Why are civilizations divided into social classes?

The answer to this question lies in human behavior and the fact that in most societies, there is a limitation of resources.  I am going to use the term "society," rather than "civilization" because I think "civilization" is too broad a term to address this question.

For better or worse, it seems to be part of human nature to want to feel superior to others. This is what motivates competition. It's wonderful if a person's self-esteem rests solely on his or her own accomplishments, but there is a side to us that likes to look down on others to feel good about ourselves. We cannot seem to help making comparisons. Of course, this drive to be better than others is also what clears land, builds buildings, and got people to the moon, so it might be fair to say we might not have civilization—as we understand it—at all if it weren't for this human inclination. That this is a trait that is evolutionary in nature makes a great deal of sense. You can see, though, that this need makes for winners and losers, so losers get relegated in one way or another to another "class."

Another aspect of human nature that is relevant here, I think, is our tendency to demonize the "other." This was a useful trait early in human history that allowed us to be wary of other tribes who might not mean well. Today, its use is far more malignant. Slaves imported from Africa were "the other" in a way African Americans have yet to recover from in American society. Each wave of immigrants to our shores creates a new underclass, as "No Irish Need Apply" was a common sign in New York City when boatloads of Irish fled famine. More recently, some Americans have been working hard on creating an underclass of Latinos, particularly Mexicans, and I would guess Muslim immigrants will be the latest iteration of this. 

If resources are finite, this also promotes some sort of class system. Without enough land, those who own the land there is will be sure to maintain their stronghold, resulting in a feudal or tenant class below. If water is a finite source, whoever controls water has the power to provide or not provide it, creating an underclass. Those who own diamond mines have become a powerful upper class, with people who are virtually slaves working the mines. The royal family of Saudi Arabia is at the top of the heap because it controls all the nation's oil. Who is at the top and who is at the bottom are sometimes an accident of history and sometimes the result of great brutality. Either way, it is difficult to persuade those at the top to cede one iota of control or assets to anyone below, as evidenced by the extreme reluctance of the wealthy to pay even the same percentage of taxes as those beneath them in the social order. 

There have been attempts to create societies in which there is no class system, but none of them has worked. Pure communism and pure socialism are fine as ideas, but once they are implemented, human nature ensures they will not work. The benefit of this is civilization, to be sure, but the down side is the ugliness that a class system inevitably engenders. If we could figure out a way to be just as motivated to build, invent, and improve, without stomping on others in the process, it would be a much better world.

What narrative techniques does the author of "The Summer of the Beautiful White Horse" use?

In the short folk tale “The Summer of the Beautiful White Horse,” William Saroyan uses a number of narrative techniques to engage the reader.

Saroyan begins the story with Aram, the first-person narrator, having a flashback to when he is nine years old. He does not indicate what the narrator’s age is when he tells the story, but indicates the boy is looking back fondly at this time in his life. The flashback engages the reader by providing a bit of childlike suspense. Who and why would someone be coming to the boy’s window at four in the morning?

One day back there in the good old days when I was nine and the world was full of every imaginable kind of magnificence, and life was still a delightful and mysterious dream, my cousin Mourad, who was considered crazy by everybody who knew him except me, came to my house at four in the morning and woke me up by tapping on the window of my room.

As the narrative progresses, Saroyan has Aram provide backstory about the family, its history, and its current situation to develop the plot. In addition, the backstory provides insight into Mourad’s characteristics, and why he is considered to be a member of the “crazy” family lineage. This serves to differentiate the temperaments of the two main characters. The most important point the backstory provides is Aram and Mourad might be poor, although they do not come from a family of thieves. This makes Mourad’s possession of the horse all the more intriguing.

We had been famous for our honesty for something like eleven centuries, even when we had been the wealthiest family in what we liked to think was the world. We were proud first, honest next, and after that we believed in right and wrong. None of us would take advantage of anybody in the world, let alone steal.

The style of the story includes the narrative techniques of vivid imagery and dialogue. Both techniques lead to a better understanding of the major and minor characters. The dialogue plays an important role when John Byro visits the family home, and when he happens upon the boys as they are walking with the horse. The author describes the horse, and its different responses to the riders while developing the scene of the boys riding the animal in the fields near the vineyard. This creates visual imagery for the reader, and develops the characters' traits.

In what ways is Rama different from Gilgamesh? Think about this in terms of a hero. Do you think of him as a hero?

The nature of their heroic quests is a point of differentiation between Gilgamesh and Lord Rama.

The heroic quest for Gilgamesh takes on different forms. Gilgamesh is searching for self-discovery.  He is "a man of many moods'' as both person and political leader.  He shows restlessness through his self-indulgence as a king. His own people pray to alleviate them of the pain from his rule:  "You made him, O Aruru, now create his equal; let it be as like him as his own reflection, his second self, stormy heart for stormy heart. Let them content together and leave Uruk in quiet."  Upon leaving Uruk, Gilgamesh changes as a result of friendship with his kindred spirit, Enkidu.  With Enkidu's assistance and encouragement, Gilgamesh kills Humbaba.  Slaying this adversary is more for his own legend than anything related to his people. Gilgamesh's heroic quest takes on a different form when Enkidu dies. Gilgamesh strives to find answers to issues of human existence such as life, death, and the desire to achieve immortality.  While Gilgamesh grasps how "there is no permanence," most of his heroic voyage is done to find some level of immortality.  In his return as a wiser and more thoughtful king, the belief is that Gilgamesh has found immortality in his journey and its implications.  His heroic journey is steeped in gaining insight for himself.  He voyages to find truths to questions that plague him and, while he does return as a better ruler, the heroic quest was mostly for his benefit and understanding.

Lord Rama's heroic journey is constructed in a much different way.  Whereas Gilgamesh searched for understanding and meaning, Lord Rama clearly understood his purpose.  An an avatar of Vishnu, Lord Rama wedded himself to dharma, or maintaining the cosmic order of the universe through rightful actions. While Lord Rama never carried himself as divine, being an avatar of Vishnu makes him different than Gilgamesh's two thirds divine, one third human.  Lord Rama's embodiment of duty based on dharma endeared himself to the subjects of his kingdom, Ayodhya.  They loved Rama and valued him as their prospective king.

Lord Rama is exiled because of his adherence to dharma. Unlike Gilgamesh who chooses to go outside of his kingdom, Lord Rama is banished from his. When Kaikeyi insists that King Dasaratha exile his beloved son, Rama does not object because he sees his dharma as adhering to his parents' wishes. Unlike Gilgamesh's subjects who yearn for their leader to leave, the citizens of Ayodhya weep when Rama, Sita, and Lakshmana leave, following them into the forest to sleep at their beloved prince's feet.  

At no point in his heroic journey does Lord Rama question his purpose.  He knows that his entire being is dedicated to dharma.  He commits himself to representing it in his actions and thoughts.  When Lord Rama slays demons, he does not do so to add to his personal legend.  He does it because of his obligation to help those in need.  When he kills Ravana, he does so because of the existential threat posed to justice.  He knows that Ravana threatened the order of the universe. Evidence of this lies in how Rama did penance for killing Ravana, something that Gilgamesh would have never done.

One final difference between both heroes is in the truth that Gilgamesh discovers.  The reality of impermanence haunts Gilgamesh.  What he does both before and after this realization is meant to offset the crushing inevitability of time.  He wishes to establish permanence in an impermanent world.  In contrast, Lord Rama is not really concerned with impermanence. One reason might be because he knows that dharma is a part of universal reality.  By wedding himself to duty, Lord Rama knows that he is permanent because duty, itself, is permanent.   Lord Rama's heroic voyage is thus taken for the benefit of others and not for himself. 

Both Lord Rama and Gilgamesh can be seen as heroes. They are heroic in what they did and heroes in the truths they represented. If there is a differentiation between them, it might lie in the realization of purpose.  I think that Lord Rama's heroic journey is more focused and purpose-driven, something that Gilgamesh's journey lacked at different points.  The reader has to develop their own metrics in determining heroic value as there is ample evidence to suggest that each is a hero.

How do you put the copyright information in To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee into correct MLA format?

MLA format for To Kill a Mockingbird, and any other novel by a single author, follows the exact same formula.  These are the following things that need to be included, in the order they should appear.  NOTE: The MLA has made some changes in the 8th edition, so below I've listed the most recent way of citing a book, along with the changes.  

1.  Author's name (the author's last name should be listed first, followed by a comma (,) and then the author's first name.  After the first name, you should include a period (.).  

Example: Charles Dickens's name would be listed as Dickens, Charles.

2.  The title of the work, in italics, followed by a period.  

Example: A Christmas Carol.

NOTE: the following step has changed.  In the old edition, you had to include the city of publication, but that has been taken out and now you simply include the publisher.

3.  The publisher, followed by a comma (,)

Bantam Classics,

4.  The date of publication, followed by a period (.)

2009.

NOTE: Another recent change is the elimination of the format of the work.  Example: for a print source, you no longer include the word "print" at the end of the citation.

To recap: the entire citation is as follows:

Dickens, Charles.  A Christmas Carol. Bantam Classics, 2009. 

That's it!  Just use this same format for To Kill a Mockingbird and you are all set.  

Author.  Title of work.  Publisher, Year of Publication.  

What are some gender issues around the world addressed in "The Yellow Wallpaper" by Charlotte Perkins Gilman?

Though first published in 1892, Charlotte Perkins Gilman's short story "The Yellow Wallpaper" is still relevant today. It depicts the assignment of rigid, gender-defined roles to the main character and her husband, John. She is the emotional, fragile member of the pair, and her husband, a physician, is the rational, practical one. He and her brother, also a physician, believe they can decide what is best for her. They prescribe a rest cure, even though she feels she would do better being active. In their gender-determined roles, the wife abdicates all decision-making abilities an adult has and becomes child-like. The medical establishment that decides how she should be cured is dominated by men.

There are many cultures around the world that make women the possessions of their fathers, husbands, and brothers. Many cultures and societies do not recognize women's rights to determine their own futures and decisions, and they also deem women fragile and unworthy of receiving an education. In addition, in many cultures, the medical establishment is still run in such a way that it advances the ideas of male superiority and does not give women a say in their own treatment and care. 

Given `g(x)= 2x^2-4x-5,` find the following, `g^(-1)(-2).`

Hello!

Actually, this function `g` has no (one-valued) inverse function. For some y's there is no such `x` that `g(x)=y,` for some there are two such x's (two solutions of a quadratic equation). But we can consider two-valued functions, too.

The function `ax^2+bx+c` with a positive `a` has its minimum at `x_0 = (-b)/(2a).` For our function `g` it is `-(-4)/4 = 1,` the minimum value is `g(1) = 2 - 4 - 5 = -7.` So there are two points `x_1` and `x_2` such that `g(x) = -2.` To find them, we have to solve the quadratic equation

`2x^2-4x-5=-2,` or `2x^2-4x-3=0.`

The solutions are `x_(1,2)=(2+-sqrt(2^2+2*3))/2 = (2+-sqrt(10))/2 = 1+-sqrt(5/2).`

The final answer depends on the additional conditions. One may state that there are no `g^(-1)(-2),` that there are two values, `1-sqrt(5/2)` and `1+sqrt(5/2),` or choose one of them if there are some constraints on the domain of `g.`

There is no one best leadership style. Leadership theory helps us understand the different types of leaders and define their characteristics from...

Angela Merkel has been in the news more and more lately, and it's not hard to see why. In 2015, she won TIME Magazine's person of the year award. As the Chancellor of Germany at age 59, she may be one of the most influential and successful world leaders today. Not only is she young, she has been, for all practical purposes, the leader of the European Union for about 9 years now. Her major accomplishments have been managing Europe's debt crisis, keeping the European Union intact, and managing to set Greece on the path to recovery from the brink of collapse.

Merkel is certainly one of the most powerful and influential female leaders in the world today, and this is due in part to her ability to negotiate under extreme pressure, her willingness to stand alone as a minority voice, her ability to "lead from behind," her unflinching dedication to her own values, and attention to hard data. All of this, coupled with her steadfast determination and calm demeanor have helped make her a respectable, moral voice for a group of nations desperately in need of someone to take a stand for them.

These leadership qualities are unique in that most politicians have built a career studying politics and leadership, and many are great at rallying people because they have a flair for the dramatic. Yet Merkel sets herself apart by refusing to play that political game, and instead remains focused on her values, which are based on hard evidence and proven effectiveness, and keeps a few manageable end goals in mind, which will serve to deliver what the people want to them and show that she is true to her word. In fact, she never studied politics at all, instead pursuing a career as a politician after studying chemistry.

According to Fiedler's Contingency Theory, which asserts that effective leadership depends on the unique situation and includes many factors, like the nature of the task, the leader's personality, and the makeup of the group being led. Make no mistake, Europe was desperate and in dire need of someone to take the wheel, and they wanted nothing short of a complete overhaul of the current solutions in place. Nothing was working, and they were eager for a change. Doing away with their current means of achieving a solution seemed the only way to manage the debt crisis that was threatening to tear them apart.

Angela Merkel was a shining beacon of hope that provided the perfect answer to their needs: she didn't have as much charisma as the other politicians, but she paid attention to data, offered a hard-working persona and an analytical mind, and delivered on her word. Not only was she the perfect candidate to solve a problem such as this one, she had the intelligence and determination to do it successfully, and that is what made her success as a leader so definite. Chemists by nature are very task-oriented people and Merkel is no exception.

In Path-Goal Leadership, a leader must consider employee characteristics and task and environment characteristics, select the best leadership style, and focus on a clear path with defined goals. In Merkel's case, she had goals defined almost immediately, as well as a clear path set out in order to achieve those goals. People trust her because she does not just spew the same lofty rhetoric involving "freedom" and "values" as other world leaders tend to do. First, she is pragmatic in both her goals and her vision for achieving them; she knows what the numbers are and she knows that Germany cannot continue to be so generous when it comes to spending. She also knows that she does not want to see her beloved country go through the same system collapse that it saw during the 20th century. The environment of Germany and the EU as a whole is one that is still recovering, and thus must be considered as such, in order to be able to ensure future prosperity. Because of this, a leader must be both competitive and practical, forging alliances and strengthening bonds where necessary instead of relying on national pride and emotional decision-making to get ahead.

Normative Decision Theory decides the best decision to make, assuming there is an ideal decision-maker who is both rational and able to compute with accuracy. The practical application of this would be "decision analysis," otherwise identified as how people should make decisions, given a set of values. It is an approach aimed at finding better ways to make decisions, such as different methodologies and software. This sort of lens works almost perfectly when studying Merkel's behavior as a leader because she is so analytical and rational that other leaders find it hard to compete with her data-driven arguments. Not only that, but her values seem to line up perfectly with her proposed solutions and the values that her people hold dear. As a leader, she makes a habit of shying away from choosing to do anything which is reminiscent of failed past endeavors and using hard data to fuel her arguments, which is certainly the most rational approach to problem-solving and planning.

As a general rule, visionary leaders are quite uncommon, but their characteristics include imagination, persistence, and unwavering conviction. Visionary leaders tend to possess an extraordinary amount of openness to new ways of doing things and to new information. Angela Merkel certainly possesses all of these qualities, and more. As Chancellor of Germany, she has continually sought new alliances, new ways of doing things which would bring Germany into the 21st century and level the playing field with other nations. While Merkel seeks knowledge, and listens to her contemporaries and predecessors, she by no means bows to their way of doing things. By ignoring these norms already in place, she is able to transcend the mistakes of the past and see clearly into the future. To do this requires imagination and vision and she has plenty of those as well.

To choose one leadership style for Merkel is difficult, but if one considers her history as a politician, it seems that Path-Goal Leadership is the clear choice. For example, Merkel has always remained very centrist in terms of German politics and her position on the polls. She was open-minded when it came to sacrificing conservative values to rule in favor of the German popular vote when it came to switching to renewable energies after Fukushima. Yet she is currently governing against the majority of Germans when it comes to the issue of the refugee crisis. Overall, Germans find that she is steadfast in her own values, yet reliable when it comes to serious issues, and that is the reason that she has remained at around 50% support in the polls. She has done controversial things, yes, such as meeting with the prime minister and president in Turkey just before the elections, but she has always had clear goals for her country in mind, and goals that are mainly shared by other Germans. Experts have defined her leadership style as "principled pragmatism" and I tend to agree with that assessment.

Who were the anti-imperialists? What was their position and why?

The term anti-imperialist refers to those who oppose rule by a larger group, such as an empire. Anti-imperialists traditionally oppose colonialism. They do not believe nations should rule outside their established borders.  

During the late 1800s and early 1900s, colonialism was widespread throughout the world. Great Britain had colonies established in India, Nigeria, Hong Kong, and dozens of other places around the world. Similarly, the United States established colonies in the Philippines, Guam, and Haiti, among others. Other European nations, such as France and Holland, also had colonies.

Anti-imperialists were sometimes individuals who did not live in European- or American-held colonies. They simply opposed the idea of colonialism as a policy. Most anti-imperialists were, however, those who resided within the colonies. They promoted freedom from foreign powers. For example, many people living in India during British colonialism wanted freedom. They did not want Britain to rule over their nation. Instead, they wanted to elect their own government, independent from Great Britain.

What is the difference between the subject matter and the main point of a work?

The subject matter that a book or article treats is the field or area that it touches on. For example, the subject matter of Dickens's novel A Tale of Two Cities is the French Revolution and its effect on people. The main point of a book is the principle idea the work is trying to convey. For example, the main point of A Tale of Two Cities is the nobility of sacrificing oneself to save others, particularly during difficult times such as the French Revolution.

Of course, the subject matter and the main idea can be similar and overlap, but they are not always the same. It might be useful to think of the subject matter as where you would find that book in the library. For example, a book about fish would be found in the animal section of the library. However, different books about fish can have different main ideas. For example, one book might discuss the study of fish, another might be about extinct fish and why they became extinct, and another might be about how to fish. These differences would be related to the main idea of each book. 

What are examples of ethical communication?

In business communication, one often needs to make ethical choices about what information to provide and how to provide it. One way to understand this is to think about relevant ethical dilemmas or test cases.

Scenario 1: Your company is considering closing a factory in the United States and outsourcing production to Mexico. The earlier you inform workers of this decision, the more time they will have to find new positions, something obviously beneficial to them. Such early notification may also result in high employee turnover and low morale in the period immediately preceding the factory closure, though. When to tell workers of the impending plant closure is an example of an ethical issue in business communications.

Scenario 2: Imagine an engineer discovers a flaw in a part that might, under rare conditions, cause that part to fail. The engineer includes a mention of this possibility in a report. As a manager, you have the choice of highlighting the problem, causing a missed deadline and loss of revenue as the part is re-engineered, or you minimize the risks in your reports to upper management. This sort of failure of communication was a crucial element in the Challenger disaster.

Which lines demonstrate the generation gap in the short story "The Lumber Room" by Saki?

There are a number of lines in the short story “The Lumber Room” by Saki that demonstrate the gap between the generations. The story illustrates the difference in reasoning skills between the generations, and it is not always the older person who is wiser and more intellectual. In fact, the child, Nicholas, is able to outsmart the adults, especially the aunt, who is the primary disciplinarian in the story.

When Nicholas attempts to tell the adults there is a frog in his breakfast, they admonish him. They tell him not to be silly.

Older and wiser and better people had told him that there could not possibly be a frog in his bread-and-milk and that he was not to talk nonsense; he continued, nevertheless, to talk what seemed the veriest nonsense, and described with much detail the coloration and markings of the alleged frog.

Of course, by Nicholas' own doing there is a frog in his bowl, and again the generation gap is expressed.

The sin of taking a frog from the garden and putting it into a bowl of wholesome bread-and-milk was enlarged on at great length, but the fact that stood out clearest in the whole affair, as it presented itself to the mind of Nicholas, was that the older, wiser, and better people had been proved to be profoundly in error in matters about which they had expressed the utmost assurance.

After a long afternoon of mentally sparring with the aunt, she ends up trapped in the water tank in the forbidden gooseberry garden. Again, Nicholas manages to outsmart her with his words. She finds herself stuck in the tank while Nicholas walks away knowing he reached his limits.

There was an unusual sense of luxury in being able to talk to an aunt as though one was talking to the Evil One, but Nicholas knew, with childish discernment that such luxuries were not to be over-indulged in.

What are 6 important differences between Tybalt and Mercutio in Romeo and Juliet?

For one, Tybalt is Juliet's cousin, and he hates Romeo and all the Montagues.  Mercutio is Romeo's best friend, though not a Montague.

Mercutio is related to Prince Escalus, which means he must be from a fairly powerful family, even more so than the Capulets and Montagues.

Tybalt is particularly violent, saying, in the first scene, that he hates even the word "peace"; Mercutio is essentially peace-loving, though he will employ violence in order to protect his own or his loved one's honor.

Mercutio is fairly intelligent, philosophizing about the nature of dreams and so forth, while Tybalt is really all about honor and strength and beating others. 

Mercutio also likes to make really juvenile jokes, they're pretty crude and lewd, but he does have a sense of humor.  Tybalt, not so much -- he really doesn't seem to have a sense of humor at all. 

Finally, Mercutio has friends.  He clearly hangs out with people whom he likes and who like him; Tybalt seems to inspire loyalty, but only, perhaps, out of fear.  He doesn't have any "friends," per se.

Discuss the contribution made by Dunlop to industrial relations theory

Theories of industrial relations prior to Dunlop's theory conceptualized the different aspects of industry- employers, employees, and the state- as separate structures that worked independently, and were entirely autonomous from each other and environmental factors. Dunlop posited that industrial relations actually functioned like a system in which every aspect was interconnected. He also emphasized the social context that shaped the roles of these three components of industrial relations, arguing that employees and employers, as well as employers and the state, interacted differently depending on external factors. The system of industrial relations, according to Dunlop, was influenced by three major factors: technological progress, the state of the economy, and political leadership. Essentially, what Dunlop contributed to understandings of industrial relations was a theory that incorporated social, political, and economic context in order to conceptualize industrial relations as a social system between workers, employers, and the government.

How is propaganda used in old Major's speech and throughout the novella?

During old Major's speech, he uses several techniques to propagate his views and ideas. Old Major refers to the animals as comrades which creates a sense of partnership and invokes a close friendship with his audience. He then associates his age with wisdom and tells the animals that he doesn't have much longer to live. The audience now has empathy for the speaker and listens closely to what he will say. Old Major proceeds to vilify humans, gives the animals the 7 Commandments, and teaches them the song Beasts of England. Propaganda is used in the way old Major points out a common enemy and teaches the animals a song which will spread his views each time it is sung.

Throughout the novella, Napoleon and Squealer use propaganda to oppress and control the other animals on the farm. Napoleon uses fear and violence to coerce the animals into obeying him. His dogs scare the animals and Squealer continually mentions the possibility of Mr. Jones returning to the farm. Squealer manipulates language by making minor changes to the 7 Commandments, using euphemisms, and teaching the sheep a new mantra that aligns with the pigs' views. Squealer also fabricates statistics, and Minimus writes various poems to honor Napoleon. The animals ignorantly accept the statistics and blindly follow Napoleon without questioning his decisions.

What is a line by line explanation of "There Will Come Soft Rains" by Sara Teasdale?

Sara Teasdale's "There Will Come Soft Rains" explores the notion of human extinction and the natural world's reaction to the absence of humans. Let's examine the poem line by line, as you requested. The original lines of the poem are bolded and italicized, while my explanation is in plain text.

There will come soft rains and the smell of the ground,

The speaker is setting the scene of the poem's opening by describing the gentle rainfall and the smell of rain rising from the earth.

And swallows circling with their shimmering sound;

Above, small birds fly in circles and chirp happily.

And frogs in the pools, singing at night,

Frogs are singing from their shallow puddles of water.

And wild plum trees in tremulous white,

Plum trees are blossoming with delicate white flowers.

Robins will wear their feathery fire,

Robins still look the same, with bright orange feathers on their chests.

Whistling their whims on a low fence-wire;

The robins are singing on a fence.

And not one will know of the war, not one

Nature--neither plants nor animals--will have any knowledge of war.

Will care at last when it is done.

They won't care when war is over.

Not one would mind, neither bird nor tree,

If mankind perished utterly;

No animal or plant would care that humans have destroyed themselves in battles against other members of the human race.

And Spring herself, when she woke at dawn,

Would scarcely know that we were gone.

Even Spring wouldn't mind that humans have vanished.

Essentially, Teasdale is commenting on the destructive, reckless nature of humans and the havoc they wreak upon the planet. Thus, the collapse of humanity here seems to be a good thing for the natural world, as nature will finally be set free from the danger of human life. This poem--like much of Teasdale's work--also alludes to the eternal quality of nature, which trumps mankind's mortality and inevitable doom.

While Schatz thinks he is dying, his father goes out to hunt. How does this contrast with how the father might have acted if he, too, were afraid...

Hemingway's "A Day's Wait" centers around Schatz's misunderstanding and the trauma this creates within him. Had his father understood what his son believes, the boy's trauma may have been avoided, but his father appears to be uncomprehending of his child's condition. Therefore, one must wonder how he would have acted if the boy's condition were life-threatening.

When his father goes out to hunt while knowing Schatz has a temperature that is one hundred and two, he does not seem worried about Schatz's condition. In fact, he might believe leaving him alone to sleep will provide his son the atmosphere he needs. When he returns and sees Schatz staring with his cheeks flushed with fever, he takes his temperature again and finds it is still one hundred and two. He tells his son not to worry. When Schatz asks if drinking the water will do him any good, his father does not perceive his anxieties. Instead, he picks up the book he has been reading, and it is only then that the father notices something is bothering Schatz.

I sat down and opened the Pirate book, and commenced to read, but I could see he was not following, so I stopped.

Since Schatz's father does not display the concern one would expect from a parent whose child's temperature is only two degrees from a dangerous level and the boy has not slept and is obviously uncomfortable and traumatized, it is difficult to assume what he would do if he thought his son was dying. He does not seem to fear the child having convulsions or other complications from a 102-degree fever. He simply picks up a book to resume reading to his son.

The reader must hope the man has enough sense to be afraid for his child's life and stay with him and act to reduce his temperature by bathing him in cool water. Above all, he should phone the doctor again and obtain his advice. He should also feel guilty because his crassness and lack of observation is what causes poor Schatz to be traumatized by his fear of dying because he thinks his temperature is given in degrees Celsius.

What do noble Romans, such as Cassius and Flavius, fear or resent about Caesar's successes in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar?

Early in act 1, scene 2, of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, Cassius and Brutus express fear that Caesar will be made king, leading to the fall of the Roman Republic. They express their fear when, at the games, they hear the crowd calling for Caesar to be made king and soon learn thereafter that Antony had offered him a crown three times. Though Caesar rejected the crown all three times, the Conspirators feel that he was loath to reject it as a result of his rising arrogance and soon may not reject it.

Cassius takes his fear one step further when he recounts a story in which, while crossing the stormy Tiber together, Caesar nearly gave up in exhaustion and called out to Cassius, "Help me, Cassius, or I sink!" (1.2.111). In Cassius's view, the people of Rome now think of the weak and frail man Caesar as a god. Cassius revolts at Caesar's arrogance and is jealous at the thought of having to bow before Caesar, jealous of Caesar's power. We particularly see Cassius express jealousy over Caesar's power when he asks Brutus the following, upon hearing the people shout in exultation as more honors were bestowed on Caesar:

Brutus and Caesar: what should be in that "Caesar"?
Why should that name be sounded more than yours? (1.2.142-43)

The conspirators are jealous of Caesar's power because they know that if he is made king, their roles as senators in the Senate will be rendered powerless.

Similarly, like all the conspirators, Flavius is jealous of Caesar's power and wants to protect the Senate from Caesar's dictatorship. While Flavius is not in the play much, in act 1, scene 1, we see him and Marullus chastise commoners for wanting to pay honors to Caesar on Caesar's holiday. They chastise them by calling them hypocrites through pointing out that they paid the exact same honors to Pompey who has now been slain by Caesar. Their point is to assert that if they honored Pompey, then surely they can't legitimately honor Caesar who has killed Pompey. Flavius then commands the commoners to gather themselves together by the banks of the Tiber to weep for the fall of Pompey. We can deduce based on this that Flavius was a strong supporter of Pompey as a protector of the Republic and now fears that Caesar will destroy the Republic.

How is Jack in William Golding's The Lord of the Flies presented as militaristic?

Jack, who has red hair that symbolizes his association with blood, constantly carries a knife around with him. He is responsible for hunting, and when he at first fails to kill a pig, "he snatched his knife out of the sheath and slammed it into a tree trunk" (page 31). As the novel goes on, Jack becomes increasingly more violent, and his knife is often withdrawn from his sheath. He relies on violence to increase his power. Jack resents Piggy's intelligence, and he wants to rid Piggy of his glasses, the symbol of Piggy's learning. For example, when the boys are lighting a fire in the hope of being rescued, Jack says, "His specs--use them as burning glasses!" (page 40). Jack prefers to use Piggy's glasses to make a fire than to allow Piggy, the resident intellectual, to see.

Later, Jack, constantly seen with a spear in hand and often bloodied from hunting, gives up all attempts to be rescued. Instead, he uses his violence, symbolized by the spear, to take control of the boys and become the de facto leader on the island. The boys follow him in a primitive, violent way and abandon Ralph, who stands for law and order. 

Does the title of Wordsworth's "The Solitary Reaper" suit the poem?

Yes, Wordsworth's title suits the poem well. Both the reaper and the narrator are alone. He, the narrator, appears to be wandering by himself through the Scottish highlands. He speaks only of himself in his fleeting, one-sided encounter with this woman: "I saw her singing ... I listened, motionless and still ..." The poem thus captures a moment of communion the solitary narrator feels with this solitary figure who is not even aware of his presence as she goes about her work.

The narrator likens the reaper to a bird, comparing her to both a nightingale and a cuckoo, creatures of nature singing their solitary songs. Further, her song has a lonesome strain. It is "plaintive" as it fills the air and seems to speak of "sorrow, loss or pain." The lonely cadences of it suit the solitude of the reaper in the empty highlands, so far from the bustle of city life. The solitude is part of the sweet but haunting mood the poem conveys.

It also offers a contrast to another famous Wordsworth poem, "I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud," in which the poet's loneliness is alleviated by the happy dance of thousands of daffodils waving in the breeze. This time he finds a more melancholy companionship as he recalls, as "music in his heart," the reaper's lonesome song. 

What does it mean to be a part of "We the People"? What rights do "We the People" have and where do those rights come from?

The preamble to the United States Constitution begins with the words, "We the people . . ." In doing so, the Constitution becomes a document of the people, by the people, and for the people. Rather than the Constitution dictating the amount of power the government should have, it instead mandates that the government exists to serve the people.

According to the Bill of Rights, the Constitution guarantees that the people shall have the right to free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to resist unreasonable search and seizure, the right to a trial, the right to no cruel or unusual punishment, and the right for states to make laws not defined or limited by the U.S. Constitution. 

In addition to the rights established by the Bill of Rights, certain rights are also, as the Declaration of Independence says, "unalienable rights" given from the Creator. These include "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Why was the English Revolution a failure?

The English Revolution (1640-1660), which involved the period known as the English Civil Wars (1642-1651), initially involved fighting between forces loyal to the Stuart King, Charles I, and forces loyal to Parliament. Charles was unpopular because he disbanded parliament from 1629-1640, a time known as the Eleven Year Tyranny. The civil wars were in part a reaction to uprisings in Ireland and Scotland, and they involved fighting between Cavaliers, who were loyal to the king, and Roundheads (named because of their flat hairstyles), who were loyal to Parliament and sought to curb the king's power. The Roundheads included Presbyterians and Puritans, while Cavaliers were generally Anglican, meaning they were from the Church of England. 

The Revolution was fairly radical at points, as Charles I was tried and executed in 1649. At that point, until 1653, England was ruled as a Republic rather than a constitutional monarchy. England was then ruled as a Protectorate under Oliver Cromwell until 1659. The Revolution can be deemed a failure because Charles II, Charles I's son, assumed the monarchy in 1660 in what is known as the Restoration. While he permitted some religious tolerance, Charles II was still recognized as having the divine right of kings. The monarch did not cede much power to Parliament until the Bill of Rights in 1689, which resulted from the Glorious Revolution. This document stated that Parliament was required to meet regularly and citizens could enjoy freedom of speech and free elections. Parliament did not receive the power they sought in the English Revolution until the later Glorious Revolution of 1688.

If you were the main character, would you behave differently? Why?

Feel free to answer in the way that best describes your opinion.  There isn't a single best way to answer this question.  Just remember to support your opinion.  

I'm going to answer this question by saying that the banker is the main character.  

Yes, I would have behaved differently than the banker.  First, I would not have made the bet in the first place; however, I'll pretend that I was willing to bet money on the topic.  For sure I wouldn't have made the bet with that much money to risk.  Rich men don't become rich and stay rich by being cavalier with their money.  

Second, had I made the bet, I would have made a bet where I stood to gain something.  If the lawyer wins the bet, he gets a lot of money.  If the banker wins the bet, he gets nothing.  The banker can't even claim that he was right.  The topic of discussion that night was life in prison.  The bet only succeeded in placing the lawyer in confinement for a certain amount of time.  So even if the lawyer had quit after three years or thirty years, the banker is not proven correct that life in prison is horrible.  It was never tested.  

Third, I would not have considered killing the lawyer.  I have never been in that exact situation, so I can't claim for sure that I wouldn't have thought about murder in order to keep my money, but I like to think that my moral compass is stronger than that.  I don't like losing, but I will admit defeat as needed.  The banker wasn't willing to do that. 

Hello, I am really struggling with understanding "Where is here?" by Joyce Carol Oates. The story doesn't really make much sense to me, and I think...

As with so many of Joyce Carol Oates' short stories, the situation portrayed in this one features people who experience a disruption in their lives, and portrays how it changes them. This story is unusual in that it unfolds almost in real time, with the actual time expenditure of the action (the time it takes for the unexpected visitor to walk through the house) not taking much longer than it takes to read the story. This lends the story a sense of immediacy and tension, which also informs the story's underlying themes.

I think you're right to consider the themes of domestic abuse (mainly in the troubling memories stirred up in the stranger; but also the married couple seems to have some unresolved anger that is catalyzed by the stranger's visit, as they become increasingly irritable towards one another), and "not being able to go home again." That second theme is a common one in American literature, a sort of inversion of the "coming of age" theme: instead of youth's folly and hope and transformation, we get a sense of a protagonist's regret and disappointment when they see how much has changed, or remained the same. In the case of this character, "going home again" stimulates unpleasant memories. When the "mother and father" see the stranger's reaction as he looks through their home, it is as if all the things they had been denying or ignoring for years (possible discontent in their marriage?) are brought to the surface.

In that way I think the major themes of this story have to do with the ways that chance encounters can shake us from our complacency, and the ways that strangers can teach us things about ourselves, by way of reflecting emotions we cannot normally see clearly, because we're too close to them. But, true to Oates' tendency to write stories that reveal the darker side of human nature, we can also see a theme of bitterness and regret, catalyzed between the mother and father as a result of witnessing this stranger's unusual and troubling reaction to being in their home.

When the father suggests to the stranger it's time to leave because it's dinner time, he starts to cry, almost as if he is a child again and the home's current owners are surrogates for his own parents (who, it is suggested, may have mistreated him); and this moment seems to bring up more negative feelings between the mother and father as well. This suggests a further theme of a home being "haunted" by the memory of bad things that happened there, by the ghosts of those who came before, who harbor unpleasant associations; it's suggested the visitor is experiencing a somewhat haunting experience in visiting the site of his childhood trauma. The anonymous nature of the story (names are mentioned but quickly forgotten) lends a universal quality to the experience, that many readers will be able to relate to and, perhaps, find disturbing to contemplate.

What realization does Odysseus come to by the end of Homer's epic The Odyssey?

One realization Odysseus comes to at the end of Homer's epic is to appreciate the limited nature of human beings.

Throughout the epic, it is as if Odysseus has no limits. He uses his guilt, wit, and craftiness to escape situation after situation. If Odysseus is in dire conditions, Athena frequently comes to his aid. Odysseus was able to defeat all the suitors and powerful Olympian deities such as Prometheus. By the poem's end, Odysseus appreciates the limitations of being human. Acceptance of this realization can be seen in how Odysseus returns home to Ithaca. His journey ends where it started. While he battled some of the very best warriors and could have commanded much in way of armies and political power, Odysseus returns home to his wife and son. He could have remained in tempestuous passion with Circe, but finds comfort in Penelope's stable love. Even at the end of the epic, when Odysseus could have pursued the band of Ithacans, he relents. He accepts Athena's warning and backs down.   

Odysseus is content with the realization that he can be happy with where he is in the world. He no longer needs demonstrative displays of his power. In many respects, Odysseus has heard the warnings of his dear friend, Achilles:

I'd rather be a field-hand, bound in service to another man, with no land of my own, and not much to live on, than to lord it over all the insubstantial dead (XI. 489-91).

Odysseus makes peace with the limitations of being human. He recognizes he is a man, not a god. As a human being, he realizes happiness and contentment can be their own rewards.

What is the first trick Matilda plays on her parents?

The first trick that Matilda plays on her parents is putting Superglue inside her father's hat so that it sticks to his head and makes him look ridiculous when the hat finally has to be cut off.

We know that she's going to plan something as soon as the narrator tells us this:

She decided that every time her father or her mother was beastly to her, she would get her own back in some way or another. A small victory or two would help her to tolerate their idiocies and would stop her from going crazy.

Matilda is only five years old, but she's brilliant, and her parents mistreat her horribly. She decides to take revenge.

More specifically, her father has just called her an "ignorant little squirt," and her mother has told Matilda to keep her "nasty mouth" shut. These are terrible words to say to anyone, let alone a child. So you can understand why Matilda tries to fight back.

If you go to the chapter titled "The Hat and the Superglue," you can read about how Matilda reaches her father's hat, squeezes a neat line of Superglue all along the inner rim, then places it back on the peg it hangs on. Mr. Wormwood dons the hat without suspecting that anything is wrong, but then he suffers endless embarrassment at work that day when he can't take off his hat. The following morning, Mrs. Wormwood has to cut the hat off her husband's head, with the ridiculous result being that "he finished up with a bald white ring round his head, like some sort of a monk. And in the front, where the band had stuck directly to the bare skin, there remained a whole lot of small patches of brown leathery stuff that no amount of washing would get off."

Matilda's revenge is complete. She's made her father suffer, and her mother, too, has been inconvenienced and annoyed by the incident.

What three characteristics does Atticus exhibit during the courtroom scene in Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird?

The courtroom sequence is perhaps one of the most significant scenes in Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird. Among other things, the scene gives an intimate insight into aspects of Atticus Finch's personality. To answer your question, I'll focus on the three aspects of Atticus' character that I believe come most prominently to the foreground: intelligence, courage, and kindness.

1. Intelligence: it's difficult to finish reading the courtroom scene without marveling at Atticus' intelligence. During this scene, Atticus not only shows off an eloquent insight into race relations and the role of the legal system in American society, but he also exhibits the ability to discern the truth through quick-witted questioning.


2. Courage: It goes without saying that Atticus' decision to defend a black man in a court of law is unpopular in Maycomb. Indeed, throughout the book, Lee shows Atticus being ridiculed by his neighbors for refusing to adhere to Maycomb's underlying racist culture. As such, Atticus' determination to earnestly defend Tom Robinson in court is a remarkable act of courage.


3. Kindness: While Atticus is determined to defend Tom Robinson, he avoids descending into a mean-spirited attack when questioning the Ewells. Indeed, Atticus treats Mayella with respect and kindness, and it's clear that, though he wants to expose her lies, he also does not want to needlessly humiliate her. As such, Atticus proves that an authentic kindness lies within his occasionally stern exterior. 

Why are Romeo's and Juliet's families against each other?

We don't really know exactly why the Montague and Capulet families are fighting with each other.  In the Prologue, the Chorus says that they are "Two households, both alike in dignity" (line 1).  The families are of equal status and honor (and wealth, too, we can assume), and they have between them "an ancient grudge" (line 3).  The feud is apparently so old, then, that no one ever even discusses how it originated; they just continue to brawl nonetheless.  The only thing the Capulets and Montagues seem to fight about in the play is family honor: whose master is better, whether or not Romeo, a Montague, should have been in attendance at the Capulet party and whether his presence dishonored the Capulets (according to Tybalt, it does).  None of the characters reveals the original cause of the fighting between the families, and so we never learn it.

A researcher has investigated the relationship between IQ and grade point average (GPA) and found the correlation to be .75. For this essay,...

Correlations, measured by the Pearson's correlation coefficient (denoted by "r"), measure the strength and direction of the correlation of two variables. R is always between -1 (meaning a strong negative correlation) and 1 (meaning a strong positive correlation). If r=0, there is no correlation between the two variables. In this case, r=.75, which shows a strong positive correlation between IQ and grade point average (GPA). That is, as IQ increases, so does the GPA. 

There are many assumptions that have to be satisfied in order to use Pearson's correlation coefficient. One of these is that the data have no significant outliers and that they are normally distributed (along the bell curve). However, some studies have shown that IQ is not not normally distributed (see Cyril Burt's "Is Intelligence Distributed Normally" from 1963). This may be in part because of poverty and other factors that result in IQ not being normally distributed in the United States.

Another test that can be used to measure the degree of correlation between two variables is Spearman's rank correlation. This test does not assume the normal distribution of data. 

What doesn't Jem want Scout to do?

In Chapter 10, Scout laments about her father not having any unique abilities or talents. She mentions that Atticus is old and is upset that he doesn't have an interesting occupation like the rest of her classmates' parents. One day, a rabid dog named Tim Johnson staggers down the main road of Maycomb, and Sheriff Tate arrives at the scene with his rifle. Tate gives the gun to Atticus, and Atticus shoots Tim Johnson above his left eye, killing him instantly. Jem and Scout are both in awe of their father's marksmanship abilities and wonder why Atticus never told them that he had the best shot in the county. Miss Maudie tells the children "People in their right minds never take pride in their talents" (Lee 62). Scout then tells Jem that she cannot wait to go to school and tell her friends about Atticus' marksmanship abilities. Jem says, "Don’t say anything about it, Scout...I reckon if he’d wanted us to know it, he’da told us. If he was proud of it, he’da told us" (Lee 63). Jem wants to be a humble gentleman like his father which is why he doesn't want his sister to brag about Atticus being an expert marksman. 

How does Pip attempt to change his life in Great Expectations by Charles Dickens?

After going to Satis House as a young boy and being ridiculed and called "common" by Estella, Pip feels the sting of being from the lower class and desires from then on to better himself.

Pip feels that good fortune comes to him when Mr. Jagger arrives at the forge and brings Pip the "astonishing news" that he has "Great Expectations." Pip is elated,

My dream was out; my wild fancy was surpassed by sober reality; Miss Havisham was going to make my fortune on a grand scale. (Ch. 18)

Pip then leaves the forge after having been released from his apprenticeship to Joe, and he arrives in London with the promise of becoming a gentleman. There he rooms with the former "pale young gentleman" whom Pip fought as a boy on his initial visit to Miss Havisham's, Herbert Pocket. From Herbert, Pip learns proper table manners, and Herbert's father, Matthew Pocket, acts as Pip's tutor.

In his efforts to become a gentleman, however, Pip seeks to elevate himself by rejecting all that is associated with his lowly childhood. Sadly, he rejects Joe because of his crude manners and discomfort when he comes to London to visit. Further, Pip is critical of his childhood friend Biddy; in short, Pip changes into a snob, rather than a true gentleman, who appreciates quality in anyone who has it. Pip also seeks to ingratiate himself with Miss Havisham and Estella in his desperate love for her, perceiving her as having "indescribable majesty....and charm." He has confessed earlier to Biddy, "I admire her dreadfully and want to be a gentleman on her account." (Ch.17)

Of course, Pip makes the grave mistake of placing material values above spiritual, as he rejects the genuineness and love of Joe, he is repulsed that his benefactor is the grateful, but criminal Magwitch rather than the dysfunctional, but aristocratic Miss Havisham, and he finds Estella rather than the sweet and kind Biddy admirable. Nevertheless, he does change his life, as he learns important lessons in London from Herbert and Wemmick and even Magwitch, lessons that bring him back to the forge to renew his relationship with Joe and revive his love for the kind and worthy man along with the genuine and good Biddy.

What did Killer Kane do to stop Max from escaping?

When Killer Kane, otherwise known as Max's father, Kenneth David Kane, gets released from prison and comes to kidnap his son, he ends up tying Max's hands and feet together, and tying that same rope to his own waist, so that Max can't sneak out while Kane is attempting to get some sleep. This happens in Chapter 17, after Max has sat down in a low chair:

What he does is tie up my feet and hands and then he loops the end of the rope around his waist.

The effect is not just frightening but extremely uncomfortable for Max. His feet and hands feel tingly from his circulation being cut off by the ropes, and he can't move from the chair. He stays awake all night in the chair, trying to think of a way out of the situation.

You could also say that Killer Kane uses lies and manipulation to try to stop Max from escaping. The felon tells Max that he never did commit the murder of Max's mother, but Max doesn't believe him. (As a child, Max witnessed the crime with his own eyes and remembers it.) Killer Kane also tries to get his son to believe that Kane is really a victim, that he's "seeking shelter" from a world that's unfair and harsh to him. He even pretends to have sent Christmas presents to Max while in prison, as if he were a good father all along. He's doing all this to try to win Max's loyalty so that, of his own accord, Max won't run away from his kidnapper. And of course, it doesn't work: Max isn't as gullible as his father would like to believe.

What is the original source of “I am no bird; and no net ensnares me: I am a free human being with an independent will” from Charlotte Bronte's...

This quote comes from Chapter 23 of Jane Eyre, a novel by Charlotte Brontë. Jane says this in response to Rochester, who tells her to stop struggling "like a frantic bird." Jane responds that rather than being a bird, she has no net. She is free and can exercise her free will to leave Rochester, which she then chooses to do. The metaphor of a bird runs throughout this passage, as Rochester likens her to a bird, and Jane refuses to characterize herself as a creature who is locked in a cage. Rochester thinks of a bird as wild, while Jane sees a bird as caged. In this instance, Jane can exercise her free will, which makes her very different than Bertha, Rochester's wife who is locked away in the third floor of Thornfield, Rochester's house.  

What areas within an organisation should be evaluated as part of an organisational behaviour audit?

Organization behavior is an element of business administration, and it involves the study of the different behaviors expressed by members of an organization in the work environment. An organizational behavior audit is carried out within an organization to establish a better understanding of the organization’s environment and how the members interact with it. Several areas of the organization need to be evaluated to yield the required information.

Recruitment- The organization needs to establish whether the recruitment process gets the right people. Recruitment as an aspect of the organization is important for the audit because it forms the doorway between members and the organization.

Management and supervision- This aspect of the organization is important to the audit because it yields information pertaining to the relationship between the management and employees of the institution. It also establishes how the performance of the organization, which is also a source of stress, is monitored and evaluated.

Reward and motivation- The organization needs to establish whether the members of the organization are well motivated and rewarded as per their input in the workplace.

Member interaction- This aspect of the organization provides important information for the audit because it establishes the nature of relationships among the members.

When Roger throws stones at Henry, what keeps him from hitting Henry? How are Roger and Henry affected by civilization?

In Chapter 4, Henry is playing on the beach, and Roger begins to throw stones in his proximity. However, Roger is careful not to aim directly at Henry and hit him. Golding describes the six-yard diameter surrounding Henry that protects him and mentions that inside of the invisible circle was a "taboo of the old life." Roger's insistence on not hitting Henry with the stones demonstrates how he has been conditioned by society not to harm others. Roger has not been on the island long enough to distance himself from the rules of society and still believes that it is wrong to hit others with stones. While Roger is throwing stones at Henry, Henry continues to play on the beach and does not worry about being hit. Even Henry has been conditioned by society and takes it for granted that Roger will not aim directly at him. Henry finds it funny that Roger is throwing stones close to him and is not afraid of being hit by them. Both boys demonstrate how society's rules and regulations have affected their behavior.

In Chapter 6 of the Lord of the Flies, how does the novel's depiction of society and social identity compare or contrast with your own?

In Chapter 6, a paratrooper is shot out of the sky during an aerial battle that takes place above the island. Samneric mistake the paratrooper as the beast and quickly tell the others boys. Upon learning that the beast is on top of the mountain, Jack suggests that his hunters search for it. Ralph joins them and ends up leading the group to investigate the area of the island that will become Castle Rock. Jack and his hunters are fascinated with the cave and wish to play around rather than continue their search for the beast. However, Ralph remains focused on the mission and encourages the boys to climb the mountain.

Throughout the chapter, Golding suggests that civilization is essentially broken. In the "adult world," there is a world war taking place and the dead paratrooper illustrates humanity's depravity and brutality. Ralph also struggles to remain the group's leader when Jack begins to take charge of his hunters. The other boys blindly follow Jack, but still obey Ralph at this point in the novel. Simon and Piggy are both considered outcasts and Piggy is forced to stay behind with the littluns.

In my opinion, Golding's assessment of humanity is accurate. There is a continuing War on Terror and the Republican Party's slogan for the upcoming election is "Make America Safe Again." Similar to the novel, fear and violence are predominant elements in our society. In regards to social identity, Simon is the only character who thinks independently. The other boys are either in favor of civility or savagery. Jack and Ralph struggle for power while the other boys passively follow their lead. Similar to the novel, the majority of the population is forced to follow the political leaders who run the country and passively accept their policies. Few individuals think independently and have insight into the true essence of life like Simon.

Please discuss forms of imperialism from the 18th to 21st centuries from the books The Brothers by Stephen Kinzer and The Devil and Mr. Casement by...

The Brothers by Stephen Kinzer is about the Dulles brothers--John Foster Dulles (who served as Secretary of State from 1953 to 1959) and Allen Dulles (who served as head of the CIA from 1953 to 1961). Their view of American foreign policy and American imperialism during the Cold War was formed, Kinzer writes, by fear. He states, "Foster and Allen were chief promoters of this fear" (page 312). Their ideology, which Kinzer thinks helped to eventually involve the U.S. in conflicts such as Vietnam, was also founded on the idea that "Providence had ordained a special role for the United States" (page 312). They believed in American Exceptionalism, the idea that the U.S. is different from other nations and has a commitment to liberty and equality that other nations don't have and that Americans do not need to adhere to when interacting with other countries. Finally, the Dulles brothers believed in a kind of "missionary Calvinism, which holds that the world is a eternal battleground between saintly and demonic forces" (page 312). These views informed the Dulles brothers' brand of imperialism and made them eager to take on the Soviet Union and fight communism in all corners of the world, including areas such as Guatemala and Iran (page 102) that threatened to turn communist.

The Devil and Mr. Casement is about Roger Casement, the British diplomat who wrote the 1903 Casement Report about the horrors that King Leopold II had perpetrated in the Congo Free State. Casement also revealed the abuses that the Peruvian Amazon Committee had inflicted on the Putumayo Indians while they were engaging in extracting rubber. In the Congo, Leopold carried out the worst forms of abuse. There were rumors of this abuse, but no one could substantiate them. Casement traveled to the interior of the Congo to do so. As Goodman writes, "The rumors were not exaggerated. Leopold's system was brutal" (page 8). For example, Leopold's private police force, the Force Publique, cut off people's hands and feet if they did not meet their quota for extracting rubber (page 10). Leopold was eventually stripped of the Congo Free State, which he owned personally. During the phase of his imperialist control of the area, the local people were subject to the worst kinds of abuses. Casement's report ended his control and this phase of Belgian imperialism in the Congo. 

I need to write a monologue for English about The Crucible, and I'm struggling for ideas. Can anyone give me a character and a point in the play in...

There are many characters that you could choose and create an interesting monologue for.  My recommendation is to write a monologue for Abigail.  I would place the monologue in Act 4.  

In Act 4, the audience is told that Abigail has run away and stolen money from Parris.  

Parris: Excellency, I think they be aboard a ship. Danforth stands agape. My daughter tells me how she heard them speaking of ships last week, and tonight I discover my--my strongbox is broke into.

I would have the monologue take place before Abigail escapes.  Have her debating with herself whether or not she should leave.  There's a lot that you could explore there.  A part of her would have to want to stay.  She's in love with John Proctor, and guaranteed she is thinking about a way to save his life and still have him for herself without Elizabeth.  She might even fantasize about having John run away with her.  You could have Abigail speak in an angry rant for a bit about how much she despises Elizabeth.  End the monologue with Abigail realizing that her name is completely ruined in Salem, and the only "logical" plan is to steal some money and run away.  

In her letter, what does Annie say is her greatest problem with Helen?

In her letter, Annie says that the greatest problem she has with Helen is how to discipline her young charge without breaking her spirit.

Annie maintains that, thus far, no one else has tried to control Helen, and she sees it as a daunting task to do so. As Annie writes her letter, Helen has dumped out all the contents of her bottom bureau drawer so that she can tuck her doll into the drawer. Then, looking for something else to engage her attention, Helen soon turns to the items on Annie's desk. While groping about the desk, Helen knocks over the inkwell, and Annie has to grab a towel to clean up the spill.

To engage her charge, Annie then gives Helen a sewing card, needle, and thread. However, Helen soon pokes herself with the needle. To express her fury at her pain, Helen dashes her doll forcefully against the floor. Hurriedly, Annie spells "bad girl" onto Helen's hands and then demonstrates what a "good girl" does with her doll. Helen seems to understand, but she doesn't stay idle for long.

In a short moment, Helen picks up a pitcher and dashes it against the floor instead, fragmenting the pitcher into pieces. It appears as if Helen has learned to be careful with her doll but has yet to learn how to be careful with other things in the house.

What is a character analysis for "The Nightingale and the Rose" by Oscar Wilde?

In "The Nightingale and the Rose," the boy is a student who falls in love with the daughter of his professor. In terms of his character, the boy is a defeatist, as shown by his reaction to the quest for the red rose. When he cannot find one in his garden, for example, he quickly loses hope and declares that his "heart will break."

In addition, the boy is also a fickle type of person. When the girl is not impressed by his red rose, for instance, the boy instantly falls out of love with her. He says that she is "very ungrateful" and he decides that love is completely pointless and not worth his time and efforts. Instead, he returns to his studies of "Philosophy" and "Metaphysics" and, presumably, never bothers with love again.