Who was the first president of Uganda?

Mutesa II, King of Buganda, was the first president of Uganda after its official declaration of independence in 1962. Mutesa's full name was Sir Edward Frederick William David Walugembe Mutebi Luwangula Mutesa.

In the 1940s, Mutesa was a figurehead monarch, referred to as "King Freddie," by Western media. While he was allowed to keep his title until 1953, the year in which he was deposed by the British, he and his nation were under British rule. 

During his presidency, Mutesa's prime minister was Milton Obote. In 1966, Obote seized power from Mutesa in a coup. The purpose of the coup was to abolish Uganda's tribal kingdoms, in the interest of creating a unified nation with a centralized government. Buganda, the land that Mutesa claimed as his own, was a traditional kingdom within central Uganda. Buganda is the home of the Ganda tribe.

In the 1950s, Mutesa had supported the secession of Buganda from the rest of Uganda. It is possible that Obote supported Mutesa's presidency with the hope of gaining the support of the Ganda people and integrating them into a unified Uganda. Once that was accomplished, Obote could seize power and lead the newly independent nation.

However, Mutesa was uncooperative and stubbornly refused efforts to incorporate Buganda into Uganda. He pitted "northern" Ugandans and "southern" Bugandans against each other. This led to conflict and Mutesa's eventual exile to Britain in 1966. 

Five years later, the notorious Idi Amin came to rule by military coup and held Uganda in a grip of terror during the 1970s. Obote returned to power in 1980, but was deposed by yet another military coup in 1985.

What is the message of "The Necklace" by Guy de Maupassant?

De Maupassant's "The Necklace" has at least a few messages a reader can take from it. Madame Loisel is a good example of how not to conduct one's life. She has a sense of entitlement based upon nothing, cares too much about appearances, and lacks the courage to be honest with others. 

Although Madame Loisel is from a family that is not wealthy, she believes she is entitled to live a life of great ease and luxury. This belief is not based upon any sterling quality she possesses, such as industriousness, kindness, or intelligence. It is premised upon her appearance. Madame Loisel thinks her face should be her fortune. Her downfall at the end of the story, in which she must live in even greater poverty than she had at the beginning of the story, is largely attributable to this sense of entitlement. Thus, the story has a message about the dangers of a sense of entitlement. We are meant to earn what we get, not rely upon superficial appearances to make gains.

Madame Loisel also cares a great deal about what others think of her. She does not care about others' thoughts on her character, though — just her appearance. This leads her to borrow what she believes to be a diamond necklace so she can present herself as a wealthy woman at the event she and her husband attend. She refuses the flowers her husband suggests as an adornment, believing this would label her as poor. She does not don her outer garments until after they leave so no one can see those garments are not the very best. Her very short-lived sense of triumph at the dance is based upon the admiration of others, admiration based solely on appearances. The lesson here is that appearances are not important in the long run. Being the belle of the ball does not pay the rent or save the world, and it is incumbent upon us to focus on our characters.

Madame Loisel is even dishonest to her friends. This story would have had a very different ending if Madame Loisel revealed to Madame Forestier that she lost the necklace. She would have learned the necklace was not made of real diamonds, and, while her friend might have been briefly annoyed, it certainly would not take years of hard labor for Madame Loisel to pay for an acceptable replacement. Another message in this story, then, is that honesty is the best policy. 

While a reader can perhaps empathize a bit with Madame Loisel, who is young, pretty, and a little bored, she is not a very sympathetic character to most people. Her sense of entitlement, concern about appearances, and dishonesty lead to her downfall, and most readers seem to feel it is a deserved comeuppance for her.  

What was the difference between the pre-revolutionary conditions of the French and Russian Revolutions?

The key difference between the pre-revolutionary conditions in France and Russia can be found, I would argue, in World War One. Before the French Revolution, it is true, the French monarchy had engaged the kingdom in repeated wars against England (most notably, from an American perspective, the American Revolutionary War.) These conflicts contributed to a crushing debt that destabilized the regime, helping create the conditions for war. But the Russian Revolution occurred in the midst of World War One. The war had been an utter disaster for the Russians, who were repeatedly decimated by German and Austrian armies, and matters only became worse when Tsar Nicholas II himself assumed command of the imperial armies. By 1917, economic conditions in the country, especially the city of Petrograd, had become untenable, and the people took to the streets in protest. When the Tsar's forces joined the protests, the Tsar stepped down. By contributing to an economic crisis, by causing the people to lose faith in the competence of their tsar, and by exacerbating longstanding economic woes in the country, World War I thus contributed to the outbreak of the Russian Revolution in a way that had no parallel in France more than a century earlier. 

What changes did Henry VIII make to the Church?

The reign of Henry VIII was a time of great change in the relationship between the English state and the Church. In a bid to divorce his wife, Catherine, for example, Henry broke away from the Church in Rome in 1533 and established the Church of England. The passing of the Act of Supremacy (issued in 1534) declared Henry (and subsequent monarchs) as the head of this new Church which enabled him to obtain the divorce he so desperately wanted.

Between 1536 and 1540, Henry dissolved all of the monasteries and religious houses in England. The buildings were stripped of their valuables and the land (which formerly belonged to the Church) was sold off. All profits were returned to Henry. 

In addition, in 1538, Henry had the Bible translated into English for the first time. He also passed a law requiring every Church in England to purchase a copy of this English Bible and to display it in a place of prominence. (See the reference link provided). 

This is regarding "The Boy in the Striped Pajamas." Why is lieutenant Kotler so cruel?

Lieutenant Kotler is a Nazi guard in "The Boy in the Striped Pajamas." Despite his relatively young age, he is zealous and takes delight in being cruel to the prisoners who are forced to work as servants in Bruno's home. While Kotler's past is not explicitly discussed, parallels are drawn between his behavior and Gretel's enthusiasm for the Hitler Youth propaganda being fed to her through the tutor she shares with Bruno. It is feasible to believe that Kotler was indoctrinated into the Nazi agenda, just as Gretel is being indoctrinated. Another comparison is drawn between Gretel and Bruno, who resists Nazi programming despite the fact that he was raised with it. In a basic sense, Kotler is cruel largely because he wants to be, while Bruno and Pavel remain kind and open-minded despite their circumstances.

Another reason for Kotler's abject cruelty is his interest in impressing Gretel as well as Bruno's mother. Despite the fact that Gretel is only 12 and he is 19, Kotler returns her crush to a degree. In an attempt to impress Gretel and the children's mother, Kotler is unnecessarily cruel in his dealings with the prisoners. He clearly does not view the servants as human and takes every opportunity to exploit, beat and persecute them to further his own career and improve his standing among the Nazi guard. 

Kotler's cruelty is not limited to other human beings. On page 172, Bruno reports witnessing the young soldier shooting a dog for no apparent reason other than the fact that its barking annoyed him. These combined actions lead to the conclusion that Kotler is generally cruel for the sake of being cruel as well as to advance his reputation in a group that rewarded such behavior.

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

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

With the use of technical manipulation and the addition of three amendments to the Constitution, everyone is now "finally equal." But, it is an equality in mediocrity. For, Diana Moon Glampers, the Handicapper General to whom Hazel Bergeron bears a strong resemblance, is the standard. In fact, as Hazel talks to her husband George, she remarks, "I think I'd make a good Handicapper General," and her husband responds, "Good as anybody else."

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

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

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

Express `sqrt(20) - (45/sqrt(5))` in the form `k sqrt(a).`

In general, it is in bad form to have a radical in the denominator of a fraction.  When you come across this, you must do what's called "rationalizing the denominator".  The best way to ensure you get rid of the radical is to multiply your fraction by by a new fraction that has the radical in both the numerator and the denominator (and therefore has a value of 1).  It would look like this:

`(45/sqrt(5))*(sqrt(5)/sqrt(5))`

It is very important to multiply the top and bottom of you original fraction by the same thing so that you don't change the value of the fraction!

Next you multiply your fractions together and get:

`(45sqrt(5))/(sqrt(5))^2=(45sqrt(5))/5=9sqrt(5)`

Now we are looking at the expression

`sqrt(20)-9sqrt(5)`

You are only allowed to add or subtract radicals that are the same.  So we want to simplify the square root of 20 in the hopes that it will contain the square root of 5:

`sqrt(20)=sqrt(4*5)=sqrt(4)*sqrt(5)=2sqrt(5)`

Now we can simplify our expression.  We only add or subtract the coefficients in front of the radical (and keep the radical the same):

`2sqrt(5)-9sqrt(5)=-7sqrt(5)`

So k=-7 and a=5