about him with a sound like the shock of a cannon--then all is darkness and silence!

Peyton Farquhar was dead; his body, with a broken neck, swung gently from side to side beneath the timbers of the Owl Creek bridge.

How are Soda Pop and Darry's personalities different?

Darry has a very serious personality. This may be because he's been forced into the position of taking care of the family, but he seems to be unable to have fun anymore. Ponyboy says that every once in a while he might go skiing with his friends but mostly he just works hard all the time to keep the family together. He worries about Ponyboy and Soda and comes off as overbearing. One example of...

Darry has a very serious personality. This may be because he's been forced into the position of taking care of the family, but he seems to be unable to have fun anymore. Ponyboy says that every once in a while he might go skiing with his friends but mostly he just works hard all the time to keep the family together. He worries about Ponyboy and Soda and comes off as overbearing. One example of this is when he hits Ponyboy. Again, this may be a factor of all the pressure he feels.

Soda, on the other hand, seems to be very happy-go-lucky. He dropped out of school and is described by Ponyboy as someone who gets drunk on life. He is also a very caring person, trying to help Darry and Ponyboy deal with the stresses they feel. He is always joking about everything.

The one time the reader sees him feeling serious is when Sandy leaves to live with her grandmother and then he gets back his letter to her unopened. He clearly cares very deeply about the people that are important to him and is deeply hurt when they do not feel the same way.

Is Romeo a tragic hero?

Before determining whether Romeo is a tragic hero or not, it's important to understand the characteristics that tragic heroes must encompass. I provided a reference link at the bottom of this answer to a different thread on the topic of what makes a tragic hero - check it out for more detailed information. In summary, a tragic hero must:

• Be born into nobility


• Have a tragic flaw (also known as hamartia) - a flaw that leads to a character's downfall


• Be fated to make an error in judgement 


• Evoke a sense of pity from the audience 


• Be responsible for his/her own fate


• Lose nobility or status after the error in judgement


• Experience a tragic death

The prologue of Romeo and Juliet give us many clues as to whether or not Romeo could be considered a tragic hero:

Two households, both alike in dignity,
In fair Verona, where we lay our scene,
From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,
Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean.
From forth the fatal loins of these two foes
A pair of star-cross'd lovers take their life;
Whose misadventured piteous overthrows
Do with their death bury their parents' strife.
The fearful passage of their death-mark'd love,
And the continuance of their parents' rage,
Which, but their children's end, nought could remove,
Is now the two hours' traffic of our stage;
The which if you with patient ears attend,
What here shall miss, our toil shall strive to mend.

We know both Romeo and Juliet are from noble families from the very first line of the prologue since the households are described as being "alike in dignity." We also know that Romeo and Juliet are destine for fate since they are described as "star-cross'd lovers" - or lovers that are full of bad luck. We also know that Romeo and Juliet tragically die since they "take their life." Since Romeo and Juliet are "star-cross'd" and commit suicide, the audience will feel a sense of pity for them, especially considering their ages. 

This then leaves us with Romeo's tragic flaw - he's imprudent. In other words, he acts rashly without considering the consequences of his actions. The play is full of examples of Romeo's rashness - from his short-lived love for Rosaline and his love for Juliet to killing Tybalt, Juliet's beloved cousin. In terms of his short-lived love for Rosaline, we see Romeo as a character that we might not be able to take so seriously since he moved from being madly in love with Rosaline to madly in love with Juliet within a couple of pages. When Romeo and Juliet find out that they are their families' worst enemies, Romeo continues to pursue the relationship anyway. In fact, they end up be marrying rather quickly. This is the point where Romeo decided and is responsible for his own fate - he didn't have to marry Juliet. Finally, the Prince warned that if there was another fight, that the instigator would be punished; thus, Romeo was banished from Verona, forever changing his nobility status. 

With that being said, I think there is an argument to be made that Romeo is, in fact, a tragic hero. 

However, to play devil's advocate, so to say, an argument could be made that the audience may not feel a sense of pity for Romeo since we realize his is imprudent from the very beginning with his "love" for Rosaline. In other words, it's hard to feel sorry for someone that makes the same mistakes over and over again. 

Why did France agree to sell the enormous territory of Louisiana?

France and the United States agreed to the Louisiana Purchase on April 30, 1803. The United States' motivations were easy to discern; the deal greatly expanded the American frontier, giving the young country an additional 828,000 square miles. Moreover, the Americans were ecstatic to acquire this land for the incredibly cheap price of less than three cents per acre.

The Americans were able to get such a great deal on the Louisiana Purchase because Napoleon...

France and the United States agreed to the Louisiana Purchase on April 30, 1803. The United States' motivations were easy to discern; the deal greatly expanded the American frontier, giving the young country an additional 828,000 square miles. Moreover, the Americans were ecstatic to acquire this land for the incredibly cheap price of less than three cents per acre.

The Americans were able to get such a great deal on the Louisiana Purchase because Napoleon greatly needed the money to finance his impending war with Great Britain. If war did come, the French feared the British would invade the Louisiana territory from Canada; selling the land prior to the war brought money into the French treasury and eliminated the threat of invasion.

Hello, I am an 8th grade student currently not living in the USA, but I am required to learn about it anyways. I need to write a report about why...

That's a somewhat odd way to structure an assignment: You're required to take a particular stand even if you're not sure you agree with it. I guess there can be value in trying to argue for opposing views to make sure that you have addressed the best arguments... but still, I worry a bit that your teacher might be trying to push a particular opinion rather than letting you figure it out on your own.

That said, there are plenty of ways in which the United States does not live up to its ideals of freedom, equality, and justice. I study global inequality, so I happen to know that by world standards we do moderately well. But by comparison to our own ideals or even to other First World countries like France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Norway, the United States still has a long way to go.

Some of the worst violations of freedom and justice in the United States are related to the so-called "War on Terror", the massive (over)reaction to the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001 that killed almost 3,000 Americans. In response to that watershed event, we in the United States expanded our military and intelligence services, militarized our police forces, and curbed a number of different civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism. There are now many forms of searches and wiretaps that the US government performs without warrants, and in rare circumstances our government even kidnaps potential terrorists, moves them off our soil to Guantanamo Bay (a US-controlled region of Cuba) and tortures them---all without a warrant, let alone a trial. We now live in a world in which the NSA is very likely reading this very paragraph and running it through algorithms to determine if I am a potential terrorist. A man named Edward Snowden used to work for the NSA until he couldn't tolerate it anymore, and revealed these horrific surveillance systems to the world---only to be branded a traitor and forced to flee to Russia.

Of course, I'm White (mostly) and very definitely not Muslim, so the algorithm will probably give me a pass as someone who cares about civil liberties rather than a terrorist sympathizer. This brings me to the next major source of injustices in the United States: bigotry. While we have made substantial progress over time, from banning slavery in the 1860s and giving women the right to vote in 1920 all the way up to banning racial segregation in the 1960s and legalizing same-sex marriage in 2015, there still remains a large amount of racism, sexism, and homophobia in this country. African-Americans and Native Americans bear the worst racism, but others are still discriminated against in various ways. Because the 9/11 terrorists were motivated by an extremist Islamic ideology, most Americans are now at least suspicious of Muslims, and many are outright bigoted toward them. Many Muslims have faced ridicule, humiliation, or even violence as a result.

People from groups that are discriminated against systematically have worse outcomes in their lives, including less education, poorer health, and lower incomes. And this brings me to the final reason why the United States fails to live up to its ideals of equality and justice: Economic inequality. The United States actually has some of the most extreme income inequality in the world, meaning that some Americans are very poor while a few are fantastically rich. The top 1% of our population receives over 20% of the income. The top 0.01% receives almost 4% by themselves. We have over 500 billionaires---people so rich they could buy a Ferrari every day for the rest of their lives---but also over 50 million people in poverty.

To be clear, the United States does have many fine qualities, and our aspirations toward freedom, equality, and justice are not entirely in vain. We do have one of the highest freedom of speech ratings in the world, for example. Our elections are almost entirely fair and legitimate, and in the rare cases where someone tries to rig them the punishment is swift and severe. While bigotry still remains embedded in our culture, there have also been very large improvements in the quality of life of many oppressed groups in a remarkably short period of time. We are in fact the first White-majority country to elect a non-White head of state (President Barack Obama).

Even what we call "poverty" in the US is not as bad as poverty in many other countries, including Costa Rica where you are from. The US poverty line is about $11,000 per year while the poverty line in Costa Rica is only about $1,200 per year. I feel awkward admitting that what we call "poor" may seem fairly well-off by the standards you are familiar with. Our prices are higher here, especially in terms of housing, so money does not go as far... but even adjusting for that this remains true. Europe has an even higher poverty line, so what they call "poverty" honestly isn't; it's more like being less rich than average.

I hope that gives you enough to work from!