What do you think western countries could do to help improve the business climate in Vietnam?

Perhaps the most active attempt by western countries to improve the business climate in Vietnam was the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a multilateral trade deal negotiated by the Obama administration from which the United States abruptly withdrew under President Trump. This trade pact emphasized such things as human rights, curbs on sweatshops, environmental standards, and the right of workers to organize. It also enhanced fair and transparent practices, focused on reducing corruption, and reduced tariff and non-tariff...

Perhaps the most active attempt by western countries to improve the business climate in Vietnam was the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a multilateral trade deal negotiated by the Obama administration from which the United States abruptly withdrew under President Trump. This trade pact emphasized such things as human rights, curbs on sweatshops, environmental standards, and the right of workers to organize. It also enhanced fair and transparent practices, focused on reducing corruption, and reduced tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade, which would benefit low-wage countries using manufacturing to strive for higher GDP through exports and foreign investment.

There are several problems that Vietnam is experiencing, including corruption and inefficiency. Both of the aforementioned problems could be remedied by western countries helping with business education as well as by western countries cracking down on corrupt practices; if westerners refused to deal with corrupt firms or politicians, corruption would be less profitable. The other major problem in Vietnam is that it tends to export low-value products to China and buy more sophisticated products higher up the value chain. While protectionism is not an ideal solution, it is important to change this dynamic. Western countries might help with forms of technology transfer and creating partnerships with local technology incubators. 

List some benefits of global interdependence.

Global interdependence fosters specialization, which helps ensure that products and services are of the highest possible quality. Through specialization, people and businesses are forced to research and improve processes to ensure that they remain competitive.

Countries are forced to depend on each other for crucial products and services. Thus, the situation helps in addressing conflicts that are likely to interfere with the production or distribution of the products and services. In this regard, the nations...

Global interdependence fosters specialization, which helps ensure that products and services are of the highest possible quality. Through specialization, people and businesses are forced to research and improve processes to ensure that they remain competitive.

Countries are forced to depend on each other for crucial products and services. Thus, the situation helps in addressing conflicts that are likely to interfere with the production or distribution of the products and services. In this regard, the nations are forced by interdependence to maintain cordial relations.

Although each nation is entitled to advance its own interests, these interests will be advanced in a context that ensures that the nation’s partners remain agreeable and, to some extent, can benefit from said interests. Thus, global interdependence forces nations to emphasize mutually beneficial activities to ensure collective preservation and progress.

Which of these four statements (feels trapped, questions existing systems, tries to change the system or escape, fails in his intent to change or...

Based on the wording of the question, it seems like explanations need to be provided for the statements that fit with Leonard Mead. Of the four statements, I feel that "feels trapped" is the only one that really applies.

Leonard Mead has been going on his walks for a full decade.

In ten years of walking by night or day, for thousands of miles, he had never met another person walking, not once in all that time.

He's alone on all of those walks; therefore, he is also free to make decisions about where he goes and when he comes home. Mead loves it. His nightly walks are incredibly freeing to him.

To enter out into that silence that was the city at eight o'clock of a misty evening in November, to put your feet upon that buckling concrete walk, to step over grassy seams and make your way, hands in pockets, through the silences, that was what Mr. Leonard Mead most dearly loved to do. He would stand upon the corner of an intersection and peer down long moonlit avenues of sidewalk in four directions, deciding which way to go. . . 

That all comes to a stop when he is finally found by the one roving police car. He is asked a series of questions, and Mead's answers make him look more and more odd compared to the rest of the population. Eventually, the police car orders Mead to get into the car so it can take him to a psychiatric facility. This is when Mead feels trapped. He realizes that he is no longer in control of his life, and he begins to feel out of control.

He walked like a man suddenly drunk.

He can't choose where to go next. The decision has been made for him. He's essentially forced into the police car, and once in the car, Mead is genuinely trapped in a jail cell.

He put his hand to the door and peered into the back seat, which was a little cell, a little black jail with bars. It smelled of riveted steel. It smelled of harsh antiseptic; it smelled too clean and hard and metallic.

That jail cell of a car will then take Mead to a psychiatric facility where Mead will continue to be trapped.

"Questions existing systems" might apply a little bit to Leonard Mead. I don't think Mead questions the state of the world. He accepts that nobody else goes on nightly walks. He might lament the state of the world, but he doesn't question it. The closest that Mead might come to questioning an entire existing system is when he says, "Wait a minute, I haven't done anything!" and "I protest" against the car's order for him to get in. That's as close as Mead gets to asking a "why"-type question; however, even as he protests, Mead has already accepted the fact that he will get in. That's why he asks where the car will take him even before he gets in the car.

I don't feel that the other two statements apply to Mead. His walks are not his way of "sticking it to the man." They are something that he loves to do, and he isn't trying to convince other people that they should follow his example. He's not trying to change the system, nor is he trying to escape from it. He's been doing his walks for a decade, and he doesn't try to run away and escape from the police car either. If Mead isn't trying to change anything, then he can't fail in his attempt to change anything. You can't fail at something you don't try.

What do you think is the best argument for Proclamation of 1763?

The best argument for passing the Proclamation of 1763 dealt with issues of security and safety. The British had just gained a lot of land from the French as a result of the peace treaty ending the French and Indian War. Most Native American tribes were very friendly with the French. Many tribes weren’t pleased that the British had gained this land. They were concerned the British were going to try to take away their land. When Pontiac’s Rebellion occurred, it sent a message to the British that there might be conflict in the land that the British had just received from the French.

As a result, the British passed the Proclamation of 1763. They wanted to protect the colonists from potential attacks by the Native Americans. Thus, this law said the colonists would not be allowed to go to the area that the British had just gained from the French. The British believed if the colonists stayed out of this area, they would be more secure.

Of course, the colonists didn’t like this, and they felt the British were trying to control them. This law, along with other laws that were passed later, eventually helped lead to the start of the Revolutionary War.

Black Man in A White Coat addressed a lot of different issues, health disparities, bias, prejudice, impact of health insurance and social...

This question is very subjective. I would strongly recommend reviewing the book and thinking about which story or statistic was most surprising to you, then explain why. That is what the prompt is asking you to do. Your explanation can be based on your prior assumptions or even your own experiences with healthcare.

One of the main critiques made against Dr. Damon Tweedy in light of his memoir is that he was not more vigilant in response to discriminatory behavior from colleagues or superiors. However, considering that only five percent of practicing physicians in the United States are black, his reluctance was not surprising.

There are two very interesting anecdotes from the book which demonstrate this problem. The first took place in the mid-nineties. Tweedy was treating a nineteen-year-old young black woman named Leslie. The young woman had a miscarriage very late into her pregnancy. When Tweedy asked her questions about her medical history, she was very cagey, and she denied the obvious—being pregnant. His supervisor, who was white, demanded to know when the last time she had smoked crack was. Tweedy was stunned, but the supervisor turned out to be correct: the teenage girl was, unfortunately, an addict who had smoked crack two nights before. During a later conversation about the incident, a nurse added that the girl should have her tubes tied to avoid getting pregnant again, due to her addiction.

The entire incident made Tweedy uncomfortable. The doctor had been right about the girl's condition. The nurse was also, in a way, right about how the problem could be avoided in the future. However, would they have said the same about a middle-class white woman addicted to cocaine? Would the nurse have been as eager to see a white woman of a higher class sterilized? Also, how could they have been certain that the young woman's cocaine addiction caused the death of the fetus? There were other conditions, such as poor nutrition and lack of exercise, that also contributed to the death of the fetus the night before. Cocaine use was a major factor, but only one factor.

Tweedy, personally, both identified with the patient and felt superior to her. Clearly, his education and profession placed him in a better position. However, as a black man, he also felt vulnerable to the same snap judgments that plagued the teenage girl; he occasionally felt the same disregard for his value and abilities.

In another instance, Tweedy writes of a black male patient who was diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder after disregarding a physician's instructions to take medicine, in favor of changing his diet and exercising. It was ironic to Tweedy that the man, who had a condition that is often prevented or ameliorated by such a regimen, was condemned as having a mental disorder for refusing to do exactly what a white physician wanted him to do.

According to Tweedy, a lot of the discrimination that results in hospitals comes from the white expectation that blacks should heed their presumably superior authority without question and should trust them without question. In other instances, there is a tendency to treat some patients with less respect due to certain conditions, such as drug addiction, but also due to their race or class.

How did the United States add new territories in the West through victory in the Mexican-American war?

As a result of the Mexican-American War, the United States added new territories in the West. The Mexican-American War began when Mexico attacked troops from the United States military that were in the disputed land. The United States believed that the border between Mexico and Texas was at the Rio Grande River while Mexico felt it was at the Nueces River. American troops were in this disputed area, and Mexico attacked them, considering the presence...

As a result of the Mexican-American War, the United States added new territories in the West. The Mexican-American War began when Mexico attacked troops from the United States military that were in the disputed land. The United States believed that the border between Mexico and Texas was at the Rio Grande River while Mexico felt it was at the Nueces River. American troops were in this disputed area, and Mexico attacked them, considering the presence of these troops as an invasion of Mexican land.

The United States defeated Mexico in this war. As a result of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the United States gained much land from Mexico. The border with Texas was established at the Rio Grande River. The United States gained much land in the Southwest, including land in present-day states such as Arizona, California, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Colorado. The United States paid Mexico $15 million for this land. The United States also agreed to settle all claims Americans had against the Mexican government.

In Speak, by Laurie Halse Anderson, what does Melinda do to the mirror?

Mirrors are a constant symbol in Speak. Melinda hates mirrors because they remind her of what she perceives to be her ugliness. She hates them so much that she actually covers them up. She literally cannot look herself in the eye. Mirrors reflect the way that the world sees Melissa, a highly negative image she increasingly internalizes.

Towards the end of the story, however, the mirror comes to take on a completely different significance....

Mirrors are a constant symbol in Speak. Melinda hates mirrors because they remind her of what she perceives to be her ugliness. She hates them so much that she actually covers them up. She literally cannot look herself in the eye. Mirrors reflect the way that the world sees Melissa, a highly negative image she increasingly internalizes.

Towards the end of the story, however, the mirror comes to take on a completely different significance. Andy tries once again to rape Melinda. It was his violation of her the previous summer that precipitated the immense psychological turmoil that she's been suffering ever since. But this time she resists. Melinda's always hated herself for what she perceives to have been her weakness in not preventing Andy from raping her. Now, however, she smashes her closet mirror and uses a shard of broken glass to threaten Andy.

This time, Andy backs off. For Melinda mirrors are no longer a symbol of poor body image and lack of self-esteem; they represent a sense of empowerment and control, a means of fighting back against a cruel world and establishing herself as someone to be valued and respected: someone that was there in the mirror all along.

`sum_(n=1)^oo n(6/5)^n` Use the Root Test to determine the convergence or divergence of the series.

To determine the convergence or divergence of a series `sum a_n` using Root test, we evaluate a limit as:

`lim_(n-gtoo) root(n)(|a_n|)= L`

or

`lim_(n-gtoo) |a_n|^(1/n)= L`

Then, we follow the conditions:

a) `Llt1` then the series is absolutely convergent.

b) `Lgt1` then the series is divergent.

c) `L=1` or does not exist  then the test is inconclusive. The series may be divergent, conditionally convergent, or absolutely convergent.

We may apply Root...

To determine the convergence or divergence of a series `sum a_n` using Root test, we evaluate a limit as:

`lim_(n-gtoo) root(n)(|a_n|)= L`

or

`lim_(n-gtoo) |a_n|^(1/n)= L`

Then, we follow the conditions:

a) `Llt1` then the series is absolutely convergent.

b) `Lgt1` then the series is divergent.

c) `L=1` or does not exist  then the test is inconclusive. The series may be divergent, conditionally convergent, or absolutely convergent.

We may apply Root test on the given series `sum_(n=1)^oo n(6/5)^n` when we let: `a_n=n(6/5)^n` .

Then, set-up the limit as:

`lim_(n-gtoo) |n(6/5)^n|^(1/n) =lim_(n-gtoo) (n(6/5)^n)^(1/n)`

Apply Law of  Exponents: `(x*y)^n = x^n*y^n` and (x^n)^m = x^(n*m).

`lim_(n-gtoo) (n(6/5)^n)^(1/n)=lim_(n-gtoo) n^(1/n) ((6/5)^n)^(1/n)`

                               `=lim_(n-gtoo) n^(1/n) (6/5)^(n*1/n)`

                               ` =lim_(n-gtoo) n^(1/n) (6/5)^(n/n)`

                               `=lim_(n-gtoo) n^(1/n) (6/5)^1`

                               `=lim_(n-gtoo) 6/5n^(1/n)`

Evaluate the limit.

`lim_(n-gtoo) 6/5n^(1/n) =6/5lim_(n-gtoo) n^(1/n) `         

                   ` =6/5 *1`  

                  ` =6/5 or 1.2`

The limit value `L =6/5 or 1.2` satisfies the condition: `Lgt1` since `6/5gt1 or 1.2gt1` .

Therefore, the series `sum_(n=1)^oo n(6/5)^n` is divergent.

Present a study guide of Acts 1 and 2 of Macbeth which includes quotes and important notes.

The following guidelines will focus on the most important themes in the play and provide relevant quotes accompanied by a discussion to illustrate their significance. Stage directions and their importance are also mentioned.

Themes in Macbeth:

• Equivocation and paradox


• Appearance and reality


• Ambition


• Power corrupts


• Guilt

Act 1, Scene 1:

The scene opens with thunder and lighting used to foreshadow coming disruption. The three witches, who are agents of evil, and who will play a pivotal role in influencing Macbeth and, therefore, the events which will unfold, are also introduced. They plan to meet Macbeth after the war.

Quote:

Fair is foul, and foul is fair:
Hover through the fog and filthy air. 

The quote establishes the themes of equivocation and paradox, and appearance versus reality. The witches' paradoxical statement means that whatever seems good is bad and vice versa. The implication is that one can be deceived by appearances for they might signify something completely different or the opposite. The witches perform magic and concoct potions to affect or alter the natural state of things. 

Act 1, Scene 2: 

The scene is quite informative and tells about the reasons for the war in Scotland. More importantly, it tells us of Macbeth, who is depicted as a loyal and courageous soldier who is unrelenting in his fight against those who wish to harm Scotland and his king. An injured soldier reports the following to King Duncan:

For brave Macbeth—well he deserves that name—
Disdaining fortune, with his brandish'd steel,
Which smoked with bloody execution,
Like valour's minion carved out his passage

Macbeth is clearly held in high esteem. He is a ruthless warrior who will not allow anything to prevent him from fulfilling his task. He is a man of honor who dearly loves his country and his king. Duncan is so impressed by his actions that he decides to reward him with a new title. He tells Ross to greet Macbeth with the title of the Thane of Cawdor, the previous Thane being a man the king trusted who is now to be executed for treason. This further supports the theme of appearance and reality, since the king had been deceived by Cawdor's displays of loyalty and love.

Act 1, Scene 3:

Macbeth and Banquo encounter the witches. They extend three (a charmed number) contrasting greetings to each of the two generals. They greet Macbeth with his current title, Thane of Glamis, add the title Thane of Cawdor, and tell him that he will be "king hereafter." Banquo asks why they greet Macbeth with such esteemed titles while they don't address him. The witches then proceed to greet him.

The difference in their greetings is that their salutations to Macbeth are direct and need no further explanation, while their welcome to Banquo is paradoxical:

Lesser than Macbeth, and greater.

Not so happy, yet much happier.

Thou shalt get kings, though thou be none:

The equivocation is obvious, linking with their earlier statement of "fair is foul, and foul is fair." The witches are alluding to future events and are predicting that even though Banquo will have a lesser status than Macbeth, his legacy will be better. He will be happier than Macbeth for he will be at peace while Macbeth will be overwhelmed by turmoil, paranoia, and guilt. 

Later in this scene, Ross informs Macbeth that he has been awarded Cawdor's title. He is overwhelmed by the news and, as Banquo puts it, is "rapt withal." We learn of Macbeth's ambition:

If chance will have me king, why, chance may crown me,
Without my stir.

He believes that since the witches' first prediction about becoming the Thane of Cawdor has come true, it naturally follows that he will be "king hereafter."

Macbeth has made up his mind and has decided that, no matter what happens, he will do whatever is necessary to become king.

Come what come may,
Time and the hour runs through the roughest day.

At the end of the scene, he asks Banquo for an open discussion on the witches' predictions and what has just transpired.

Act 1, Scene 4:

The scene plays out in Duncan's castle. The king warmly greets both Macbeth and Banquo, although Banquo is the one he embraces, which suggests a greater closeness between the two. King Duncan pronounces Malcolm, his eldest son, Prince of Cumberland, which means that he will become the next king. Macbeth is clearly upset at this and says in an aside:

The Prince of Cumberland! that is a step
On which I must fall down, or else o'erleap,
For in my way it lies. 

He sees Malcolm's appointment as a hurdle to his ambition and decides that he has to do something to overcome it. We are informed of the dark side of his goal when he says:

Stars, hide your fires;
Let not light see my black and deep desires:
The eye wink at the hand; yet let that be,
Which the eye fears, when it is done, to see.

Macbeth is filled with malice, and he pleads to the stars to grow dark so that none may, metaphorically, see his wicked aspiration. 

Act 1, Scene 5: 

In this short scene, we are introduced to Lady Macbeth, who is reading a letter from her husband informing her of the good tidings. She is overjoyed that he has been awarded the title Thane of Cawdor, but fears that, although he has ambition, he lacks the ruthlessness to commit evil to further his goal:

yet do I fear thy nature;
It is too full o' the milk of human kindness
To catch the nearest way: thou wouldst be great;
Art not without ambition, but without
The illness should attend it:

She believes that Macbeth is too kind-hearted and sincere to perform as heinous a deed such as a regicide. She is overjoyed when she later hears about Duncan's imminent arrival at her castle. She calls on the powers of darkness to turn her into an evil and ruthless man who has no qualms in committing the greatest villainy.

Come, you spirits
...unsex me here,
And fill me from the crown to the toe top-full
Of direst cruelty! 

She also beseeches the powers of nature, as much as her husband did, to hide her evil intent.

It is apparent that the wicked couple are of the same mind. They want to kill Duncan or whoever else they need to destroy to gain power. When she meets Macbeth she makes it clear that Duncan will not see the light of day, and further tells him that whatever they are planning should be left mainly to her.

Act 1, Scene 6:

On his arrival at Macbeth's castle, Duncan ironically remarks:

This castle hath a pleasant seat; the air
Nimbly and sweetly recommends itself
Unto our gentle senses.

His words accentuate the theme of appearance and reality, for what he perceives contrasts directly with what the malicious Macbeths are planning for him. Lady Macbeth extends the irony by stating:

All our service
In every point twice done and then done double

The pun on the word point should be pertinently evident. The evil couple plan to murder the king - a pointy reckoning indeed!

Act 1, Scene 7:

The scene establishes the finalization of the Macbeths' evil plot and indicates Macbeth's initial refusal and doubt about going through with their malicious plan.

In his soliloquy, Macbeth provides some reasons why he cannot possibly consider murdering Duncan:

• He is related to the king - they are cousins.


• He is Duncan's servant (subject).


• He is Duncan's host and should protect and not harm him.


• Duncan has been a good king, and his untimely and foul death will provoke a huge outcry.


• He does not have any real reason to kill the king except ambition.

It is on this basis that Macbeth later tells his wife, "We will proceed no further in this business." She is shocked by his refusal and calls him a coward. She tells him that he is untrustworthy and cannot keep his word whereas she would, if she had vowed to do so, even kill her breastfeeding baby by bashing its brains out. 

Macbeth expresses doubt about the success of their venture, but she assures him that they will not fail. She plans to get Duncan's guards so inebriated that they can be easily blamed for their liege's murder. Macbeth is impressed by his wife's determination and decides to proceed with their malicious plan. He states:

False face must hide what the false heart doth know.

His words link with the theme of appearance and reality and is a repeat of what his wife had told him earlier, to "look like the innocent flower but be the serpent under't." They must put up appearances of friendship and conviviality while they are planning a very malicious deed.

Act 2, Scene 1:

In this scene, Banquo makes it clear that he will remain loyal to his king. When Macbeth tells him that they should discuss the witches' prophecies and how Banquo can benefit, the latter says, in part:

...but still keep
My bosom franchised and allegiance clear,
I shall be counsell'd.

Banquo wishes to retain his honor and integrity and will not sacrifice these for anything. It is this that makes him a risk to Macbeth. Later in the scene, Macbeth hallucinates, seeing a bloody dagger floating in front of him. He is overwhelmed by the magnitude of what he is about to do. He admits that the image is false and is created by a "heat oppressed brain" and states:

There's no such thing:
It is the bloody business which informs
Thus to mine eyes.

He is, however, determined to follow through and states that while Duncan is still alive, he will not achieve what he desires. Macbeth is driven by what he calls his "vaulting ambition."

Act 2, Scene 2:

Macbeth has committed the murder, and the scene displays his paranoia and fear. The scene also indicates the contrast between his and Lady Macbeth's attitude to the killing. Macbeth is so overwrought that he has brought the murder weapons with him. He is too afraid to return them to Duncan's chamber and states that he has heard all sorts of voices and couldn't say amen. At this point, Lady Macbeth seems to be made of sterner stuff, and she scolds her husband for being so feeble. She takes the daggers back. On her return Macbeth states, in part:

this my hand will rather
The multitudinous seas in incarnadine,
Making the green one red.

He is overwhelmed by guilt while his wife seems completely unperturbed. She tells him that her hands are just as full of blood but that she's ashamed of him being so cowardly. She states that a "little water" will effortlessly absolve them of guilt. Macbeth hears knocking and wishes that it could awaken Duncan. He most definitely regrets having killed his king.

Act 2, Scene 3:

The scene deals with Macduff and the other lords' arrival at Macbeth's castle. The porter at the beginning introduces some humor which provides a break from the powerful drama and tension of the preceding scene. Lennox, in discussion with Macbeth, discusses strange events he has witnessed which leads to the murderer ironically commenting that:

'Twas a rough night.

He alludes to the terrible ordeal that he has gone through when committing his foul deed. His conscience is sorely charged.

Macduff discovers that the king had been brutally slain and is horrified. Macbeth and his lady put on acts of extreme dismay, and she supposedly faints. Lennox reports that evidence points to the guards as the perpetrators. Macbeth, who previously could not re-enter Duncan's chamber, has seemingly rushed off in that direction and states, on Lennox's declaration, that he has executed Duncan's guards. Macduff is immediately alert and suspicious and asks:

Wherefore did you so?

Macbeth creates the impression that he was overwhelmed by his love for Duncan and ironically provides a glowing report of the dead king. He states that he could not help himself but lash out in fury and revenge. Lady Macbeth senses an uncomfortable situation and calls attention to herself, thus saving her husband from further scrutiny. 

Malcolm and Donalbain, the king's two sons, decide to flee in fear of their lives. Malcolm decides to go to England while Donalbain will leave for Ireland. Their escape places suspicion on them for having had a part in their father's murder.

Act 2, Scene 4:

At the start of the scene, Ross and an old man discuss the disruptions in nature that they have witnessed. It is clear that there has been significant perturbation. Their conversation indicates an overturn in the natural order of things. Duncan's murder is an unnatural deed and foreshadows greater distress and chaos.

In his conversation with Macduff, it becomes quite evident that Malcolm and Donalbain are the chief suspects in their father's murder. It is also apparent that Macbeth has been named the new king and is to be crowned at Scone. Macduff's loyalties are quite pertinent when he tells Ross that he is not planning to attend the coronation and that he will go to his castle at Fife. When Ross tells him that he will be going to Scone, Macduff tells him:

Well, may you see things well done there: adieu!
Lest our old robes sit easier than our new!

Macduff is most apparently suggesting that the new rule may be less comfortable than the old. The implication is that Macbeth will not be as good a king as Duncan had been. Furthermore, what Macduff says is even greater confirmation of his distrust for Macbeth.

Identify three characters who are the cause of their own negative or tragic circumstances in the Shakespeare play Romeo & Juliet. Provide...

When examining the narrative of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, we can argue that most of the characters are, indeed, responsible for their own undoing or tragic outcome. Let's take a look at the three players who arguably suffer the most because of their own actions:

ROMEO:

Romeo has long been regarded as one of the most emotionally unstable and impulsive characters of the Shakespearean canon. He begins the play with a broken heart—crushed by his unrequited love for the pure young Rosaline. This experience and the reality that Rosaline has taken a vow of chastity has led him to claim that "in that vow / Do I live dead that live to tell it now." This infatuation, however, is quickly overturned when Romeo meets Juliet and proclaims, "Did my heart love till now? forswear it, sight! / For I ne'er saw true beauty till this night." As we know, this situation quickly escalates with Romeo and Juliet beginning a clandestine affair despite the fact that they are clearly ill-suited for each other; Juliet is intended to be married to Paris, and they both come from different warring families. Despite this, they rage against their circumstances. Ultimately, Romeo is responsible for his own fate when he impulsively decides to buy poison from the apothecary after mistakenly hearing of Juliet's death, travels to her tomb, and commits suicide by her body. He takes the poison, proclaiming melodramatically: "O true apothecary! / Thy drugs are quick. Thus with a kiss I die." Had Romeo had the patience and clear-mindedness to wait until he was fully informed of the situation, he would have discovered that Juliet was indeed alive and waiting to escape Verona with him. 

JULIET:

Much like Romeo, Juliet falls prey to her own impulsive behavior. What worsens this experience is a penchant for the dramatic. Juliet first threatens to kill herself in front of Friar Laurence upon learning that Romeo is to be banished and that she must marry Paris: "O, bid me leap, rather than marry Paris, / From off the battlements of yonder tower." Although he is able to talk her off the proverbial ledge, she continues to make rash choices. She becomes embroiled in the ridiculous plan to fake her own death—one which is destroyed by the failure of the messenger to deliver the details of the plan to Romeo on time—and despite the risk involved, participates. Juliet doesn't even know if the potion she is taking is really harmless or not, asking: "What if it be a poison, which the friar / Subtly hath minister'd to have me dead, / Lest in this marriage he should be dishonor'd / Because he married me before to Romeo?" Thus, Romeo kills himself because of this miscommunication, and Juliet—rather than seeing how destructive this relationship is—chooses to follow in his footsteps, pronouncing, "O happy dagger! / This is thy sheath; / there rust, and let me die." 

TYBALT: 

Tybalt is warned time and time again to cool his anger in the play, and yet persistently ignores this advice. In the very first scene, he throws himself into the brawl despite having no need to do so. When he later spots Romeo at the Capulet's ball, he intends to go after the boy; instead, Lord Capulet instructs him: "Content thee, gentle coz, let him alone." Tybalt argues back that he will not endure "such a villain" as a guest, and is once again shut down by Capulet, who insists, "He shall be endured." This hot-headedness ultimately results in Tybalt's untimely death when he once more starts a fight that he never should have begun—this time with Mercutio, who was not even the intended target. Tybalt had wanted to fight Romeo, claiming, "Boy, this shall not excuse the injuries / That thou hast done me; therefore turn and draw." Despite more cautioning to cease the battle, Tybalt winds up killing Mercutio in the duel, which leads to a chaotic attack from Romeo, who is grieving and vengeful. Thus, Tybalt dies because he was too angry and single-minded to see the absurdity in his own behavior. 

As for the quote you mentioned: although it may thematically apply to this play, it's actually spoken in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, not Romeo and Juliet. This quote simply means that we are responsible for our own fates; our destiny is dictated by our words, thoughts, and actions rather than by some mysterious arrangement of the Universe. 

what is it like being part of the trial in their positions?

Presumably, this question refers to Scout and Jem, Atticus, Finch's children, and their relationship to the trial of Tom Robinson. Their father, Atticus, is the defense lawyer for Tom. The case is a high-profile, controversial one, and Atticus naturally does not want his children to be exposed to the mature content. However, Scout and Jem cannot resist and sneak into the courthouse to observe. 

Scout and Jem occupy a complex position in relation to this...

Presumably, this question refers to Scout and Jem, Atticus, Finch's children, and their relationship to the trial of Tom Robinson. Their father, Atticus, is the defense lawyer for Tom. The case is a high-profile, controversial one, and Atticus naturally does not want his children to be exposed to the mature content. However, Scout and Jem cannot resist and sneak into the courthouse to observe. 

Scout and Jem occupy a complex position in relation to this trial. They are children, innocent to much of the racism of their community. Their father is the defense lawyer so they are inclined to want him to win the case. However, they find that there is some animosity toward their father's role, as much of the community already find Tom Robinson guilty.

As the children watch the trial, they become outraged at the racism of the community and the assumptions people make about Tom. They are sympathetic to Tom's plight and feel the danger their father faces in defending him. Though they must lose their innocence by witnessing the trial, Scout and Jem also gain a greater understanding of justice and injustice and become aware of the underlying prejudices of their own community. 

What keeps Lennie and George together, considering their complex relationship, the difficulties they face, and their differences from others they...

There are a number of things that keep the two men together. First, they seem to have a deep affection for one another. Even though they sometimes squabble, it is obvious that they care about each other. George, for example, apologizes to Lennie after having scolded him harshly in chapter one, as the following extract indicates:

George looked quickly and searchingly at him. "I been mean, ain't I?"

"No--look! I was jus' foolin', Lennie. 'Cause I want you to stay with me. Trouble with mice is you always kill 'em." He paused. "Tell you what I'll do, Lennie. First chance I get I'll give you a pup. Maybe you wouldn't kill it. That'd be better than mice. And you could pet it harder."

For his part, Lennie sees an advantage and knows he can manipulate George, threatening to leave him. The two men make up, however, and George, at Lennie's urging, starts talking about how different they are, as migrant workers, to other men in their situation.

The two men's dependence on each other also keeps them together. When they speak about what makes them unique, they often relate how they are there for each other. Unlike other men, they have each other to turn to, as George states when he refers to the loneliness other ranch hands experience:

"With us it ain't like that. We got a future. We got somebody to talk to that gives a damn about us. We don't have to sit in no bar room blowin' in our jack jus' because we got no place else to go. If them other guys gets in jail they can rot for all anybody gives a damn. But not us."

In addition, as George has mentioned, they "got a future." He is referring to their plan to buy a ten-acre piece of land and run it on their own. They are working to put together a stake. Their dream is to gain independence and determine their own destiny. They would be able to freely exercise their choice about whom they want to associate with and how they wish to spend their time, unlike other workers who will always be dependent on someone else. Those men will never be as independent as they plan to be. Such men will always rely on someone else, such as a ranch owner, for an income, while George and Lennie will be self-sufficient. Both George and Lennie are enthralled by the enormity of their dream, for it is what makes them special and is a primary factor in what keeps them together.

Furthermore, although George consistently complains about Lennie limiting his freedom, he enjoys the companionship his friend provides. He has someone to talk to and with whom he can share his feelings and frustrations, someone he can confide in. This also makes them different from the others, who have no one to trust or confide in.

It is tragic that their dream in the end comes to nothing when Lennie, unfortunately and unintentionally, kills Curley's wife and has to flee. George follows him and kills his companion in an act of mercy. 

What aspects of discovery are present within "Contents of the Dead Man's Pocket"?

The main character of "Contents of the Dead Man's Pocket" discovers that the most important things in life are really not things.

Initially, Tom Benecke is focused primarily on "moving up the corporate ladder" by submitting an innovative idea for a new grocery store display method. To support his idea, he has spent "four long Saturday afternoons" standing in supermarkets, counting the people who passed various displays. During his lunch hours and in the evenings for weeks, he has gone through countless trade publications, copying facts and figures. All of this information has been recorded upon one creased, yellow sheet of paper.

One weekend night, his wife Claire prepares to go to the movies alone because Tom is still working on his project, explaining, "Got to get this done though." Claire replies, "You work too much though, Tom—and too hard." Tom replies that she will be thrilled when he becomes known as the "Boy Wizard of Wholesale Groceries."

As Claire opens the apartment door, a draft is created that quickly draws the yellow sheet containing all Tom's data out the opened window. It drops to the ornamental ledge a yard below the window where it is out of Tom's reach. Standing near this open window, Tom then engages in an argument with himself. He considers that the work can be duplicated, but it would take two months. The ideas on this sheet will not bring him a promotion or a raise; nevertheless, the yellow sheet contains ideas and figures that can begin his climb to the corporate top. Tom Benecke decides that he cannot abandon his hopes for a promotion. "And he knew he was going out there in the darkness, after the yellow sheet fifteen feet beyond his reach." At this point, Tom discovers that his getting a promotion is worth risking his life.

It is while Tom is outside looking down eleven stories where he could fall and then realizing that the window to his apartment has slammed shut that he begins to think of the folly of his decision to retrieve the yellow sheet. He has risked his life for this list of facts and figures. He may never again see and hold his wife. On the ledge, Tom Benecke has now discovered that things are of small value compared to matters of the heart and spirit. So, he summons all the courage in his heart and strength in his fist and shoots his arm forward toward the glass of the closed window, calling out "Claire!" 

Fortunately, Tom breaks through the glass and propels himself into his apartment. He immediately grabs his coat, opens the door to hurry and catch Claire at the cinema. Ironically, the draft again lofts the yellow sheet out the window that has been broken. This time, however, Tom Benecke "burst(s) into laughter and then close(s) the door behind him," because he has readjusted his values. Now, he has discovered that things are not as important as his life and the woman he loves.

What would be a good essay topic for an argument Diane Ackerman makes in The Zookeeper's Wife?

One essay topic you could write about is how Ackerman draws parallels between animals and people. Her argument is that Jews in the Holocaust are like defenseless animals and that by understanding the ways and emotions of animals, Jan and Antonina Żabiński are in a unique position to help the Jews in Warsaw.

For example, Jan, a zoologist, studies the strategies of disguise and deception that animals use and adopts them to shelter and hide...

One essay topic you could write about is how Ackerman draws parallels between animals and people. Her argument is that Jews in the Holocaust are like defenseless animals and that by understanding the ways and emotions of animals, Jan and Antonina Żabiński are in a unique position to help the Jews in Warsaw.

For example, Jan, a zoologist, studies the strategies of disguise and deception that animals use and adopts them to shelter and hide Jews during the Holocaust. Ackerman writes:

"As a zoologist, Jan had spent years studying the minutiae of animal behavior...Extrapolating from their behaviors to those of humans came naturally to such a diligent zoologist, especially strategies of deceit" (page 147).

Jan's gift of using new personalities helps him in the Underground army. He uses his ability to create loyalties and facades, as well as his willingness to sacrifice--all behaviors he has seen in animals--to aid his deceit and help those fleeing the Warsaw Ghetto. His understanding of animal behavior makes him better at providing assistance for victims of the Nazis.

Another example of the parallels between people and animals in Ackerman's book is the way in which the animals in the zoo are slaughtered by the Nazi shelling of Warsaw, just as the people are. Ackerman writes about the animals during the Nazi shelling, "Some animals, hiding in their cages and basins, became engulfed in flame" (page 61). As Antonina heads to the zoo to try to save the animals during the shelling, she thinks, "This is how a hunted animal feels" (page 60). Like the animals who are defenselessly resting in their cages during the shelling, the victims of the Holocaust are also without power to stop their aggressors. Similar to the zoo animals who are shelled and burned while they are locked in their cages, the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto are locked inside the ghetto walls without defenses against their aggressors. Jan and Antonina try to sneak food to Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto (page 103) and later provide an escape route for some them, understanding that the Jews in Warsaw are like innocent animals locked in their cages.

What happens at the end of Meinke’s "The Cranes"? Why do you think the cranes suddenly “plunge upward”? Are the cranes conventional or...

At the end of Meinke's story, the man most likely shoots the woman out of mercy (and maybe also kills himself). Earlier in the story, she says that, "Ever since the accident it’s been one thing after another. I’m just a lot of trouble to everybody." The woman seems debilitated and tired (and she coughs a great deal), and the couple has covered the front seat of the car with a plastic sheet, likely to...

At the end of Meinke's story, the man most likely shoots the woman out of mercy (and maybe also kills himself). Earlier in the story, she says that, "Ever since the accident it’s been one thing after another. I’m just a lot of trouble to everybody." The woman seems debilitated and tired (and she coughs a great deal), and the couple has covered the front seat of the car with a plastic sheet, likely to prevent blood from spotting the seats. The man puts an object between them wrapped in a plaid towel, and she asks him if the noise (most likely of the gun going off) will hurt his ears. At the end of the story, the cranes suddenly plunge upward when they are startled by hearing the shot of the gun. The cranes are both conventional and literary, as the couple watches actual cranes in their last moments together. The cranes also represent the beauty and love the couple has shared, as the cranes mate for life.

Literature and poetry differ because poetry tells a story with an economy of words. As Meinke says, poems and short stories leave "out the boffo endings [and leave] out conversations that are extraneous." Poetry tells a story with few words so that each word means something and has a certain depth to it. Therefore, reading poetry can help fiction writers develop the ability to add depth to each word, and reading fiction can help poets develop more clarity around what they write because fiction usually makes a storyline clearer than poetry does. This story is much like poetry because it tells a story of the couple's entire long relationship by using an economy of words and a few striking images.  

What are the ethical differences between "good" and "bad" knights in Morte d'Arthur?

On the surface, the difference between "good" knights and "bad" knights in Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur depends on those knights' adherence to the chivalrous code, the code of ethical behavior that a knight errant was supposed to follow. Knights errant were, ideally, knights that traveled the countryside looking to perform chivalrous acts. In general, the knights of the Round Table were supposed to be knights errant.

Knights errant stood in contrast to knights who...

On the surface, the difference between "good" knights and "bad" knights in Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur depends on those knights' adherence to the chivalrous code, the code of ethical behavior that a knight errant was supposed to follow. Knights errant were, ideally, knights that traveled the countryside looking to perform chivalrous acts. In general, the knights of the Round Table were supposed to be knights errant.

Knights errant stood in contrast to knights who sought personal glory or gain from their actions. Such knights fought for their own purposes and did not follow the chivalrous code. Sometimes these "bad" knights were knights that were fighting against the king; or knights that took women against their will; or knights that killed other knights by magic or treachery; or knights that did not treat fallen enemies with courtesy or mercy, as dictated by the chivalrous code.

The problem with Malory's depiction of the knights errant in Le Morte d'Arthur is that none of the "hero" knights (e.g., Sir Gawain, Sir Lancelot, Sir Gareth, Sir Tristram, etc.), save for Sir Galahad, consistently behave in a manner in keeping with the chivalrous code. While none of these hero knights are as "bad" as the evil knights found in Malory, they at different times exhibit behavior that ranges from mild violations of the code to outright villainous behavior, even behavior that goes against their king and cohort.

In this sense, the line between the behavior of the "good" knights and the "bad" knights in Le Morte d'Arthur is blurred. The knights errant who are supposed to be following the chivalrous code often violate that code for their own purposes, and in this way they are nearly as unethical as the "bad" knights, i.e. those who do not follow the code at all. The difference between the "good" knights and the "bad" knights is that the knights errant who stray from the code may be able to make amends, as Sir Lancelot attempts to do, whereas those knights who do not at all follow the codes make no such attempts.

What are some quotes dealing with the TV walls in Fahrenheit 451?

The first time the TV walls are mentioned is when Montag meets Clarisse. Clarisse shares the fact that she is an atypical person in this society almost immediately, but cements that fact by stating, "I rarely watch the 'parlour walls' or go to races or Fun Parks. So I've lots of time for crazy thoughts, I guess." (3) The fact that Clarisse doesn't watch TV like everyone else is something that allows her the time to think, which sets her apart from almost everyone else, since they appear to be addicted to technology. 

Another instance where the parlour walls are mentioned is when Mildred, Montag's wife, begins discussing her plans for the day with Montag after her suicide attempt from the night before. She's clearly much more comfortable with discussing the script for the upcoming TV show than discussing what occurred: 

She was quite obviously waiting for him to go. "I didn't do that," she said. "Never in a billion years." "All right if you say so," he said. "That's what the lady said." She turned back to her script. "What's on this afternoon?" he asked tiredly. She didn't look up from her script again. "Well, this play comes on the wall-to-wall circuit in ten minutes. They mailed me my part this morning..." (9)

Later on during this scene, Mildred begins to question Montag as to when they can get the fourth parlour wall put in, despite the expense. Even though Montag states that the cost of the parlour wall is a third of his yearly salary, Mildred doesn't seem to care: 

"How long you figure before we save up and get the fourth wall torn out and a fourth wall-TV put in? It's only two thousand dollars." "That's one-third of my yearly pay." "It's only two thousand dollars," she replied. "And I should think you'd consider me sometimes." (9)

The addictive properties of technology are something that many studies are beginning to highlight today, but Bradbury wrote about how technology was going to affect people and their daily lives long before it actually occurred.  At one point Montag even begins to think about how technology (and the parlour walls) have come between him and his wife. "Well, wasn't there a wall between him and Mildred, when you came down to it? Literally not just one wall but, so far, three! And expensive, too!" (20) Montag has begun to think that the parlour walls and technology are separating people from each other, instead of bringing them closer together and facilitating happiness. It serves to highlight a major change in his character. 

There are two 1 litre glasses on the table. The first contains 500ml of wine and the second has 500ml of vinegar. I poured 100ml of wine from the...

We will use percent concentration to determine the answer.

At the beginning, one glass contains 500 ml of 100% wine and the second glass contains 500 ml of 100% vinegar.

After the first transfer, the first glass contains 400 ml of 100% wine and the second glass contains 600 ml of a wine-vinegar mixture. The concentration of wine and vinegar in the mixture can be determined by dividing the volume of each component by the...

We will use percent concentration to determine the answer.

At the beginning, one glass contains 500 ml of 100% wine and the second glass contains 500 ml of 100% vinegar.

After the first transfer, the first glass contains 400 ml of 100% wine and the second glass contains 600 ml of a wine-vinegar mixture. The concentration of wine and vinegar in the mixture can be determined by dividing the volume of each component by the total volume. So the mixture contains (100`-:` 600)`xx`100% = 16.67% wine and (500`-:` 600)`xx`100=83.33% vinegar.`<br> `

We will use a similar procedure to calculate the concentration in the first glass following the second transfer. The second transfer moved 100 ml of 16.67% wine and 83.33% vinegar into the first glass, which contained 400 ml of 100% wine. 

Final concentration in the first glass is thus:

(83.33`-:` 500)`xx`100% = 16.67% vinegar

((400+16.67)`-:` 500)`xx`100 = 83.33% wine

Thus, if we consider wine and vinegar to be equally 'impure', neither of the glasses has more or less impurities than the other. 

Determine, without graphing, whether the function f(x)=4x^2-8x+3 has a maximum value or a minimum value and then find the value.

We are asked to determine whether the function`f(x)=4x^2-8x+3` has a maximum or a minimum, and then find the value.

The graph of the function is a parabola; since the leading coefficient is positive the parabola opens up and therefore there is a minimum at the vertex.

The vertex has x-coefficient found by`x=(-b)/(2a)`: here a=4 and b=-8 so the x-coordinate is `x=8/(8)=1`. The y-coordinate is`f(1)=-1`.

The minimum value occurs at (1,-1).

(1) Alternatively we can rewrite...

We are asked to determine whether the function`f(x)=4x^2-8x+3` has a maximum or a minimum, and then find the value.

The graph of the function is a parabola; since the leading coefficient is positive the parabola opens up and therefore there is a minimum at the vertex.

The vertex has x-coefficient found by`x=(-b)/(2a)`: here a=4 and b=-8 so the x-coordinate is `x=8/(8)=1`. The y-coordinate is`f(1)=-1`.

The minimum value occurs at (1,-1).

(1) Alternatively we can rewrite in vertex form:

`f(x)=4(x^2-2x)+3=4(x^2-2x+1)+3-4=4(x-1)^2-1` where the vertex is at (1,-1); the graph opens up since the leading coefficient is positive so there is a minimum at the vertex.

(2) Using calculus:

`f(x)=4x^2-8x+3` so  `f'(x)=8x-8`. The derivative is zero when`x=1`.

For x<1 the derivative is negative so the function decreases and the derivative is positive for x>1 so the function increases on this interval.

Decreasing then increasing indicates that the critical point at x=1 is a minimum for the function.`f(1)=-1` so there is a minimum at (1,-1). This is the only critical point so it is a global minimum (the function is continuous on the real numbers.)

A particle has the wavefunction `Psi(x)=A(1-x^2)` for `|x|

The probability that a particle with the wavefunction `Psi(x)` will be found in some region `R` is  `int_R |Psi(x)|^2 dx.` In our problem it is

`int_(-oo)^0 |Psi(x)|^2 dx =int_(-1)^0 |Psi(x)|^2 dx =int_(-1)^0 (A(1-x^2))^2 dx.`

We can compute this integral in terms of `A` and can even find `A` from the normalization condition  `int_(-oo)^oo |Psi(x)|^2 dx = 1,` but it is not necessary for this particular problem.

Because this wavefunction is even, its square is also...

The probability that a particle with the wavefunction `Psi(x)` will be found in some region `R` is  `int_R |Psi(x)|^2 dx.` In our problem it is

`int_(-oo)^0 |Psi(x)|^2 dx =int_(-1)^0 |Psi(x)|^2 dx =int_(-1)^0 (A(1-x^2))^2 dx.`

We can compute this integral in terms of `A` and can even find `A` from the normalization condition  `int_(-oo)^oo |Psi(x)|^2 dx = 1,` but it is not necessary for this particular problem.

Because this wavefunction is even, its square is also even and the integral over the left semiaxis is the same as over the right semiaxis. Together these equal integrals give `1,` thus each of them is equal to `1/2.` This is the answer: the probability the particle will be found in the region `xlt0`  is `1/2.`

What are some lessons that Ponyboy learns throughout the novel and how do they impact his personality?

Ponyboy learns several important lessons throughout the novel. He learns that Socs also have issues despite their affluent backgrounds and that he shares similar interests with some of them. Through his conversations and interactions with Cherry and Randy, Ponyboy realizes that some members of the Socs are sensitive, sympathetic individuals who are also sick of the ongoing violence. Ponyboy becomes increasingly tolerant following his interactions with Cherry and Randy. Ponyboy also learns to appreciate...

Ponyboy learns several important lessons throughout the novel. He learns that Socs also have issues despite their affluent backgrounds and that he shares similar interests with some of them. Through his conversations and interactions with Cherry and Randy, Ponyboy realizes that some members of the Socs are sensitive, sympathetic individuals who are also sick of the ongoing violence. Ponyboy becomes increasingly tolerant following his interactions with Cherry and Randy. Ponyboy also learns to appreciate Darry and Dally. Initially, Ponyboy views Dally with contempt and is continually arguing with his brother. After surviving a life-threatening experience, Dally helps Pony and Johnny run away and also saves Johnny's life while the church is on fire. After thinking about Dally's actions, Pony realizes for the first time that Dally is "gallant" and selfless for helping him and Johnny out in times of need. At the end of the novel, Ponyboy finally recognizes the sacrifices Darry has made to keep the family together. He ends up appreciating Darry for giving up an athletic scholarship and working two jobs in order to provide for the family. Overall, Pony's experiences increase his perspective which allows him to become more tolerant and appreciative of others.

In The Outsiders, why doesn't Cherry want to see Dally again?

In this novel by S. E. Hinton, two different social groups of adolescents are at odds with one another: The Socs, who come from wealthy families, do well in school and are expected to become productive, influential members of society; and the Greasers, from poorer families, who don't have strong family role models and who tend to be rebellious and do poorly in school. Cherry is with the Greasers, Dally or Dallas is with the...

In this novel by S. E. Hinton, two different social groups of adolescents are at odds with one another: The Socs, who come from wealthy families, do well in school and are expected to become productive, influential members of society; and the Greasers, from poorer families, who don't have strong family role models and who tend to be rebellious and do poorly in school. Cherry is with the Greasers, Dally or Dallas is with the Socs. When the two meet there is immediate tension and Dallas flirts with her, while Cherry is rude and insulting. To complicate matters, Dally's younger friend Ponyboy has a crush on Cherry.

In the film version by Francis Ford Coppola, Dally is played by Matt Dillon and Cherry by Diane Lane. In the scene being discussed, Cherry yells at Dally and he mocks being offended, but seems to know that she likes him. After Dally walks off, and Cherry is standing with Ponyboy, she states firmly, "I hope I never see Dallas Winston again!" After a pause she roll her eyes and says more softly, with a frustrated air, "If I do, I'll probably fall in love with him." She walks off, and Ponyboy looks dejected. This dialogue is slightly changed from the book (Cherry says  "I could fall in love with Dallas Winston... I hope I never see him again, or I will.", but even more effective.

Dally and Cherry come from different worlds, but there is a sense of the forbidden in their attraction to one another. Dally is more reckless and exploits this attraction by flirting; Cherry is more hesitant even though it's clear she is interested in him.

What would be considered the climax in The Report Card?

Andrew Clements's novel The Report Card follows the attempts of Nora, the fifth-grader protagonist, to question the grading system so institutional to American schooling and to get the adults around her to reconsider what education means.

Despite being a genius, Nora intentionally gets all Ds and a C on her report card for the first term of fifth grade in order to make a point about how problematic grades are. Nora detests the performance aspect...

Andrew Clements's novel The Report Card follows the attempts of Nora, the fifth-grader protagonist, to question the grading system so institutional to American schooling and to get the adults around her to reconsider what education means.

Despite being a genius, Nora intentionally gets all Ds and a C on her report card for the first term of fifth grade in order to make a point about how problematic grades are. Nora detests the performance aspect of intelligence, and, thus, she hides her smarts so that she can remain in control of them and to avoid attention.

The purposeful failure of her classes ends up backfiring in that regard, as Nora receives more attention than ever. Teachers start to hover over her, and she is called into the principal's office to meet with her teachers, guidance counselor, the principal, and her parents. When Mrs. Byrne, the school librarian, checks Nora's Internet history and discovers the advanced materials she had been reading and researching after school, Nora comes clean to the woman and explains that her grades do not matter because she can turn them around anytime she wants.

Nora is eventually outed as a genius when her guidance counselor gives her an intelligence test. This brings on even more pressure and attention from her family, the school, and the other students. Eventually, Nora and her friend Stephen formulate a plan to show the school how ridiculous grading and competition are: Nora demonstrates her intelligence to the whole class and then intentionally gets zeroes on all her tests the next day, commenting that every child in the school should be learning more stimulating material rather than just being asked to memorize facts.

The climax of the novel occurs when it is revealed that Stephen has put the second part of their plan into place by convincing almost all of the students in Nora's class to score zeroes on their tests as well. The principal and school superintendent are horrified and want to suspend them, claiming that this plan is like an act of vandalism. However, Mrs. Byrne speaks out in their defense, as do other teachers. After discussing her efforts with her fellow students, Nora comes to the realization that the teachers also want to see the educational system improve and that it is much more effective to do so by working rather than intentionally flunking.

"When I looked at her like that something hit me in the top of my head and ran down to the soles of my feet." What hit mama? What did she...

Dee's terrible selfishness and the ownership that she has asserted over the quilts that she once rejected, over the heritage represented by those quilts (that she's also never cared about before and doesn't really care about now), "hits" mama and she will not allow Dee to make off with the things that are of far more importance to Maggie.  Maggie knows how to quilt, and this is one way she keeps their family heritage alive. 

...

Dee's terrible selfishness and the ownership that she has asserted over the quilts that she once rejected, over the heritage represented by those quilts (that she's also never cared about before and doesn't really care about now), "hits" mama and she will not allow Dee to make off with the things that are of far more importance to Maggie.  Maggie knows how to quilt, and this is one way she keeps their family heritage alive. 

Maggie knows all the stories behind the items that Dee wants to take so that she can "do something artistic" with them.  Dee doesn't know the stories.  In fact, she's rejected her own name -- a family name -- insisting that it must be tied to white slave owners somewhere back, failing to recognize that she was named after the strong women in her family who all share that name.  Dee doesn't care for or value her heritage like Maggie does, shy Maggie who keeps to corners and doesn't say much.  It seems as though Mama recognizes which daughter is the one worth valuing, something she doesn't seem to have noticed before because she spent so much time trying to get Dee all the things that she wanted. 

Dee certainly doesn't seem to come to an awareness of the shortcomings in the way she views her family heritage, though Maggie is so shocked when Mama ranks her promises to Maggie over her desire to please Dee that it seems possible she has an epiphany in this moment as well.  Perhaps she realizes her own value for the first time, as she ends the story far more content than she's ever seemed to be before.

`sum_(n=0)^oo e^(-3n)` Use the Root Test to determine the convergence or divergence of the series.

To apply the Root test on a series ` sum a_n` , we determine the limit as:

`lim_(n-gtoo) root(n)(|a_n|)= L`

or

`lim_(n-gtoo) |a_n|^(1/n)= L`

Then, we follow the conditions:

a) `Llt1` then the series is absolutely convergent.

b) `Lgt1` then the series is divergent.

c) `L=1` or does not exist  then the test is inconclusive. The series may be divergent, conditionally convergent, or absolutely convergent.

To apply the Root Test to determine the...

To apply the Root test on a series ` sum a_n` , we determine the limit as:

`lim_(n-gtoo) root(n)(|a_n|)= L`

or

`lim_(n-gtoo) |a_n|^(1/n)= L`

Then, we follow the conditions:

a) `Llt1` then the series is absolutely convergent.

b) `Lgt1` then the series is divergent.

c) `L=1` or does not exist  then the test is inconclusive. The series may be divergent, conditionally convergent, or absolutely convergent.

To apply the Root Test to determine the convergence or divergence of the series `sum_(n=0)^oo e^(-3n)` , we  let `a_n = e^(-3n)` .

Apply Law of Exponent: `x^(-n) = 1/x^n` . 

`a_ n = 1/e^(3n).`

Applying the Root test, we set-up the limit as:

`lim_(n-gtoo) |1/e^(3n)|^(1/n) =lim_(n-gtoo) (1/e^(3n))^(1/n)`

 Apply the Law of Exponents: `(x/y)^n = x^n/y^n` and `(x^n)^m= x^(n*m)` .

`lim_(n-gtoo) (1/e^(3n))^(1/n) =lim_(n-gtoo) 1^(1/n)/(e^(3n))^(1/n)`

                           ` =lim_(n-gtoo) 1^(1/n)/e^(3n*1/n)`

                          `=lim_(n-gtoo) 1^(1/n)/e^((3n)/n) `     

                          `=lim_(n-gtoo) 1^(1/n)/e^3 `        

Apply the limit property: `lim_(x-gta)[(f(x))/(g(x))] =(lim_(x-gta) f(x))/(lim_(x-gta) g(x))` .

`lim_(n-gtoo) 1^(1/n)/e^3 =(lim_(n-gtoo) 1^(1/n))/(lim_(n-gtoo)e^3 )`

                  `= 1^(1/oo) /e^3`

                  ` =1^0/e^3`

                    ` =1/e^3 or 0.0498` (approximated value)

The limit value `L = 1/e^3 or 0.0498`  satisfies the condition: `Llt1` since `0.0498lt1.`

Thus, the series `sum_(n=0)^oo e^(-3n)`  is absolutely convergent.  

Monarchs across Europe worried about the revolution happening in France, why?

From the Middle Ages onward, much of Europe operated under the feudal system. In feudalism, the king owns all of the land in his kingdom but gives large parcels of it to nobles to rule in exchange for military service. The nobles then designate smaller portions of land to be lived on and worked by the peasantry, who are in turn protected by the nobles. The kings and nobles, along with the peasants, represent two...

From the Middle Ages onward, much of Europe operated under the feudal system. In feudalism, the king owns all of the land in his kingdom but gives large parcels of it to nobles to rule in exchange for military service. The nobles then designate smaller portions of land to be lived on and worked by the peasantry, who are in turn protected by the nobles. The kings and nobles, along with the peasants, represent two parts of the Three Orders of society: bellatores (those who fight, the nobles) and laboratores (the working peasantry.) The third Order was oratores (those who pray,) including all of the religious monastics and clergymen in society. These Three Orders were considered to be the natural forms and functions of a society, and as long as everyone fulfilled their role, everything was perfect... right?

Not so much! The feudal system became increasingly complex and troubled as nobles might break up their land among lesser nobles, often resulting in an individual being obliged to more than one superior! In addition, times of environmental stress created a difficult situation for the peasants. Crop failure was considered to be the fault of the peasantry (or punishment from God) while the nobility were still demanding a significant portion of the food produced. Peasant riots shared the same sentiment which later drove the revolution.

Here is something important to bear in mind: though peasants were not skilled in the arts of war and diplomacy, they far outnumbered both the religious and noble of society. As the feudal system continued to disintegrate or become more convoluted over time, it made things harder on the largest portion of society. Pretty much across the board, life for the peasantry was the same in every kingdom: survive on meager foods and work until you die. When the French peasantry became fed up with being exploited under the Ancien Regime, which developed out of feudalism, it signified a possibility that was previously unthinkable: the peasantry could overcome the nobility. 

Monarchs across Europe were rightly frightened because their power in society, and the entire way their kingdom functioned, developed out of the feudal system and likely suffered the same complications as in France. The combination of social inequality and increased education and literacy for the peasantry proved deadly for many a noble. Scholars like Marx and Engels later described these revolutions as the naturally occurring result of an unsustainable socioeconomic system which exploits the proletariat (working class) and impedes human development. Perhaps the monarchs of Europe heard of the Revolution in France, took a long look at their own kingdoms, and realized that they, too, were unsustainable.

How does the novel end? What is Wiesel's tone?

The novel ends with Elie describing how the prisoners' resistance movement defeated the SS officers shortly before American soldiers liberated them from Buchenwald at six o'clock. Elie goes on to describe how the emaciated prisoners could only think of food and not revenge. After Elie gets food poisoning, he recalls looking at his reflection in the mirror and staring directly at a corpse, which is something that he will never forget.

The tone of the...

The novel ends with Elie describing how the prisoners' resistance movement defeated the SS officers shortly before American soldiers liberated them from Buchenwald at six o'clock. Elie goes on to describe how the emaciated prisoners could only think of food and not revenge. After Elie gets food poisoning, he recalls looking at his reflection in the mirror and staring directly at a corpse, which is something that he will never forget.

The tone of the ending of the story is somber, melancholy, and pessimistic. Elie's horrific, traumatizing experiences in the German concentration camps have ruined his childhood and dramatically impacted his life. The last scene depicting Elie staring at his emaciated, corpse-like reflection is sobering and dramatic. Elie's melancholy tone reflects how the Holocaust has emotionally, physically, and psychologically damaged him.

After reading Tafoya v. Perkins, how did you react to the evidence in the case? Did it strike you as incomplete? If so, what additional...

The evidence in this case struck me as incomplete. Tafoya, the plaintiff, stated that in cases in which there is an "unliquidated, determinable amount of money," there should be a six-year rather than a two-year statute of limitations. However, the judge ruled that the plaintiff's assertion that there should be a six-year statute of limitations on taking action in the case was wrong because the judge could not determine this amount of money due from...

The evidence in this case struck me as incomplete. Tafoya, the plaintiff, stated that in cases in which there is an "unliquidated, determinable amount of money," there should be a six-year rather than a two-year statute of limitations. However, the judge ruled that the plaintiff's assertion that there should be a six-year statute of limitations on taking action in the case was wrong because the judge could not determine this amount of money due from looking at the original partnership agreement. It seems like what is missing in this case is the purchase agreement of the apartment complex from 1994 so that the judge could determine the amount of money that was in question. If the judge had this information, the judge could determine the amount of money in question and grant a longer period for the statue of limitations. Therefore, Tafoya might have had a claim to the money resulting from the sale of the apartment complex. You may also determine that other evidence was missing in this case. 

State the claim of William Butler Yeats about his own poem, "The Second Coming."

Yeats provided a note for his poem "The Second Coming." The first line ends with the word "gyre," and Yeats explained that word with this statement:

"The end of an age, which always receives the revelation of the character of the next age, is represented by the coming of one gyre to its place of greatest expansion and of the other to that of its greatest contraction."

That may seem to provide more confusion than...

Yeats provided a note for his poem "The Second Coming." The first line ends with the word "gyre," and Yeats explained that word with this statement:

"The end of an age, which always receives the revelation of the character of the next age, is represented by the coming of one gyre to its place of greatest expansion and of the other to that of its greatest contraction."

That may seem to provide more confusion than clarification, but it actually does help us understand this poem. Yeats believed in a theory of history based on 2000-year cycles. The cycle he was living in at the time (1919) began with the birth of Jesus Christ. Now that gyre was reaching the widest part of its cycle--think of it as a cone. The next cycle's beginning, the narrow end of the cone, would come from the widest part of the previous cycle. The wide part of one cycle, the end, would take on the characteristics of the coming cycle. The devastation of the Great War, recently experienced by the world, was presumed to be the nature of the coming cycle. The "second coming," then, is not the second coming of Christ as Christians understand it, but the coming of the next gyre or cycle. Thus the "mere anarchy" the world was experiencing in Yeats' day was a portent of an even more dire and dangerous world to come. 

In "The Soldier," how does the narrator present his views on dying for his country?

Unlike his contemporary, Wildred Owen, Brooke paints an idealistic picture of war in this poem. Brooke does not go into the horror or devastation of war. Rather, he celebrates the gesture of making the sacrifice for his country.

He expresses the idea that it is honorable to die for one's country, particularly England. In the first stanza, Brooke says that "if" he should die in a foreign land, then that land (place of his death...

Unlike his contemporary, Wildred Owen, Brooke paints an idealistic picture of war in this poem. Brooke does not go into the horror or devastation of war. Rather, he celebrates the gesture of making the sacrifice for his country.

He expresses the idea that it is honorable to die for one's country, particularly England. In the first stanza, Brooke says that "if" he should die in a foreign land, then that land (place of his death and/ or burial) will be "for ever England." England made him who he is. He and his native England are materially and spiritually linked. Wherever he happens to end up, that land will have this inherent connection to his sacrifice and his idealized vision of England.

Brooke clearly shows his patriotism in this poem. He was prepared to die for England in this war, and he did die in 1915. He believed if he should die, his spirit would give back what England gave him. These are the thoughts, sights, sounds, and dreams that Brooke attributes to England. His description of England goes beyond patriotism. He gives it such lofty praise that phrases like "English heaven" are no surprise because his England has an almost Edenic aura about it.

What are the specific characteristics of a main character in a modern tragedy?

In addition to drawing conclusions regarding modern tragic protagonists from 20th century and 21st century drama, we can look to both Aristotle and Arthur Miller for help in answering this question. 

First, a short answer: Modern tragic figures, like ancient tragic figures, are notable for their plight, which is often that of the square peg trying to fit into the round hole. These characters seek a social integration that allows for individual dignity yet, for various reasons built into the character's personality/ psyche, this integration proves impossible.

The tragic figure is either unwilling to accept the place society provides for him or her or is unable to acknowledge his or her own value in the social scheme. (These two things are not necessarily different, and they are as true for Antigone as they are for John Proctor. Sometimes, the social order is linked to a larger sense of a world order, wherein essential values are questioned. Other times, the tragic figure experiences a more person need to revise or reject a broken social system.)

The tragic figure then will be (1) representative of a social group in one way or another and thus be relatable and (2) concerned with achieving individual dignity. 

Now, an elaboration on the short answer: Aristotle believed a tragic hero needed to be a person that the audience could effectively empathize with.

With this in mind, the protagonist of a tragedy should be neither too perfect nor too flawed. He or she should not be extreme or expressly exaggerated in any particular area. Thus, gods were not often the figures of Greek tragedy (and when they were, the playwright depicted them with very human qualities). 

Characters were often drawn from nobility, but they were not incredible geniuses or pure tyrants. Like Oedipus and Electra, tragic figures were characters who tended to be compromised by history in one way or another. They were capable of inspiring respect from an audience but not unthinking adulation.

These traits have carried over into contemporary drama. Modern tragic figures are also necessarily relatable and often burdened by a personal history that places them in conflict with the social and economic realities of the present.

In his 1978 article, "Tragedy and the Common Man," Arthur Miller argues that a tragic figure can be rather simply defined as "a character who is ready to lay down his life, if need be, to secure one thing—his sense of personal dignity."

The tragic protagonist is driven by "a compulsion to evaluate himself justly," whether he comes from the upper classes or has a background of a so-called common man.

Miller emphasizes the idea that a tragic figure does not need to be drawn from nobility or from aristocratic classes, but in doing so he is in no way challenging Aristotle's criteria. In fact, Miller's definition can be seen as a way of updating the Aristotelian definition so it tracks some of the changes that have taken place in Western society as the body-politic has moved away from rigidly hierarchical systems of monarchy and political oligarchy to more open systems of political democracy.

The "common man" of today is capable of inspiring audiences' empathy, just as a nobleman was in Aristotle's time. Arthur Miller thinks so, anyway, and many people (including me) would tend to agree.

Aristotle also insisted that the main character in a tragedy would achieve a moment of recognition (anagnorisis), an idea which is also echoed in Miller's definition of the tragic figure as it pertains to the achievement of a true self-knowledge.

Consider some examples from modern drama and you will see how the push toward a true evaluation of self underscores the conflicts surrounding the tragic hero. 

Willy Loman in Miller's Death of a Salesman is beset by a fear that he is a failure. He has lost step with the times and, as a result, tends to judge himself according to his past accomplishments (some of which are embellished and some of which may be entirely made-up). He struggles to find a way to see himself as a person of some dignity and value in a world where his skills are no longer needed and where his longevity at his job makes him an anachronism instead of a venerated man of experience.

The question that animates Willy's tragedy is one of individual dignity, and many people of the modern age could, can, and do empathize with the plight of a person who has outlived his profession in an time of rapid technological, economic, and social change. 

Middle-class and ambitious but falling short of his own expectations, Loman is a relatable figure who carries the weight of his past with him into the present (and suffers for it).

Similarly, Troy Maxson in August Wilson's Fences is a tragic figure, challenged to let go of his past so he can embrace his current life without bitterness. The conflicts that surround Maxson are also, essentially, related to the achievement of individual dignity, though, unlike Willy Loman, Maxson's issues are connected to race and a troubled family legacy.

How did mass culture contribute to American global dominance?

One of the most significant and visible features of America's expanding global presence has been the spread of American mass culture around the world. Beginning in the 1950s, when American consumer goods flooded postwar Europe, American culture has been ubiquitous around the world. One observer in the late 1990s commented that 

...[I]mages of America are so pervasive in this global village that it is almost as if instead of the world immigrating to America, America...

One of the most significant and visible features of America's expanding global presence has been the spread of American mass culture around the world. Beginning in the 1950s, when American consumer goods flooded postwar Europe, American culture has been ubiquitous around the world. One observer in the late 1990s commented that 

...[I]mages of America are so pervasive in this global village that it is almost as if instead of the world immigrating to America, America has emigrated to the world, allowing people to aspire to be Americans even in distant countries.

This process has been largely due to the power and reach of American corporations, which became "multinational" in the late twentieth century. McDonald's, Coca-Cola, and other corporations have expanded their reach to the far corners of the globe. Not just American goods, but film, music, fashion, and other aspects of American mass culture have flooded the world as well. American movies enjoy runs in European and Asian theaters, teenagers around the world wear American fashions, and people everywhere listen to American pop stars. This process has never been completely hegemonic, and it has always flowed in both directions—the emergence of football (soccer) as a popular pastime in the United States is one prominent example—but there is no doubt that, for better or for worse, American mass culture has exerted a profound influence around the world. 

Outline and discuss the distinction between a private and a public company highlighting the advantages or disadvantages of either.

The distinction between public and private corporations is one of ownership and control. A privately-owned business is just that: a company owned and operated by an individual or group of individuals who individually or collectively make all major decisions pertaining to the company’s direction and strategy. They are beholden to nobody but themselves and, in the case of businesses employing unionized labor, whatever union is involved (e.g., United Steel Workers, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Service...

The distinction between public and private corporations is one of ownership and control. A privately-owned business is just that: a company owned and operated by an individual or group of individuals who individually or collectively make all major decisions pertaining to the company’s direction and strategy. They are beholden to nobody but themselves and, in the case of businesses employing unionized labor, whatever union is involved (e.g., United Steel Workers, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Service Employees International Union, etc.).

A publicly-held or traded corporation is owned by its shareholders. The more shares of stock an individual or group of individuals hold in a particular publicly-traded company, the more influence they wield in discussions of the company’s future direction, whether to invest profits in recapitalization vice issuing monetarily greater dividends, and other major decisions. Publicly-traded corporations fall under a federal regulatory structure that does not apply to privately-owned businesses, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission’s watchdog mission of monitoring publicly-held companies for indications of “insider trading.”

The advantage to privately-owned companies is the absence of a large group of mostly anonymous people involved in major corporate decisions and in the ability of ownership to retain control of all profits. Contrast this with the requirement of publicly-traded corporate officers to issue profits in the form of dividends to shareholders. A disadvantage to privately-held companies, on the other hand, is their more limited avenues from which to raise money for new product development, physical plant expansion, and other routine but expensive endeavors. Publicly-held companies have the option of selling more shares of stock as a means of raising capital while continuing to have the option of applying for loans through banks and other financial institutions. Additionally, as noted above, privately-owned companies are not subject to the level of scrutiny imposed upon publicly-traded corporations.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both forms of corporation. Privately-owned companies often find it difficult to expand beyond a certain level without the kind of cash that can only be raised through public sales of shares in the company. Publicly-held companies, on the other hand, have far more cumbersome decision-making processes by virtue of the vastly greater number of “owners” involved.

`log_4(128)` Evaluate the logarithm. |

`log_4(128)`

To evaluate, factor 128.

`= log_4 (2^7)`

Then, apply the formula of change base `log_b (a) = (log_c (a))/(log_c (b))` .

`= (log_2 (2^7))/(log_2 (4))`

`= (log_2 (2^7))/(log_2 (2^2))`

To simplify it further, apply the rule `log_b (a^m) = m*log_b(a)` .

`= (7*log_2 (2))/(2*log_2(2))`

When the base and argument of logarithm are the same, it simplifies to 1, `log_b (b) = 1` .

`= (7*1)/(2*1)`

`=7/2`

Therefore, `log_4 (128) = 7/2` .

`log_4(128)`

To evaluate, factor 128.

`= log_4 (2^7)`

Then, apply the formula of change base `log_b (a) = (log_c (a))/(log_c (b))` .

`= (log_2 (2^7))/(log_2 (4))`

`= (log_2 (2^7))/(log_2 (2^2))`

To simplify it further, apply the rule `log_b (a^m) = m*log_b(a)` .

`= (7*log_2 (2))/(2*log_2(2))`

When the base and argument of logarithm are the same, it simplifies to 1, `log_b (b) = 1` .

`= (7*1)/(2*1)`

`=7/2`

Therefore, `log_4 (128) = 7/2` .

What was the source of colonists unrest after 1763?

1763 marked the end of the French and Indian War.  Although the British Empire won the conflict and gained Canada, they were saddled with three primary problems, and their responses to those problems created unrest for the colonists.

First, the war gave England a huge debt.  In 1763, the British debt was 122 million pounds, and the interest was 4 million pounds each year.  England believed the colonies should shoulder some of that debt.  In...

1763 marked the end of the French and Indian War.  Although the British Empire won the conflict and gained Canada, they were saddled with three primary problems, and their responses to those problems created unrest for the colonists.

First, the war gave England a huge debt.  In 1763, the British debt was 122 million pounds, and the interest was 4 million pounds each year.  England believed the colonies should shoulder some of that debt.  In 1764, the Parliament enacted an enforcement on the Sugar Act intending to raise revenue from the consumption of molasses.  Then in 1765, the Parliament enacted the Stamp Act, which taxed all paper (including legal documents and paper goods made in the colonies).  This caused severe unrest among the colonists.  The Resolution of Merchants declared a boycott of British goods, stating: " It is further unanimously agreed, that no Merchant will vend any Goods or Merchandise sent upon Commission from Great-Britain."

Second, the indigenous populations of the British and French colonies in North America had sided with the French in the war and did not acquiesce to British rule.  An uprising in the area now known as Ohio (Pontiac's Rebellion) led to the Proclamation of 1763 which banned colonial settlements west of the Allegheny Mountains.  Colonists, such as George Washington, who wanted to create settlements did not like this.

Third, because of the indigenous and colonial uprisings, Great Britain decided to maintain a military presence in the colonies.  This led to protests about "quartering" in which military personnel would commandeer a colonists home. As George Washington said in a letter in 1769, "At a time when our lordly Masters in Great Britain will be satisfied with nothing less than the deprication of American freedom, it seems highly necessary that some thing should be done to avert the stroke and maintain the liberty which we have derived from our Ancestors..."

Explain whether the original intent or living constitution approach to interpreting the Constitution is more valid and explain why.

In recent years it has been possible to identify two broad approaches to interpreting the Constitution of the United States. These are usually classified as "original intent" and "Living Constitution." The former is generally associated with those of a conservative persuasion and the latter with those who identify themselves as liberals or progressives.

An "original intent" approach, as the name suggests, looks to what the Founding Fathers actually meant when they wrote the Constitution. Whenever a particularly contentious or controversial constitutional issue is raised, one needs to examine what the framers of the Constitution said at the time of the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention and what they wrote in the Federalist Papers.

This appears to leave Supreme Court justices with very little interpretive leeway in deciding cases. Defenders of the originalist approach are strongly critical of what they perceive to be judicial activism, judges going beyond the Founding Fathers' original intent and willfully distorting the meaning of the Constitution for political ends. This approach is dangerous, advocates of original intent maintain, because it expands the involvement of government way beyond the narrow boundaries set out in the Constitution, potentially undermining the system of checks and balances that forms the basis of the republican polity.

The "Living Constitution" approach, on the other hand, sees original intent as being too rigid, too unyielding, like looking at the Constitution almost as a pristine antique in a glass case. The Constitution, they argue, is not set in stone; it is a living, breathing document which needs to adapt to the widespread changes that have taken place in American society since it was written. An originalist approach is of no practical use in dealing with some of the pressing problems that have blighted the country for centuries.

For instance, how can the original intent approach deal with race or women's rights? The Constitution, in its original incarnation, looked upon women and people of color as less than full citizens. If we interpreted the Constitution strictly, as the originalists want us to do, then little or no progress would have been made in relation to civil rights or gender equality.

However, is this a fair representation of the original intent school's position? I would like to suggest that it is not. It is something of a straw man argument to say that the originalists' theory of constitutional interpretation is rigid and unable to deal with social change. The fact is that this is not what the Constitution is supposed to do in the first place. The Constitution aims to make sure that all actions of those in authority adhere to a commonly agreed set of standards. The role of the judiciary should be precisely that: judicial, not political. If politicians wish to establish laws protecting civil rights or other progressive measures—or even contentious issues such as abortion—then they are entirely free to do so. The Constitution is totally flexible in this regard.

Indeed, there are many examples in American history when Congress passed progressive legislation only to have it struck down by the Supreme Court. For example, Congress voted against segregation in 1875, only to have it thrown out seven years later by the Court. Judicial activism once had reactionary consequences. Now, it is associated with progressive causes. However, the end result is the same: the democratic decisions of the people are overridden by judicial fiat. 

If changes need to be made (and no originalist would ever deny this) then they should be made by the people themselves through democratic decisions. Indeed, the record of democracy in protecting the rights of minorities is considerably more impressive than that of the courts. Unfortunately, the advocates of judicial activism want to take such decisions out of the hands of the people and their elected representatives and give them to an unelected, unaccountable judiciary.

Ironically, it is the "living, breathing" approach that effectively renders the Constitution a dead letter. If the Constitution's provisions can be willfully ignored by activist judges, then it can no longer guarantee anyone's rights, including those of minorities.