What is the meaning of the following quotation from 1984? "The object of terrorism is terrorism. The object of oppression is oppression. The object...

This quotation explains the philosophy of leadership in Oceania but even more George Orwell's own understanding of authoritarian governments.

Orwell's 1984 was written in reaction to the rise of fascist and authoritarian governments in the twentieth century in Germany, Italy, Spain, and Russia. These movements originally practiced terrorism to gain power and when in power used tools such as oppression, murder, and torture as means of control. They tended to justify such behavior as necessary means to an end.

What this statement argues is that people who murder and torture are not fundamentally good people who act immorally out of necessity, but simply murderers and torturers. Authoritarian governments do not seek power as a means to another end, but because they want power. 

O'Brien, as a member of the Inner Party, understands this and actually exults in it, unlike Winston, who before being tortured believed the propaganda that these immoral acts were simply means to an end.

What is Mayella's mother's name? Why did Bob Ewell not marry anyone after her mother died?

Most of the details about the Ewell family are given in chapters 17 and 18, which are trial scenes. Bob Ewell's testimony is given in the second half of Chapter 17, and Mayella's in Chapter 18. In neither of these chapters are we told the name of Mayella's mother, nor any details about Bob's wife's death, such as how long ago it took place, what she died of, or what happened after.

Though we never learn the name of the hapless, now deceased Mrs. Ewell, it is easy to infer why her husband did not remarry.

Mayella Ewell is the oldest of seven children. She is nineteen years old. Assuming the children are spaced about two years apart, that would make the youngest seven years old. So we know that Mrs. Ewell died no more than seven years ago, possibly more recently than that. That would make Mayella about twelve at the time of the mother's death.

We know that Mayella went to school only two or three years. By age twelve she was probably finished with school. We know from descriptions given by Scout (as narrator), Tom Robinson, and Mayella herself that Mayella was the one who essentially kept the Ewell household running. As Tom Robinson says in Chapter 19,

"Well, I says it looked like they [the rest of the family] never help her none ... I felt right sorry for her, she seemed to try more'n the rest of 'em ..."

Probably, by the time her mother died, Mayella was already running the household. Certainly after she died, Mayella took over. She did the chores, she kept geraniums, she scraped and saved money to feed her siblings when her father drank up his welfare cheque. With Mayella around, Bob Ewell did not need a wife.

Even if Bob Ewell had been on the lookout for a woman willing to marry him, it's hard to imagine how he could have found one. He brought in no income and was a drunkard. His children lived on poached game and whatever they could find in the dump. It's hard to imagine any woman marrying such a man voluntarily.

What is a quote that describes the inequality within Maycomb's society that could be used to describe the cultural setting of To Kill a Mockingbird?

There are several scenes throughout the novel that describe Maycomb's inequality and prejudiced views towards African Americans. In Atticus's closing remarks at the Tom Robinson trial, he addresses the prejudiced jury's preconceived beliefs that Tom Robinson is already guilty simply because he is a black man. Atticus says,

"The witnesses for the state, with the exception of the sheriff of Maycomb County, have presented themselves to you gentlemen, to this court, in the cynical confidence that their testimony would not be doubted, confident that you gentlemen would go along with them on the assumption — the evil assumption — that all Negroes lie, that all Negroes are basically immoral beings, that all Negro men are not to be trusted around our women, an assumption one associates with minds of their caliber" (Lee 125).

The "evil assumption" refers to the racist ideology held by the majority of white citizens in Maycomb towards African Americans in their community. In Maycomb, white people automatically assume the worst about African Americans and believe they are all immoral individuals. In regards to inequality, African Americans are not trusted and in a court of law where every citizen is considered equal, their testimonies are dismissed simply because of the color of their skin. African Americans are not given equal treatment in their community or the court of law. They are viewed with contempt, and their individual merit is not taken into consideration by the racist citizens of Maycomb. The cultural setting of the novel takes place in 1930s Alabama, a time when Jim Crow laws segregated and discriminated against African Americans. Atticus urges the jury to look past their prejudiced beliefs and judge the case exclusively on the evidence and testimonies provided. Unfortunately, the racist jury wrongly convicts Tom Robinson, and Tom becomes yet another victim of racial injustice.

What percentage of people are able to afford a new home?

Determining how many people can afford to buy a new home depends on how you define “afford.” Generally speaking, most home buyers are expected to dedicate about 25% of their income to mortgage payments. Lenders are reluctant to make loans to potential buyers if they think they won't be able to make the payments, so they look at the income-to-mortgage percentage carefully. This is especially true now, after the disastrous role failed mortgages played in the recent recession.

Most home ownership, historically, has been driven by the middle class. In recent decades, middle class income has been more stagnant than it used to be. At the same time, fewer of the smaller, more affordable houses are being built, as builders have focused on larger, more expensive homes.

According to the website Businessinsider.com, only about 40% of American households make enough money to handle the average mortgage on a new house (if you use the 25% ratio explained above). This number could be higher if wages had not stagnated and/or if smaller houses, with smaller price tags, were being constructed.

How are contrasts used in Charles Dickens's A Tale of Two Cities to convey the theme of morality?

Contrasts are presented from the very first paragraph. Dickens gives several pairs of opposites (including “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times”), showing the conflicts of the age. This sets up the theme of goodness versus evil, often shown through various symbols. The two titular cities, London and Paris, are also shown to be opposites, even moral opposites. In London live the people who strive to do the right thing. In Paris are the revolutionaries and the nobility, both of whom are corrupt and violent. Light and shadow are common motifs, one example being the description of the street where the Manettes live. It is a shadowed street except for a bright spot where Doctor Manette and Lucie live (Book Two, Chapter Six). Even the characters of Charles Darnay and Sydney Carton are shown to be moral contrasts. Charles is good and noble, while Sydney is dissolute and unmotivated. In the end, however, Sydney brings together the light and the dark, the good and the evil, in his self-sacrifice. His redemption brings justification to himself, if not to the times in which he lives. His quotation from the Bible, “I am the Resurrection and the Life” (John 11:25), reflects this redemption. He has been “recalled to life,” the phrase used concerning Doctor Manette on his release from the Bastille (Book One, Chapter Two). No darkness is so complete that it cannot be redeemed. This is the moral message Dickens gives throughout the novel.

Imagine the world economy is made up of two economies, a small home economy and a large foreign economy. What would be the effect on the home...

Because the home economy is small relative to the foreign economy, we can safely assume that changes at home will not significantly affect the state of the foreign market. This is called a "small open economy" model.

If foreign income increases, its demand for goods will increase, and this includes goods that are imported from the home economy. Therefore demand for home goods will increase, resulting in money flows from outside.

These money flows will increase demand for our currency, which since the exchange rate is floating will rise in value. This will reduce money flowing in as exports and increase money flowing out as imports. When equilibrium is reached, both exports and imports should have increased, increasing our GDP but not changing our balance of trade.

An increase in the foreign money supply will cause inflation in the foreign economy, and also increase money flows into the home economy. Between both the increased exports and the foreign inflation, the home currency will have even more pressure to increase in value. But since the exchange rate is fixed, this can't happen. So the currency will remain undervalued.

Instead, the home economy will begin accumulating foreign reserves, and will begin to experience a trade surplus and a current account surplus. This will make the home balance sheet stronger, which may seem desirable (some economists think it is desirable in some cases), but carries four large downsides:

First, it pulls reserves from other countries, who may not be able to sustain their current account deficits indefinitely. If their deficit collapses, so must our surplus.

Second, it can trigger inflation in the local economy, which monetary policy may be insufficient to control.

Third, it means exchanging real goods for nothing more than paper, gradually reducing the real wealth of the home country.

Fourth, it introduces inefficiencies into the global trade system that reduce wealth for everyone, similar to a tariff or quota.

What are the strengths and weaknesses of parliamentary and presidential forms of government? Please explain using the U.K and the U.S.A. as...

Most representative democracies come in one of two types: A presidential system such as the USA, in which there is an executive who is directly elected, and a parliamentary system such as the UK, in which the legislature is elected and then the legislature chooses the executive. Some countries have hybrid systems (such as France), and other systems are possible (the executive could be folded fully into the legislature, made a council of several people, etc.), but these are by far the most common.

A presidential system like the US is inherently more democratic; any time you can pass the power directly to the people instead of making it through some intermediary you make the system more democratic. But "more democratic" does not necessarily mean "better"; many political scientists argue that it is possible to have too much democracy, and end up electing demagogues and enacting awful policies by rallying the opinion of an ignorant public.

A parliamentary system can be a means of weakening the tyranny of the majority, the possibility that a democratic vote could lead a majority of the population to violate the rights of a minority of the population. With a parliamentary system, there is more coalition-building within the parliament necessary to achieve executive power, mitigating the effects of simply having a majority in favor of a harmful policy.

Parliamentary systems generally avoid partisan gridlock, where one party controls the executive and an opposing party controls the legislature, and neither is willing to do anything because it would mean supporting the opposing agenda. (This has clearly been a major issue lately in the US, whereas it rarely happens in the UK.) On the other hand, parliamentary systems remove a check and balance---the executive and legislative branches are now more closely tied, and the two cannot as easily act as checks on one another as they could in a presidential system. So again it depends on whether we would rather have government that does things the people might not agree with, or one that doesn't do anything at all.

There is also empirical evidence suggesting that parliamentary systems may be more stable against coups and transitions to authoritarianism, particularly in countries with high levels of ethnic, religious, or cultural fractionalization. Third World countries that used parliamentary systems have had much more success transitioning to democracy than those that used presidential systems. This could be for many reasons, but all other things equal, it does argue in favor of a parliamentary system.

Some parliamentary systems allow the parliament to schedule elections more or less when they please (within certain constraints), whereas presidential systems almost always have a well-defined election schedule such as holding an election every four years. This can allow the ruling party to partially control the election outcome by manipulating the calendar, holding votes only when their poll numbers are favorable. On the other hand, it avoids the inconvenience of overly frequent elections and allows new elections to be held if a prime minister is incapacitated (whereas in a presidential system there usually has to be a vice president or some similar mechanism for automatic succession).