From The Merchant of Venice, what would Portia's advertisement seeking an ideal husband be like?

Portia's advertisement seeking an ideal husband would be based on her own ideas and desires. In order to figure out what Portia is seeking in a husband, we need go no further than her conversations with her best friend, her lady in waiting, Nerissa. Portia confides in Nerissa upon every point of her life. In the beginning of the play, Portia feels constrained by her father's will, which demands that she marry a man who...

Portia's advertisement seeking an ideal husband would be based on her own ideas and desires. In order to figure out what Portia is seeking in a husband, we need go no further than her conversations with her best friend, her lady in waiting, Nerissa. Portia confides in Nerissa upon every point of her life. In the beginning of the play, Portia feels constrained by her father's will, which demands that she marry a man who selects the right casket associated with a riddle and its appearance. This seems arbitrary and useless to Portia, and she confides her concerns in her friend.

When the ladies are discussing Portia's many suitors, Nerissa names them and Portia shoots them down one by one. One could devise an advertisement based on her reasons for rejecting each suitor. First, the Neapolitan prince won't stop talking about his horse, which turns Portia off. Next is County Palatine, who never smiles. Portia fears he, along with the first suitor, will be too sad and boring to live with. Third is the French lord, Monsieur le Bon, who seems to be a coward because he can't fence. He's also one who frowns a lot and she says he would drive her mad. The fourth is Falconbridge of England, with whom Portia cannot communicate because they don't speak a similar language. He's also odd to her as far as fashion is concerned. Fifth and Sixth are a Scottish man and a German: the former is dependent upon others like the French to rule him and the latter is drunk all of the time (I.iii.34-76).

Therefore, Portia's advertisement would probably look something like the following:

Beautiful heiress seeking young and honorable Christian man who smiles easily, enjoys life, and cares about others. He must be able-bodied, good with a sword, confident, and willing to uphold the values and standards of Belmont estate. He must also dress respectably, not drink all day long, and have a keen and intellectual mind.

How does the mitochondria benefit the cell?

Mitochondria generate energy for cells by converting oxygen and nutrients into adenosine triphosphate (ATP). ATP is a molecule that is able to store energy for cells to use. The production of ATP using oxygen in mitochondria is about fifteen times greater than the production of ATP without oxygen outside of the mitochondria. Without the mitochondria, cells would probably not be able to generate enough ATP to function.

The number of mitochondria in a cell depends on how much energy the cell needs to function. A cell may contain one large mitochondria or thousands of mitochondria. 

Mitochondria contain their own DNA. This is thought to have originated when smaller prokaryotes were engulfed by larger prokaryotes. Over time, a symbiotic relationship developed where the smaller prokaryote provided energy for the larger prokaryote. Eventually, the larger prokaryotes evolved into a eukaryotic cell, while the smaller prokaryotes evolved into mitochondria.

In "The Masque of Red Death," what do the prince's actions - and his decision to hold a ball - suggest about his attitude toward the "external...

Prince Prospero's decision to hold a ball while the citizens of his country fall victim to the most fatal disease they have ever encountered shows just how little he cares about them and the world outside his walls.

The narrator, ironically, describes Prospero as "happy and dauntless and sagacious."  He may be happy, but that will only last a short while longer, and he is certainly neither courageous nor perceptive.  It is pretty cowardly to...

Prince Prospero's decision to hold a ball while the citizens of his country fall victim to the most fatal disease they have ever encountered shows just how little he cares about them and the world outside his walls.

The narrator, ironically, describes Prospero as "happy and dauntless and sagacious."  He may be happy, but that will only last a short while longer, and he is certainly neither courageous nor perceptive.  It is pretty cowardly to hole up in one's castle while one's countrymen die by the thousand, and -- in the end -- Prospero's shrewd plan to stay alive is ineffective.  

Further, the amount of money that Prospero spends on a "voluptuous," months-long party could have been put to better use in trying to stop the spread of this disease (or at least to isolate more of the healthy so that they, too, could have a chance at survival).  Instead, he spends indiscriminately in order to orchestrate this "masquerade" and the seven rooms, each of a different color, in which it takes place.  His willingness to spend money on his own behalf, and for his own enjoyment, rather than using it to assist the citizens of the country further shows his selfishness and lack of concern for the outside world.

What are two examples of logos in To Kill a Mockingbird during Atticus's case?

Coined by Aristotle and used with the art of rhetoric, logos means logic, or the use of factual evidence during a debate or argument. The Tom Robinson case is not based in logical findings; rather, it is based on hearsay without additional witnesses. Thus, Atticus must use as much logic available to build a proper defense for Tom. Most of his arguments use logic based on the prosecution's lack of evidence that is missing, unavailable,...

Coined by Aristotle and used with the art of rhetoric, logos means logic, or the use of factual evidence during a debate or argument. The Tom Robinson case is not based in logical findings; rather, it is based on hearsay without additional witnesses. Thus, Atticus must use as much logic available to build a proper defense for Tom. Most of his arguments use logic based on the prosecution's lack of evidence that is missing, unavailable, or nonexistent. What's missing? Third party witnesses to the crime. What's unavailable? Medical evidence that Mayella was in fact raped. What's nonexistent? Tom's left arm!

First of all, the only person close to being a third party witness to the events of the case is Heck Tate, the sheriff. He happened upon the scene after the fact and was able to see that Mayella was beaten up mostly on the right side of her body. This suggests that the perpetrator is left-handed. Atticus uses logos, or undeniable facts, to prove that Mr. Bob Ewell is left-handed by having him write his name on a piece of paper in front of the court. Scout summarizes as follows:

"Atticus was trying to show, it seemed to me, that Mr. Ewell could have beaten up Mayella. . . If her right eyes was blacked and she was beaten mostly on the right side of the face, it would tend to show that a left-handed person did it" (178).

Next, medical evidence was unavailable and non-existent to prove that the crime had happened as the Ewells were claiming. When Atticus asks the sheriff why he didn't call a doctor for Mayella, he says that he didn't need to because "She was mighty banged up. Something sho' happened, that was obvious" (167). If there had been a doctor called, Atticus would have been able to ask a medical expert if Mayella had actually been raped, or only beat up. Since there was no evidence to draw from, Atticus couldn't show more logos here other than the lack thereof because both the sheriff and Mayella's father didn't handle the situation right.

Finally, Atticus draws a logical conclusion between Bob Ewell's left-handed dominance with Tom's disabled left arm. Once Atticus establishes that Bob could have beaten his daughter and Tom could not, a logical syllogism is created and supported. A syllogism is a logical process of thinking based on an established premise. For example, if Mayella was beaten on her right side, then a left-handed person did it. Bob is left-handed. Tom not only is right-handed, but his left arm and hand have been disabled since he was younger due to a cotton gin accident. Unfortunately, the use of logos wasn't enough to conquer the social traditions of Maycomb county to let Tom Robinson go free.

`1, 1/4, 1/9, 1/16, 1/25` Write an expression for the apparent nth term of the sequence. (assume that n begins with 1)

Numerator is always 1 while the denominator is a square number, thus we can write the sequence as follows

`1/1^2,1/2^2,1/3^2,1/4^2,1/5^2,...`

From this we see that the `n`th terms is

`a_n=1/n^2`  

Numerator is always 1 while the denominator is a square number, thus we can write the sequence as follows

`1/1^2,1/2^2,1/3^2,1/4^2,1/5^2,...`

From this we see that the `n`th terms is

`a_n=1/n^2`  

What are Betsy and Amelia arguing about? Does Lyddie agree with either of them?

The argument that your question is asking about occurs in chapter 12 of the book.  There are some minor arguments that occur during this chapter, but the main argument among the three girls deals with the factory and the present working conditions.  Betsy suggests a couple of options.  One option is for the girls to stage a walk out to force better working conditions.  The other option that she is thinking about is signing the...

The argument that your question is asking about occurs in chapter 12 of the book.  There are some minor arguments that occur during this chapter, but the main argument among the three girls deals with the factory and the present working conditions.  Betsy suggests a couple of options.  One option is for the girls to stage a walk out to force better working conditions.  The other option that she is thinking about is signing the petition.  Betsy and Amelia argue over the pros and cons of those ideas, and Lyddie is opposed to both.  At this point in the story, Lyddie is working multiple looms and making a fair amount of money.  A walk out means that she is out of work and a paycheck.  If she signs the petition, she might be black listed from all of the mills.  Again, that would mean no money.  

How does Daniel treat Rosh in the beginning of the book, and how does that change toward the end of the book?

At the beginning of The Bronze Bow, Daniel is very loyal toward Rosh and treats him as his hero. When he tells Joel about Rosh, he says he is a good man and the bravest man in the world. Daniel obeys Rosh's commands when he orders him to take care of Samson and when he assigns him to steal from the miser. He respectfully asks Rosh if he can go to Capernaum to try...

At the beginning of The Bronze Bow, Daniel is very loyal toward Rosh and treats him as his hero. When he tells Joel about Rosh, he says he is a good man and the bravest man in the world. Daniel obeys Rosh's commands when he orders him to take care of Samson and when he assigns him to steal from the miser. He respectfully asks Rosh if he can go to Capernaum to try to recruit Joel to their cause. Chapter 8 states that Daniel "worshiped and feared Rosh." When Rosh gruffly orders Daniel to fix his favorite dagger, Daniel obeys, and when he moves to the village, he creates a band of men to be Rosh's army there. 

However, in chapter 17, Rosh has been making raids on the homes of the villagers, stealing from fellow Jews like a mere bandit. Although Daniel wants to remain loyal to Rosh, he sees that the people are turning against him. In chapter 18, Joel is captured by Romans while performing undercover work for Rosh. Daniel goes to Rosh to ask him to rescue Joel, and Rosh refuses. At that point, Daniel disagrees with and argues with Rosh outright. Finally he says, "I am not one of your men. Not any longer." He leaves the mountain and Rosh forever at that point.

How does Napoleon use his power for evil in Animal Farm?

Napoleon uses his power to benefit himself at the expense of the other animals. By the end of the book, he and the other pigs are walking around on their back legs like humans, drinking alcohol, gambling, treating themselves to lavish meals when the rest of the animals are nearly starving, and generally behaving in a way that is totally inconsistent with the ideals of Animal Farm (i.e., they are acting like Man). So Napoleon...

Napoleon uses his power to benefit himself at the expense of the other animals. By the end of the book, he and the other pigs are walking around on their back legs like humans, drinking alcohol, gambling, treating themselves to lavish meals when the rest of the animals are nearly starving, and generally behaving in a way that is totally inconsistent with the ideals of Animal Farm (i.e., they are acting like Man). So Napoleon and the pigs are obviously corrupted. But the issue of power goes beyond such abuses. Napoleon becomes a character who seeks and uses power for its own ends. The pigs alter the Seven Commandments to suit their needs. They "rewrite" history to persuade the other animals that Snowball was the enemy of Animal Farm all along. Napoleon holds vicious purges that murder dozens of innocent animals. All of this is done to augment their own power. This is a central theme, or a sort of moral, of Animal Farm as well as Orwell's other great novel 1984: power, if left unchecked, will only grow destructive.

What do Scout's thrashings of Walter Cunningham and Francis foreshadow in To Kill a Mockingbird?

Scout thrashes Walter and Francis to foreshadow the trouble that her family will have during the trial and the outcome of the trial.

Scout is young, and like many young people she sometimes has trouble handing her temper.  This often results in her getting into fights when she does not like what people say about her.  The problem Scout has is that her father is defending a black man, and most people in Maycomb are racist and do not approve.

Scout’s conflict with Walter Cunningham is evidence of the fact that people in Maycomb are against Atticus defending his client.  Atticus was appointed to defend Tom Robinson for the rape allegation, but he would have done it anyway, even though most of the rest of Maycomb has convicted Robinson in the court of public opinion.

Atticus tells Scout to avoid fighting and be the bigger person, but she says that she soon forgot.

Cecil Jacobs made me forget. He had announced in the schoolyard the day before that Scout Finch’s daddy defended niggers. I denied it, but told Jem.

“What’d he mean sayin‘ that?” I asked. (Ch. 9)

Cecil’s reaction is the same as the reaction of most of the town.  It demonstrates that even children in Maycomb believed that the trial was a foregone conclusion.  Scout had no idea what Cecil Jacobs was talking about, but she fought him anyway to defend her family’s honor.

Scout even has trouble with her own family.  She learns that Aunt Alexandra also does not approve of Atticus’s actions, and Frances's comments about her father also cause Scout to get into a fight.

“If Uncle Atticus lets you run around with stray dogs, that’s his own business, like Grandma says, so it ain’t your fault. I guess it ain’t your fault if Uncle Atticus is a nigger-lover besides, but I’m here to tell you it certainly does mortify the rest of the family—” (Ch. 9)

Certain family members believe that Atticus is hurting the family name just by defending a black man.  Atticus does not care what they think, because he believes in giving the case everything he has regardless of how futile the outcome.  He tells Scout there is no way he can win, but that doesn’t mean he won’t try.

The trial, and Atticus’s loss of the case, is foreshadowed by these fights.  It is through these altercations that Scout has that we learn how the people of Maycomb feel about African Americans and Tom Robinson’s case.  He is a black man accused of raping a white woman, and as far as they are concerned just being accused makes him guilty.

Please explain all the stanzas of "Phenomenal Woman" by Maya Angelou.

The stanzas are homogenous in structure. Each has four or five rhyming lines, then the line "I say," then a few lines of rhyming imagery describing the speaker physically, then a refrain:

I’m a woman

Phenomenally.

Phenomenal woman,

That’s me.

This overall structure of rhythm, rhyme, and refrain makes the poem resemble an upbeat song. Along with the imagery of the speaker's body and physical attributes, this song-like structure creates a sense of a woman singing or dancing, which adds to the poem's sex appeal and sense of sensual beauty.

The first stanza says that "pretty women" question what it is that makes the speaker attractive, since she is not "cute" or "a fashion model's size." This shows that the speaker is confident and strong, which adds to her attractiveness.

Her confidence and strength is added to in the first stanza with the words Angelou chose to physically describe the speaker: the word "reach" in "reach of my arms" indicates that this is a strong woman who strives towards her goals. We imagine her with her arms outstretched confidently. The word "stride" in "stride of my step" makes readers picture a woman with a purposeful walk.

The second stanza describes what happens when the speaker enters a room full of men. She compares them to "a hive of honeybees." This metaphor creates an image of a single woman, a queen bee, surrounded by a large group of noisy men all wanting to be close to her and please her. Like a phenomenal woman, a honey bee produces something sweet but can also sting. The second stanza also has some physical description that adds to the development of this strong woman: "fire" in "fire in my eyes" paints the speaker as a woman who can burn you with a look. "Flash" in "flash of my teeth" shows that she is not afraid to open her mouth, to speak her mind or to share her emotions through laughter.

In the third stanza, the speaker is again answering questions, echoing the first stanza. In the first stanza, the questions were from pretty women who didn't understand why the speaker is considered phenomenal. In the third stanza, in contrast, the questions are from men, questioning themselves and why they find her so attractive. Also in contrast, the third stanza presents the quiet mystery of the speaker. Words like "arch," "smile," and "grace" create an image of a woman with silent poise. She attracts others to her because she is proud and enigmatic.

In the fourth and final stanza, the speaker compares herself to women who have to make a spectacle of themselves to be considered attractive. The image of an obnoxious woman jumping around and talking loudly is a contrast to the picture of a quiet, mysterious woman who stands erect and proud in the previous stanza. In this description, the onomatopoeic "click of my heels" reminds the reader of every formidable woman in their lives, when the only sound is the click of her heels as she approaches down a silent hall: the teacher, the school principal, the boss. However, Angelou also finally reveals that what makes this proud, confident, enigmatic, strong woman so attractive is that she cares for others: "the palm of my hand" creates an image of the phenomenal woman reaching out to the reader, and "The need for my care" shows that men and women alike are not just struck by her physical beauty or confidence, but also by her loving, caring nature. The most phenomenal woman in your life is someone who cares for you deeply, your mother.

Each stanza closes with the refrain, and the four stanzas build up the explanation of what a phenomenal woman actually is: a strong, confident woman. A mysterious woman. Not a loud, boisterous, self-absorbed woman, but a calm, caring woman. These qualities make her desirable and phenomenal.

In Romeo and Juliet, what evidence is there that Friar Laurence truly cares for Romeo and/or Juliet? Provide strong quotes as proof.

It is clear from the time we first meet friar Laurence and witness his interaction with Romeo, that he has great affection for him. Their conversation provides more than enough evidence of their amity. When Romeo visits him the friar responds in the following manner:

Benedicite!
What early tongue so sweet saluteth me?

The fact that the friar sees Romeo's early morning greeting as 'sweet' suggests his fondness for the lad. He affirms his liking for him by stating that if he is greeted at such an early hour, it suggests that the one who greets is 'distempered' i.e. upset, and that that is a cause for concern and makes him worry. He displays knowledge of Romeo's habits and moods by stating that he is probably correct in saying that Romeo had not slept. This kind of in-depth knowledge is only possible if there is a close relationship.

We further learn about the closeness Romeo shares with the friar when he divulges the fact that he has fallen for Juliet and has dismissed the erstwhile object of his affections, Rosaline. Their conversation makes it clear that Romeo had been confiding in the priest about his most private feelings. The friar displays much knowledge of Romeo's history in this regard, which further affirms the depth of their friendship. The friar comes across as both mentor and confidante to Romeo.

Friar Laurence further signifies his care for Romeo after he had been informed about his infatuation with a member of his family's enemy by stating the following:

...But come, young waverer, come, go with me,
In one respect I'll thy assistant be;
For this alliance may so happy prove,
To turn your households' rancour to pure love.

The friar sees Romeo and Juliet's affection for each other as an opportunity to resolve the conflict between their families. He informs Romeo that he will assist him in his relationship with Juliet in order to achieve this goal.

The friar accepts Romeo's request to wed the two star-crossed lovers and in his conversation with the two later, he expresses a clear joy for their decision and shows his liking for Juliet.

Ah, Juliet, if the measure of thy joy
Be heap'd like mine and that thy skill be more
To blazon it, then sweeten with thy breath
This neighbour air, and let rich music's tongue
Unfold the imagined happiness that both
Receive in either by this dear encounter. 

The words he uses in this instance all have a pleasant and affirming tone. He wishes that Juliet's joy is as great as his and that her consent will add to their joy. He does, however, call it an 'imagined' happiness that the two lovers will receive from their decision to marry, which implicitly suggests that there is no real guarantee that the lovers will have true happiness. On a prior occasion, he had also warned Romeo about the brevity of impulsive love and told him that it should be 'moderate' which would ensure its greater endurance.

More evidence of the friar's care for the two lovers is exhibited later when he informs Romeo of the prince's judgement against him - that he has been banished at the risk of execution, for killing Tybalt. Romeo is overwhelmingly distraught and believes it is a punishment worse that death and wishes to commit suicide, but the friar stays him and says that he will formulate a plan. In the presence of Juliet's nurse he then requests that Romeo pay Juliet a brief visit and rush to Mantua before morning.

Friar Laurence later concocts a plan in which Juliet can avoid marrying the county Paris and where she can safely join Romeo in Mantua, without arousing any suspicion. The plan seems good and Juliet agrees to follow his instructions ...   

Although the friar is aware of the risks involved in  the two lovers' liaison, he is positive about the affair and probably naively believes that things will turn out well. As already mentioned, he wholly believes that the relationship will resolve an age-old feud between the two families and an ensure the two errant lovers' happiness. We discover later, however, that he was much too optimistic because his intervention ironically culminates in a sad and tragic denouement.

Eliezer seems to feel he did not respond as a son should to his dying father and that he did not respond appropriately after his father's death....

After Eliezer and his father have spent the entirety of their concentration camp time together, Elie's dad's death is rather unemotional.  There is little in the way of a teary goodbye, although Elie's dad's last word is his son's name.

Elie awakens the next morning to see his father's bed inhabited by a new invalid.  He thinks upon the fact that his dad may have been taken to the crematory while still breathing, and he...

After Eliezer and his father have spent the entirety of their concentration camp time together, Elie's dad's death is rather unemotional.  There is little in the way of a teary goodbye, although Elie's dad's last word is his son's name.

Elie awakens the next morning to see his father's bed inhabited by a new invalid.  He thinks upon the fact that his dad may have been taken to the crematory while still breathing, and he reflects on the fact that his father will have no services to mark his death.

Elie does not weep, and expresses regret that he did not respond to his dad's call.  Yet, as Elie says, he had no more tears.  And, as he admits, he is happy to be free of the burden of caring for his father.  Both actions may seem harsh, but they are also understandable given the context.  Elie does not weep because he has become desensitized to death -- something he has seen as a daily event.  As for feeling free, this is also understandable.  While his father has seen him through difficult events, of late, he had been more of a burden to look after.  When Elie leaves the concentration camp, he later grieves his father in ways that are more "human" and appropriate.  I believe he acts as honorably as possible in an inhumane environment.

How does the presence or absence of oxygen affect ATP production?

ATP stands for adenosine triphosphate and is the energy source used by cells.  The production of ATP is much greater in the presence of oxygen. In the presence of oxygen, 34-38 ATP are produced per glucose molecule. In the absence of oxygen, the net yield of ATP produced is 2 per glucose molecule.

ATP is formed in the presence of oxygen in the process known as aerobic cellular respiration. This process occurs within mitochondria of...

ATP stands for adenosine triphosphate and is the energy source used by cells.  The production of ATP is much greater in the presence of oxygen. In the presence of oxygen, 34-38 ATP are produced per glucose molecule. In the absence of oxygen, the net yield of ATP produced is 2 per glucose molecule.

ATP is formed in the presence of oxygen in the process known as aerobic cellular respiration. This process occurs within mitochondria of eukaryotic cells. There are three main parts of aerobic cellular respiration- glycolysis, Krebs Cycle, and the electron transport chain. Here, the processes that occur during each phase of aerobic cellular respiration. Overall, aerobic cellular respiration converts the sugar called glucose and oxygen gas into carbon dioxide gas, water, and 34-36 ATP.

Anaerobic respiration is sometimes referred to as fermentation. Fermentation is a metabolic process in which organisms convert carbohydrates, such as starch or sugar, into lactic acid or alcohol. Another name for fermentation is anaerobic respiration because the process is done in the absence of oxygen (“an” = not, “aero” = air or atmosphere). Compared to aerobic respiration, anaerobic respiration produces much less ATP.

Ethanol fermentation is the type of fermentation that produces alcohol. It is done by yeast and some strains of bacteria. During ethanol fermentation, pyruvate from glucose metabolism is broken into ethanol and carbon dioxide.  Because ethanol fermentation produces alcohol, it is used to produce beer and wine. The carbon dioxide produced by ethanol fermentation is advantageous in the making of breads.

During lactic acid fermentation, glucose is converted into cellular energy (ATP) and lactic acid. Lactic acid buildup occurs within muscle cells during intense intervals of activity when energy is needed at a faster rate than oxygen can be supplied. The lactic acid produced is the “burn” that athletes feel after an intense workout.

How did civilians' help lead to total war?

Well, first of all, I'm not sure it did, actually. While the phrase "total war" only emerged as a term in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, seeing wide use for the first time in WW1, the killing of civilians in wartime has been a constant occurrence throughout human history.

Honestly I think this term has more to do with illusions that people in the early 20th century had about the "honor" or "chivalry" of Medieval warfare (cultivated by Medieval leaders and historians, of course), giving them the sense that in those "good old days" soldiers used to fight with honor and only killed other soldiers. The facts are nothing of the sort; rates of civilian collateral damage have been constant or falling throughout history. WW1 was unique in terms of its total number of deaths in a single conflict (a record then broken by WW2); but in terms of total homicide deaths per million population per year, even the World Wars do not contradict the trend of overall declining human violence.

It could also, counter-intuitively, have to do with the advances in moral development made during this period; while civilians had always been killed, it was not until the 20th century that people began to be upset that civilians were killed. This is a general pattern: As the world gets better, people keep saying it's getting worse, because our moral standards rise faster than our actual behavior---but our actual behavior does in fact improve.

That said, there was a strategic reason why total war was used as a strategy in the 20th century despite widespread moral opposition. The World Wars were the first wars that were more dependent upon industrial technology and materiel production than they were on sheer size of army. For most of history, the side with the most soldiers usually won, except if the other side had particularly brilliant commanders (e.g. Alexander of Macedon, Napoleon). But in the World Wars, the number of soldiers was almost irrelevant; a single bomber with half a dozen men inside could destroy an entire infantry division of several hundred. What mattered instead was industrial capacity.

And industrial capacity, of course, is a civilian activity. It was civilian workers who built and operated the factories that made tanks and bombers. Indeed, in the US in WW2, it was primarily women, and our unique willingness to employ women in our factories was part of our overwhelming industrial advantage in the war. Japan could not have matched us industrially even if they had employed women, but their refusal to do so put them even further behind than they would have been, effectively cutting their labor force in half.

Because industrial capacity was so important in the World Wars, many commanders---on both sides---employed tactics such as "strategic bombing" (carpet bombing of cities) designed to disrupt industrial production and infrastructure, regardless of the enormous civilian casualties that resulted. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were particularly dramatic examples, but more people actually died in conventional "strategic bombing" of cities such as Tokyo and Dresden.

We could imagine that maybe if civilian industry hadn't been so important for the war effort, these tactics might not have been employed... but honestly, I'm not so sure. Like I said, soldiers have been killing civilians for thousands of years.

How do Antony and Octavius treat Brutus's body in Julius Caesar?

When the victorious Antony and Octavius view Brutus's dead body on the battlefield at Philippi, they both speak of him with praise and respect. Marc Antony says,

This was the noblest Roman of them all.All the conspirators, save only he,Did that they did in envy of great Caesar;He only, in a general honest thoughtAnd common good to all, made one of them.

Antony previously accused the conspirators of being primarily motivated...

When the victorious Antony and Octavius view Brutus's dead body on the battlefield at Philippi, they both speak of him with praise and respect. Marc Antony says,

This was the noblest Roman of them all.
All the conspirators, save only he,
Did that they did in envy of great Caesar;
He only, in a general honest thought
And common good to all, made one of them.

Antony previously accused the conspirators of being primarily motivated by envy in his funeral oration. Envy has been defined as "the resentment which occurs when a person lacks another's superior quality, achievement, or possession and either desires it or wishes that the other lacked it" (Parrott). Julius Caesar aroused this painful emotion in other men because he was superior to them in many ways. Aristotle defines envy as "the pain caused by the good fortune of others." Brutus, according to Shakespeare's Marc Antony, was the only conspirator who was motivated by patriotism instead of envy.

Octavius concurs with Antony and even goes so far as to have Brutus's body kept overnight in his own tent.

According to his virtue let us use him,
With all respect and rites of burial.
Within my tent his bones to-night shall lie,
Most like a soldier, order'd honourably.

Is it realistic that the Capulets and Montagues will end their long standing feud after Romeo and Juliet's death?

It is definitely realistic to believe that the long standing feud between the Montagues and Capulets will finally end after the events of Act V, Scene 3. In a very short period of time the families go through several tragedies, including the loss of a wife, a son, a friend, a daughter, a cousin and a potential son-in-law. There are three main reasons why the feud will end.

Above all, sheer grief will hold Lord...

It is definitely realistic to believe that the long standing feud between the Montagues and Capulets will finally end after the events of Act V, Scene 3. In a very short period of time the families go through several tragedies, including the loss of a wife, a son, a friend, a daughter, a cousin and a potential son-in-law. There are three main reasons why the feud will end.

Above all, sheer grief will hold Lord Montague and Lord Capulet to their truce which is spoken in the final lines of the play. Lord Capulet has lost his daughter who was his only living offspring. Although he speaks to her harshly after she refuses to marry Count Paris, the audience has evidence to believe that he truly loved her. In the opening Act, he tells Paris that he will only consent to the marriage if Juliet falls in love with the Count. In Scene 2 he says,

But woo her, gentle Paris, get her heart;
My will to her consent is but a part.
And, she agreed, within her scope of choice
Lies my consent and fair according voice.

Capulet reinforces the idea that he adores his daughter after she is discovered to be supposedly dead in Act IV, Scene 5. Capulet grieves:

Despised, distressèd, hated, martyred, killed!
Uncomfortable time, why cam’st thou now
To murder, murder our solemnity?
O child! O child! My soul and not my child!
Dead art thou! Alack, my child is dead,
And with my child my joys are burièd.

Lord Montague also experiences tremendous grief as he loses not only his son, but also his wife. He obviously loved his son. He is distraught over Romeo's depression in Act I as he asks Benvolio to discover what is causing Romeo's condition. In the end, his wife dies from despair over Romeo's banishment. In Act V, Scene 3 he says,

Alas, my liege, my wife is dead tonight.
Grief of my son’s exile hath stopped her breath.
What further woe conspires against mine age?

Another reason the feud will end is that the major personalities that stoked the fire of the conflict are now dead, and those that want peace are still alive. Tybalt consistently challenged the Montagues in the street. In the opening scene he calls Benvolio a coward and threatens him:

What, art thou drawn among these heartless hinds?
Turn thee, Benvolio; look upon thy death.

Benvolio, the peace maker, remains to help enforce the peace between the families. He attempted to thwart street violence twice in the play. In Act I he asks Tybalt to help him dissuade the servants from brawling:

I do but keep the peace. Put up thy sword,
Or manage it to part these men with me.

And later, in Act III, Scene 1, he pleads with Mercutio to get off the streets to avoid violence. He says,

I pray thee, good Mercutio, let’s retire.
The day is hot, the Capels are abroad,
And if we meet we shall not ’scape a brawl,
For now, these hot days, is the mad blood stirring.

The volatile Mercutio also dies, along with his arrogance and quick temper. If he had remained calm in Act III, Scene 1, Romeo and Juliet might still be alive. His haughty nature helped sustain the feud.

The fact that Lord Capulet survives also bodes well for the sustainability of the peace. A few times in the play he expresses his regret over the feud. When he is talking with Paris in Act I, Scene 2, he suggests that if it were up to him and Lord Montague, the feud would be over:

But Montague is bound as well as I,
In penalty alike, and ’tis not hard, I think,
For men so old as we to keep the peace.

Later, he also speaks well of Romeo when Tybalt discovers the Montague at the party in Act I, Scene 5. He says of Romeo,

Content thee, gentle coz. Let him alone.
He bears him like a portly gentleman,
And, to say truth, Verona brags of him
To be a virtuous and well-governed youth.

A final reason the peace will succeed is the power of the Prince. He expresses the idea that he has not enforced the law well enough. Moreover, two of his relatives, Mercutio and Count Paris, have lost their lives in the dispute. In Act V, Scene 3 he shames Capulet and Montague and suggests that the tragedy needs to end. He says,

Where be these enemies?—Capulet, Montague,
See what a scourge is laid upon your hate,
That heaven finds means to kill your joys with love,
And I, for winking at your discords too,
Have lost a brace of kinsmen. All are punished.

Why does Buddha not give Zhu Bajie the title of Buddha in The Journey to the West?

In the novel, Buddha does not give Zhu Bajie the title because he asserts that Bajie has not yet attained victory over his weaknesses.

You guarded the holy monk on his journey, but your heart is still unregenerate, and you are not yet purged of your lust. But as you won merit by carrying the luggage, you will be rewarded with promotion as the Altar Cleanser.

Bajie is so angry at hearing he will be denied the title of Buddha that he immediately demands to be told why he has been denied the privilege. After all, Sun Wukong has just been designated the title of Victorious Fighting Buddha, while Xuan Zang has been accorded the title of Candana-punya Buddha.

Tathagata (the title which Siddhartha Gautama calls himself) responds that Bajie is still lazy, gluttonous, selfish, and lustful. He maintains that Bajie should be pleased to be given the position of Altar Cleanser, as his job involves cleaning up after all Buddhist services; because food is often offered as a sacrifice at altars, Bajie will have plenty to eat as a result of his position.

In The Journey to the West, Zhu Bajie was originally Marshall Tian Peng, the once immortal Water God of the Heavenly River. He guarded the gates to the Jade Emperor's Palace with the Supremely Precious Gold−imbued Rake, a magical and powerful weapon. However, in his drunken state at the Peach Banquet one day, Bajie used his powerful rake to force the moon goddess, Chang'e, to respond to his lustful will. For this sin, Bajie was banished to be reborn on earth. However, on the way to earth, his spirit somehow ended up in the womb of a pig, and Bajie was born with the unfortunate, ugly face of a boar.

Bajie was given the new Buddhist name Zhu Wuneng (Pig Awakened to Power) by Guanyin, the Goddess of Mercy, after he agreed to protect Xuanzang on his journey West. Despite all his exploits on this journey, Bajie never took effective control of his appetites and thus forfeited the title of Buddha when rewards were conferred on the four travelers.

Create a dialogue between George and Slim just after George has shot Lennie. Express the thoughts and feelings of both characters on the event, as...

Slim: You hadda, George. I swear you hadda. Come on with me.

(Carlson has a puzzled look as George and Slim walk back up toward the road)

George: It's the hardest thing I ever had to do, Slim.

Slim: I know it George, but it had to be done. They'd a locked him up and treated him like a dog. He didn't deserve none a that.

George: But he didn't do it to be mean. He...

Slim: You hadda, George. I swear you hadda. Come on with me.

(Carlson has a puzzled look as George and Slim walk back up toward the road)

George: It's the hardest thing I ever had to do, Slim.

Slim: I know it George, but it had to be done. They'd a locked him up and treated him like a dog. He didn't deserve none a that.

George: But he didn't do it to be mean. He never done nothin' mean Slim. I wisht we could just all get along and ain't nobody hurt nobody ever again. I feel bad for Curley's wife. I guess deep down I knew somethin' like this was goin' to happen. I tol' Lennie to stay away from her so I think she musta started somethin' with him.

Slim: She was always trying to talk to us guys. I wisht Curley coulda kept her in that house. The ranch ain't no place for a girl like that.

George: Yeah, she was trouble, that's for sure. Whadda ya think the sheriff is gonna say about it?

Slim: We'll talk to Al Wilts. He's the deputy. He's a pretty nice fella. I think you should just tell him it was self defense. You'll be ok. Curley and Carlson ain't gonna say anything different. What you think you want to do now George?

George: Oh, I dunno, I guess I can work a week and take my pay and go sit in a poolroom or a buy some whiskey or even go to a whorehouse. Nuts! I don't wanna do none of that. What if you and I take off Slim and look for some work up north?

Slim: Maybe George. I'm pretty tired of this ranch. Curley might not be so bad now though. I hope maybe he learned his lesson but I doubt it. You know of someplace we could get a good job.

George: Well, maybe up by Auburn where I grew up. There's a good ranch we could work on. Guy that owns it says I should come back and work for him if I wasn't with Lennie anymore. He had a run-in with Lennie and wouldn't let him on the property. We could save some money and buy a farm up there that some old folks own. We could even take Candy. I told him we wasn't gonna do it but maybe we should. If you was to come along we could get the money pretty quick. How's that sound?

Slim: Ok, George, that sounds fine. Now let's go into Soledad and get a drink.

How many moles of potassium hydroxide (KOH) are dissolved in 250 mL of a 0.15-M KOH solution?

Molarity or M is a unit of concentration and is the ratio of number of moles to the volume of the solution (in liters). 

That is, molarity = number of moles / volume of solution

Here, the volume of solution is given as 250 ml. There are 1000 ml in a liter of a solution. Therefore the volume of solution is 250 ml/1000 L = 0.25 L.

The molarity of the solution is 0.15 M.

...

Molarity or M is a unit of concentration and is the ratio of number of moles to the volume of the solution (in liters). 

That is, molarity = number of moles / volume of solution

Here, the volume of solution is given as 250 ml. There are 1000 ml in a liter of a solution. Therefore the volume of solution is 250 ml/1000 L = 0.25 L.

The molarity of the solution is 0.15 M.

Thus, 0.15 = number of moles / 0.25 L

or, number of moles = 0.15 mol/L x 0.25 L = 0.0375 moles.

Thus, there are 0.0375 moles of potassium hydroxide in the solution when we have 250 mL of 0.15 M solution.

Since the molar mass of potassium hydroxide is 56.1 g, we have 2.1 g (0.0375 moles x 56.1 g/mole) of potassium hydroxide.

Hope this helps. 

Banks can multiply money by using the cash from the people's deposits to give loans and receive an additional interest for the money they lent. If...

The reason that this helps the economy is that actual physical cash is not terribly important these days.  As electronic transmission of money and payments becomes more and more prevalent, the importance of actual physical cash wanes.  Fractional reserve banking increases the amount of money that is in the economy without necessarily changing the amount of cash.

In today’s world, we in developed countries use relatively little cash.  We get paid by the electronic transfer...

The reason that this helps the economy is that actual physical cash is not terribly important these days.  As electronic transmission of money and payments becomes more and more prevalent, the importance of actual physical cash wanes.  Fractional reserve banking increases the amount of money that is in the economy without necessarily changing the amount of cash.

In today’s world, we in developed countries use relatively little cash.  We get paid by the electronic transfer of virtual money into our bank accounts.  We buy things with credit cards and then pay the credit card companies with electronic transfers of virtual money out of our bank accounts.  It is very rare for us to pick up physical cash and go out and make any kind of a substantial purchase.

Modern economies do not run on cash.  They run on electronic transfers of virtual money.  For this reason, fractional reserve banking can help our economy without creating physical cash.  Fractional reserve banking does this because it creates more of the virtual money that actually drives our economy.  

What are the two lessons we learn from the story "Once Upon A Time" by Nadine Gordimer?

In "Once Upon A Time" by Nadine Gordimer, Gordimer intends for the reader to learn that danger has many guises and is likely to be misunderstood, and, in this instance, misinterpreted unless families like the one in the "bedtime story" reflect on their own shortcomings and irrational fears rather than only recognizing the faults of others.  Even though "the property owner was not racist," the actions of the parents reveal their fear of "people of...

In "Once Upon A Time" by Nadine Gordimer, Gordimer intends for the reader to learn that danger has many guises and is likely to be misunderstood, and, in this instance, misinterpreted unless families like the one in the "bedtime story" reflect on their own shortcomings and irrational fears rather than only recognizing the faults of others.  Even though "the property owner was not racist," the actions of the parents reveal their fear of "people of another color" and their own enforced isolation represents a danger in itself. 

Life is full of potential dangers and it is better to learn to manage them—such as the narrator does when she hears her floorboards creaking and wonders if there is an intruder—rather than to lay blame. The narrator acknowledges her own fears when she admits that although she has "no gun under the pillow ... I have the same fears as people who do take these precautions" and she wants the reader to learn to be realistic because chasing an ideal, an undefined "happily ever after" indicates that real happiness eludes families like the one in the story. The unknown element of fear, which prevents their image of perfection from ever being reached, creates the wrong impression and this family seek happiness in all the wrong places, mainly in securing their material needs. The reader will hopefully learn from this scenario.      

What is the most dangerous flaw in characters in The Odyssey?

It seems that pride is really the most dangerous flaw in The Odyssey because his pride is, many times, what prevents Odysseus from getting home.  

Odysseus's pride almost gets him and his crew killed when he insists on taunting Polyphemus, the Cyclops who they have just blinded, and telling the monster his real name.  Polyphemus cannot see the ship sailing away, but when Odysseus shouts to him, he begins to hurl giant rocks in their direction, forcing their ships back to shore.  Odysseus shouts, 

"Cyclops, if any mortal man ever asks you who it was that inflicted upon your eye this shameful blinding, tell him that you were blinded by Odysseus, sacker of cities. Laertes is his father, and he makes his home on Ithaka" (9.500-505).

He tells Polyphemus his real name because he wants the monster to know, to be able to tell others, who has bested him: clearly, this is a proud moment for Odysseus.  Yet it almost leads to his own and his men's deaths as a result.  Ironically, the flaw Odysseus points out is the cyclops's own pride, pride which resulted in his being blinded by Odysseus.  To this end, he shouts,

"Cyclops, in the end it was no weak man’s companions you were to eat by violence and force in your hollow cave, and your evil deeds were to catch up with you, and be too strong for you, hard one, who dared to eat your own guests in your own house, so Zeus and the rest of the gods have punished you" (9.475-479).

Thus, it is Polyphemus's own pride that gets him in trouble.  However, it is also Odysseus's act of rubbing it in and telling Polyphemus his name, that allows the monster to tell his father, Poseidon, who it was that injured him.  Therefore, Odysseus's pride ends up getting him in trouble with the god who controls the sea which is his only means of getting home.  Odysseus's pride, then, extends his absence from home because he has angered Poseidon who now seeks to prevent his return.

We can also trace the debacle with the bag of winds given to Odysseus by Aeolus back to his pride as well.  Rather than tell his men what is in the sack, he hides it from them, thinking that -- as their leader -- he doesn't need to tell them this information.  They, then, assume the bag is filled with treasure and, when Odysseus falls asleep just as they can see their home shores, they open it, releasing all the winds and blowing their ship far away from home again.  If Odysseus would have simply been honest with them and not felt too proud to share his knowledge with them, they would not have betrayed him.

How does Sam feel when Bando leaves?

Great question! In the book My Side of the Mountain by Jean Craighead George, Sam meets a man named Bando. Although Sam has spent much time alone, he enjoys Bando’s company. Thus, when Bando leaves, Sam has a mixed reaction.

Originally, Sam appears lonely. He has grown accustomed to spending time with Bando. Sam tries to spend every minute of the day busy. For example, he works tirelessly on sewing moccasins. As the text reveals:

...

Great question! In the book My Side of the Mountain by Jean Craighead George, Sam meets a man named Bando. Although Sam has spent much time alone, he enjoys Bando’s company. Thus, when Bando leaves, Sam has a mixed reaction.

Originally, Sam appears lonely. He has grown accustomed to spending time with Bando. Sam tries to spend every minute of the day busy. For example, he works tirelessly on sewing moccasins. As the text reveals:

“I was so lonely that I kept sewing on my moccasins to keep myself busy.”

However, after being alone again for a few days, he feels reunited with his animal companions. His falcon communicates with Sam. Also, “Jessie Coon James” (the raccoon) and “The Baron” (the weasel) become more connected to Sam again. Consequently, Sam seems less lonely and more content. As the text demonstrates:

“I had the feeling we were all back together again.”

Thus, after Bando departs, Sam initially feels isolated and lonely. However, after a few days, he feels more content and connected with his animal companions again.

What is the summary of the Oz Principle Chapter 6?

This chapter discussed the Scarecrow Principle, which means obtaining the necessary wisdom to solve problems within a business.

First discussed is Toyota. Although described as one of the most efficient companies in the world already, Toyota continues to reorganize, placing future efficiency before current profit. Similarly, Ann Taylor, the clothing company, has been exponentially increasing profit by making cuts to designs and fabrics used, thanks to executive Joseph Brooks and designer Frame Kasaks.

Robert Frey,...

This chapter discussed the Scarecrow Principle, which means obtaining the necessary wisdom to solve problems within a business.

First discussed is Toyota. Although described as one of the most efficient companies in the world already, Toyota continues to reorganize, placing future efficiency before current profit. Similarly, Ann Taylor, the clothing company, has been exponentially increasing profit by making cuts to designs and fabrics used, thanks to executive Joseph Brooks and designer Frame Kasaks.

Robert Frey, president of a company called Cin-Made, realized he needed to change the hearts of his workers to make his company successful. He increased personal accountability for improving production and efficiency in each sector for all employees.

Michael Eagle, president of IVAC, was behind on production of a medical instrument shipment. He asked his employees to help him brainstorm the best way to get things done on time. They completed production ahead of schedule but then could not if the products to the hospital in time because of the holiday rush. When a worker made a joke about renting a Learjet, the president agreed and did just that. When they were loading the jet, they discovered that the product would not fit and immediately had the workers re package each of these shipments. The shipment arrived at the hospital on time, but the employees who were to train the new users at the hospital had become stuck in a snowstorm and had to drive all night to make it there in time. In the end, everything worked out for the best because the president knew how to deal with crises. 

People tend to be discouraged by crises and not try to figure out how to solve these problems. Michael Gilbert, the store operations vice president for a department store, discovered that changing attitudes is a start but not enough. Managers needed to stay above the line consistently to solve problems. 

Other examples include recent textbook companies having to make changes to online and computer sources, rather than printed material.

A final example is General Electric's exploding coffee makers. After the company suffered from continual issues with their fuses, they had unwittingly started many house fires which destroyed the homes of their customers. General Electric sold their coffee maker brand to Black and Decker, which simply added a fuse and solved the problems. 

The book describes the skills used to react to a crisis:

1. stay engaged 

2. be persistent 

3. use a new paradigm 

4. create new linkages 

5. take the initiative 

6. stay conscious. 

The benefits to the Scarecrow Principle are that businesses can stay above the line to solve problems using wisdom that they already have.

According to Truman, why do unions exist ?

President Truman believed unions were necessary for workers. He believed that without a union to represent the workers, the workers and the working class would be treated poorly. He believed that businesses had little incentive to improve pay, offer a decent benefits package, provide good working conditions, and have decent work hours. If one worker tried to bring about a change by himself or herself, that worker would be fired. When all the workers united...

President Truman believed unions were necessary for workers. He believed that without a union to represent the workers, the workers and the working class would be treated poorly. He believed that businesses had little incentive to improve pay, offer a decent benefits package, provide good working conditions, and have decent work hours. If one worker tried to bring about a change by himself or herself, that worker would be fired. When all the workers united with a union representing them, the workers had a much better chance of getting a fair deal from the business owners. While President Truman understood why unions were needed, he was not a strong supporter of some of the union activities. However, he needed the support of labor, and he worked to help them.

President Truman believed the workers needed a voice in order to make their lives better. He knew what had happened before unions existed. Workers had a difficult time getting improvements in their entire working package. Truman believed the unions gave workers the voice they needed to get the pay, the working conditions, the benefits package, and the fair working hours that they deserved.

How would you describe the city of Omelas?

Omelas is a Dystopian society masquerading as a Utopian society. Although Omelas only has one noticeable flaw, it is such an egregious flaw that the qualitative and quantitative happiness that the majority of the people experience is stained with an inexcusable sin. The people of Omelas can go on and on, pontificating about how the suffering of one justifies the wonderful happiness of all the others. But, this is a kind of bliss based on...

Omelas is a Dystopian society masquerading as a Utopian society. Although Omelas only has one noticeable flaw, it is such an egregious flaw that the qualitative and quantitative happiness that the majority of the people experience is stained with an inexcusable sin. The people of Omelas can go on and on, pontificating about how the suffering of one justifies the wonderful happiness of all the others. But, this is a kind of bliss based on ignorance and in this case ignorance does not mean without knowledge; it means that they knowingly "ignore" the suffering of that one, unfortunate child. 

They all know it is there, all the people of Omelas. Some of them have come to see it, others are content merely to know it is there. They all know that it has to be there. Some of them understand why, and some do not, but they all understand that their happiness, the beauty of their city, the tenderness of their friendships, the health of their children, the wisdom of their scholars, the skill of their makers, even the abundance of their harvest and the kindly weathers of their skies, depend wholly on this child's abominable misery. 

Some people choose to leave Omelas rather than live in a society who's happiness depends upon the suffering of one person. The "Ones Who Walk Away" might go to a less joyous place, but they do so for ethical reasons. They leave in protest of this child's suffering. Omelas is a city full of morally irresponsible citizens. Consider this story as an allegory for the richest people in America living it up while the poorest portion suffers. Consider it as a global allegory. Some industrialized countries thrive while some developing countries are faced with political, economic, and sociological struggle. In either allegory or scenario, those who thrive and choose to ignore the less fortunate are the people who would stay in Omelas. 

Why didn't Stanley Yelnats want to move around in his cot?

Stanley Yelnats, the main character in Holes by Louis Sachar, is sent to Camp Green Lake. The "camp" isn't really a camp at all, but a juvenile detention facility. It's not a very pleasant place. In fact, it's the worst, most uncomfortable place Stanley's ever been—right down to the cot he sleeps on.

On his first night at camp, Stanley is very uncomfortable in his cot. He doesn't want to move around in it for...

Stanley Yelnats, the main character in Holes by Louis Sachar, is sent to Camp Green Lake. The "camp" isn't really a camp at all, but a juvenile detention facility. It's not a very pleasant place. In fact, it's the worst, most uncomfortable place Stanley's ever been—right down to the cot he sleeps on.

On his first night at camp, Stanley is very uncomfortable in his cot. He doesn't want to move around in it for several reasons. Let's look at some of the things Stanley thinks about while lying on the cot, all of which come from Chapter 6.

First, Stanley describes his cot as "smelly and scratchy." Would you want to move around on a smelly, scratchy cot? Probably not. You'd probably prefer to stay really still so the cot didn't scratch you. You'd probably want to point your nose toward the ceiling and not move, to keep your nose as far away from the cot as possible so you wouldn't have to smell it quite as much.

There's another sentence that gives a third reason why Stanley doesn't want to keep moving around: "As Stanley tried to turn over in his cot, he was afraid it was going to collapse under all his weight." Stanley is described as heavyset in the book. In this sentence, it becomes clear that Stanley is afraid that moving his weight around might cause the cot to collapse—another unpleasant thing that poor Stanley would really like to avoid.

What is structural racism?

Structural racism is a form of structural or systematic violence which occurs when the structures of a society contribute to or encourage the oppression of a particular group of people. Most often when we talk about structural racism in the United States, we are referring to the elements of society like healthcare, education, and governmental powers which put people of color (PoC) at a disadvantage. 

Structural racism in the United States, and elsewhere, manifests in...

Structural racism is a form of structural or systematic violence which occurs when the structures of a society contribute to or encourage the oppression of a particular group of people. Most often when we talk about structural racism in the United States, we are referring to the elements of society like healthcare, education, and governmental powers which put people of color (PoC) at a disadvantage. 

Structural racism in the United States, and elsewhere, manifests in a number of ways. Some of the most evident forms are the high rate of arrests and convictions of people of color (especially young, black men) in situations that would likely not result in arrest or conviction for a white person. Education is an area where students suffer from the history of systemic racism and are trapped in reproducing it. For example, if a young student of color comes from a low-socioeconomic status, their parents may have to work several jobs to earn enough money to care for their family. Stress in the household contributes to stress for the child and makes it more difficult for them to learn. Additionally, they may not receive support in their education at home or be discouraged from extracurricular activities. It is a sad truth that the education of young people of color is still valued as less than and even discouraged when compared to the education of young white people. It is systems of oppression (whether explicit or implicit) like devaluation of the education of people of color that contributes to structural racism.

An emerging topic of study in the field of public health focuses on the was in which people embody their socioeconomic class, which is often tied to racial or ethnic identity. The embodiment of race, class, and ethnicity refers to the way the circumstances of our lives shape our physical bodies and health. Many people of low-socioeconomic status suffer from poor nutrition due to lack of access to food and/or lack of education regarding health. A lifetime of poor nutrition increases risk of heart disease, diabetes, and chronic illness. It also makes an individual less likely to perform well in school or at work, perpetuating the cycle of poverty and poor health.

What is some history that happened in The Outsiders?

The Outsiders, a young adult novel written by a sixteen-year-old in the 1960s, contains many references to the history and culture of her youth.

The Outsiders shows how 1960s teenagers broke away from the expectations of their parents’ generation. Removed from the hardships and deprivations of the Great Depression and World War Two, teenagers of the 1960s were more able to experiment with new fashion styles, types of music, and media.  In The Outsiders...

The Outsiders, a young adult novel written by a sixteen-year-old in the 1960s, contains many references to the history and culture of her youth.

The Outsiders shows how 1960s teenagers broke away from the expectations of their parents’ generation. Removed from the hardships and deprivations of the Great Depression and World War Two, teenagers of the 1960s were more able to experiment with new fashion styles, types of music, and media.  In The Outsiders, the Socs love the Beatles, while the greasers are fans of Elvis Presley. Both musical styles were often seen as deviant or immoral to the older generation. Additionally, while teenagers in the 1940s and 1950s mostly mimicked adult fashion styles, teenagers in the 1960s developed their own trends. The greasers, in particular, show extreme creative flair in their clothing by wearing beat-up leather jackets and gel in their hair. However, these changes were certainly not just surface-level differences in shoe styles and popular bands; instead, they reflected a wider rebellion against the values of the WWII generation. As the Mount Holyoke Historical Atlas says, 1960s teenagers rebelled against “authority, good work ethic, religion, marital fidelity, patriotism and, whatever the establishment represented.” In The Outsiders, we see the older generation’s growing concern over the rebellious actions of both the Socs and the greasers.

The Outsiders also reflects the technological innovations of the 1960s. Cars are an important part of the story. After WWII, automobile ownership skyrocketed, especially given that many people moved to the suburbs, where cars were necessary for daily life activities. Teenagers had increased access to cars, and they quickly became a status symbol.

While analyzing The Outsiders, one can also question what parts of 1960s history the book fails to represent. As you know from your History and Social Studies classes, the 1960s were a high point in the civil rights movement. Though The Outsiders takes place in Tulsa, Oklahoma in 1965, it contains no mentions of these events. The world of The Outsiders is concerned with class, not race. Additionally, The Outsiders does not mention the Vietnam War, a pivotal event for many teenagers of the 1960s.

Are Bill & Sam villains or not?

Bill and Sam were villains, their entire plot to kidnap the Dorset boy was aimed at funding another fraudulent venture in Western Illinois. The two men had raised six hundred dollars in funding but required an extra 2000 dollars to cover their cost for the venture. It was at that point that they had an idea to kidnap the Dorset boy in order to raise the amount.

Their initial research led them to believe that...

Bill and Sam were villains, their entire plot to kidnap the Dorset boy was aimed at funding another fraudulent venture in Western Illinois. The two men had raised six hundred dollars in funding but required an extra 2000 dollars to cover their cost for the venture. It was at that point that they had an idea to kidnap the Dorset boy in order to raise the amount.

Their initial research led them to believe that Mr. Dorset was capable of paying the amount because he was a prominent citizen and held a good job as a mortgage fancier. They kidnapped his son, the Red Chief. Little did they know that the boy was a menace, the Young Dorset terrorized Bill endlessly. The boy did this to a point that Bill conceded to botch the mission and hand over the child. However, at Sam’s insistence, he held on to the hope that they would make money out of their mission. Things did not go as planned, and the two kidnappers had to pay Mr. Dorset a sum of 250 dollars so he could take his son back.

'You know, Sam,' says Bill, 'I've stood by you without batting an eye in earthquakes, fire and flood--in poker games, dynamite outrages, police raids, train robberies and cyclones.

Bill and me had a joint capital of about six hundred dollars, and we needed just two thousand dollars more to pull off a fraudulent town-lot scheme in Western Illinois with.

Is Hamlet a noble hero?

If by a noble hero, we mean a warrior hero in the mold of Greek and Roman epics, then, no, Hamlet is not that kind of hero. Laertes fulfills that role, rushing heedlessly to fulfill the warrior code that demands a son avenge his father's death without a second thought. Hamlet, however, may stand tall as the first modern hero.

Hamlet has long been noted by critics for his interiority, meaning that he reflects on...

If by a noble hero, we mean a warrior hero in the mold of Greek and Roman epics, then, no, Hamlet is not that kind of hero. Laertes fulfills that role, rushing heedlessly to fulfill the warrior code that demands a son avenge his father's death without a second thought. Hamlet, however, may stand tall as the first modern hero.

Hamlet has long been noted by critics for his interiority, meaning that he reflects on and thinks long and hard about the implications of his father's death and about avenging it. He asks thoughtful and serious questions in his long soliloquies. He wonders if the ghost of his father really is his father or a trick played on him by the devil. He wishes he didn't have to kill his uncle. He has self-doubts, just as a modern person would. He toys with the idea of suicide in a world that seems to him to be wholly corrupt. He takes the time to try to confirm that the ghost is telling the truth rather than just mercilessly slaughtering a man who might be innocent. This is a modern, rather than "heroic" or "noble" mindset.

Critics have often condemned Hamlet as "indecisive." Why doesn't he simply kill Claudius and be done with it? But as Rene Girard notes in his book A Theater of Envy, Hamlet behaves reasonably and even heroically in rejecting a culture of mindless revenge based on the "warrior" or "noble" hero. As  Girard puts it:

Should our enormous critical literature on Hamlet someday fall into the hands of people otherwise ignorant of our mores, they could not fail to conclude that our academic tribe must have been a savage breed, indeed. After four centuries of controversies, Hamlet’s temporary reluctance to commit murder still looks so outlandish to us that more and more books are being written in an unsuccessful effort to solve the mystery. The only  way to account for this curious body of literature is to suppose that back in the 20th century no more was needed than the request of some ghost, and the average professor of literature would massacre his entire household without batting an eyelash.

We can admire Hamlet for being a new kind of hero.

How does Shakespeare present the idea of mortality in Act 5, scene 1 and how does this relate to Hamlet's character in the rest of the play?

Throughout the play, Hamlet has been meditating on death or mortality. Was his father's death murder or did he die a natural death? How should revenge take place? So far, most of Hamlet's thinking has been from the point of view of the afterlife. In his "to be or not to be" soliloquy, for example, his thoughts about suicide hinge on whether it will lead to oblivion--in other words whether he will melt away or evaporate like dew, which is what he would like--or if their actually is an  afterlife that might lead to hell. That fear of an afterlife keeps people from suicide, Hamlet thinks.

The afterlife is uppermost in his thoughts about killing Claudius as well: for example, he refrains from killing him while he is in prayer, because he doesn't want Claudius to go straight to heaven. 

In Act V, scene 1, Hamlet meditates on death from the point of view of how the dead are remembered by the living rather than from the perspective of the afterlife. He and Horatio stumble across a gravedigger digging a fresh grave, and Hamlet wonders, as he picks up a discarded skull, who it belonged to. The gravedigger tells him it's the skull of Yorick, the court jester. Hamlet remembers Yorick carrying him about on his back when he was a child and is shocked at the idea that Yorick now is reduced to this smelly skull. Hamlet thinks about death as the great leveller or equalizer of people ( a common trope of the Middle Ages and Renaissance)--and Hamlet muses that even someone like Alexander the Great is no more than dirt and dust now. 

Hamlet realizes in this scene that from the point of view of the living, we are all destined for the same fate, whether beggars or kings: to become a pile of bones that decay into dirt after a few short years. When he discovers the grave being dug is for Ophelia, and when the mourners arrive for her burial, he mocks their words and gestures of grief with his own hyperbole: they are not really going to do anything for her, no matter what their words: in reality her death means very little. 

All of these thoughts are in the mind of this most contemplative of men as he heads to the final confrontation with Claudius and Laertes. When he warns Laertes that there is something dangerous about him: "I have something in me dangerous,/Which let thy wisdom fear," he may be alluding to his lack of fear of death, for he knows we all end up as dust. 

In Night by Elie Wisel, what optimism does the Kahn family show?

In the opening chapter of his memoir NightElie Wiesel describes life in his small village of Sighet in Transylvania, Hungary during World War II. Although rumors of the Nazi cruelty to the Jews repeatedly surfaces in the town, most people remain optimistic. Reports that the Germans are losing the war and that Hungary will go untouched bolster the confidence of the villagers. This attitude wanes in the spring of 1944 with reports from Budapest...

In the opening chapter of his memoir Night Elie Wiesel describes life in his small village of Sighet in Transylvania, Hungary during World War II. Although rumors of the Nazi cruelty to the Jews repeatedly surfaces in the town, most people remain optimistic. Reports that the Germans are losing the war and that Hungary will go untouched bolster the confidence of the villagers. This attitude wanes in the spring of 1944 with reports from Budapest that Fascists have taken over the government and allowed German troops on Hungarian soil. Anti-semitic attacks plague the capital and when German troops arrive in Sighet "anguish" rules the day. 

At first the Germans are relatively benign and are even housed with Jewish families. They are undemanding and sometimes smile at the women. The Kahns are such a family and it is revealed that the German commander staying with them is "charming," "calm" and "likable." He even brings Mrs. Kahn a box of chocolates. Despite impending doom, the Jews are optimistic. Soon, the evacuations begin and the Jews of the town are dispersed to the concentration camps of Poland and Germany. 

Are the conditions given to the suitors in The Merchant of Venice harsh? How would you describe it?

Whether or not the conditions of the casket test are harsh is relative. Nowadays, if we were to hear about such a situation, if would seem extremely harsh. In the world of the play, though, where the merchants engage in so many high risk, high reward situations, this might seem just another risky business transaction, and not harsh or cruel at all. Indeed, that seems to be the way Bassanio views it. He needs to...

Whether or not the conditions of the casket test are harsh is relative. Nowadays, if we were to hear about such a situation, if would seem extremely harsh. In the world of the play, though, where the merchants engage in so many high risk, high reward situations, this might seem just another risky business transaction, and not harsh or cruel at all. Indeed, that seems to be the way Bassanio views it. He needs to secure a fortune and is willing to wager his future marriageability to do so. In speaking of Portia, Bassanio says,

"In Belmont there is a lady richly left,
[...]
And many Jasons come in quest of her" (1.1.168.179)

Bassanio is comparing the winning of Portia's hand to the mythical quest of Jason for the Golden Fleece. He shows that, to him, the risky test is a thrilling adventure, not a terrifying wager.

Another question, though, is whether or not the casket test is cruel or unfair to Portia. She certainly seems to think it is, framing it as a way for her father to control her marriage prospects from beyond the grave. Though a father arranging his daughter's marriage was not unheard of for the time, Portia's independent and self-sufficient personality makes it particularly unpleasant for her, and she lives in fear of an unsuitable suitor claiming her.

How did the idea of nationalism lead to nation building in Europe in the 19th Century?

Nationalism was the ideological driving force behind nation-building in the nineteenth century. A shared sense of identity with other "Germans" and "Italians," for example, helped to build popular support for the unification of these countries--Italy, as one European leader said, was nothing more than a "geographic expression" before the 1860s. (I focus here on these two nations because nation-building there served as an example for other nations). As early as the 1810s, nationalistic organizations like...

Nationalism was the ideological driving force behind nation-building in the nineteenth century. A shared sense of identity with other "Germans" and "Italians," for example, helped to build popular support for the unification of these countries--Italy, as one European leader said, was nothing more than a "geographic expression" before the 1860s. (I focus here on these two nations because nation-building there served as an example for other nations). As early as the 1810s, nationalistic organizations like Giuseppe Mazzini's "Young Italy" emerged, creating momentum for the formation of nation-states. As historian Benedict Anderson has shown, the spread of print media also facilitated nationalism by helping to create a shared culture, or an "imagined community" as Anderson called it. The actual mechanics of nation-building was carried out by statesmen such as Count Cavour in Italy and Otto von Bismarck in Germany, and the liberal ideals that often accompanied nationalistic sentiment in Europe were largely absent from the governments formed by these men. But nationalism played a pivotal role in mobilizing popular support for forming nation-states in Italy and Germany.

Explain as fully as you can the contrast between the last four lines of "The Lake Isle of Innisfree" and the rest of the poem. You should consider...

In all three stanzas, the speaker begins with the claim that he "will" or "shall" go to Innisfree, but it is only in the third stanza that he shifts to the present tense. He says "I hear the lake water" and "I standon the roadway." In the first two stanzas, the reader has the impression that the speaker does intend to physically go to Innisfree. He wants to escape to the natural world. (Yeats...

In all three stanzas, the speaker begins with the claim that he "will" or "shall" go to Innisfree, but it is only in the third stanza that he shifts to the present tense. He says "I hear the lake water" and "I stand on the roadway." In the first two stanzas, the reader has the impression that the speaker does intend to physically go to Innisfree. He wants to escape to the natural world. (Yeats was inspired by Henry David Thoreau's work Walden, in which Thoreau describes how he lived [relatively] alone in the forest for two years.) But in this last stanza, the present tense of the verb "hear" might imply that he is, in fact, there. However, in the next line, he says he is presently standing on a roadway, so he is still in an urban or city setting. When he says he hears the water, he is imagining it. So, in the last stanza, we might surmise that going to Innisfree is a mental escape. But since he does use the present tense of "hear" in the last stanza, he implies that, in his imagination, he has "arrived" there. 

The "pavements grey" is a hard, dull image. This contrasts with the more vibrant descriptions in the first two stanzas. In the first stanza, the speaker dreams of being surrounded by peaceful but vibrant life: bean-rows and bees. In the second stanza, he speaks of the glimmering night and the purple sky at noon. This is much more colorful than the grey pavement. The pavement is hard, unmovable, and lifeless. This clearly shows a contrast between the urban setting that he wishes to escape from and the more vibrant natural world of Innisfree. However, he is able to escape via his imagination, and this is the point. Going to Innisfree is, within the context of the poem, a conscious journey.

Who is the narrator in this story? What is the point of view? (First or third person)

The narrator in "The Scarlet Ibis" is the brother of William Armstrong, later called Doodle. This story is told from first person point of view because the brother narrates and uses "I" when he relates what occurs.

In "The Scarlet Ibis" by James Hurst, there is much that the reader learns about the brother because of his role as narrator. Certainly, he is quite different from Doodle: He is a healthy, able boy, and because...

The narrator in "The Scarlet Ibis" is the brother of William Armstrong, later called Doodle. This story is told from first person point of view because the brother narrates and uses "I" when he relates what occurs.

In "The Scarlet Ibis" by James Hurst, there is much that the reader learns about the brother because of his role as narrator. Certainly, he is quite different from Doodle: He is a healthy, able boy, and because Doodle is frail and cannot do normal activities, the narrator is embarrassed by him. Yet, he feels that by renaming Doodle, he was kind "because nobody expects much from someone called Doodle." However, as the narrator himself reveals, he really does expect things from Doodle: He wants Doodle to walk, to swim, to row a boat, even to run because, as he confesses, he is a "slave" to his pride.

Sadly, the narrator realizes that pride

...is a wonderful, terrible thing, a seed that bears two vines, life and death.

For, once he has taught Doodle to walk, he begins to believe in "my own infallibility." This belief becomes the narrator's tragic flaw because he demands too much of Doodle, and the weakened boy tries to keep up with his brother in a storm, but his fragile heart gives out. His "streak of cruelty" in making Doodle push himself has killed his brother.

Calculate the opportunity cost of additional capital of terms of fewer consumption goods at points A, B, C, and D Capital Goods: 0 10 20...

In economic terms, the opportunity cost of something is the value (or the amount) of things that you give up in order to have that thing.  In the scenario you present in this question, we can have capital goods or consumer goods.  If we want to have more consumer goods, we have to give up some capital goods.  When we get more consumer goods, our opportunity cost is the number of capital goods that we...

In economic terms, the opportunity cost of something is the value (or the amount) of things that you give up in order to have that thing.  In the scenario you present in this question, we can have capital goods or consumer goods.  If we want to have more consumer goods, we have to give up some capital goods.  When we get more consumer goods, our opportunity cost is the number of capital goods that we have to give up in order to get those additional consumer goods.

In order to find the exact opportunity costs of getting more capital goods, we have to use the numbers that you have given us.  When we move from having 0 units of capital goods to 10 units, we gain 10 units of capital goods but we lost 10 units of consumer goods.  Thus, our opportunity cost is one unit of consumption for each unit of capital goods.  When we move from 10 to 20 units of capital goods, we once again gain 10 units of capital goods, but this time we lose 20 units of consumer goods (we go from 90 to 70).  Now, our opportunity cost is 2 units of consumer goods for each new unit of capital goods.  When we move from 20 to 30 units of capital goods, we again gain 10 units of such goods, but we lose 30 units of consumption (we go from 70 to 40).  Now our opportunity cost is 3 units of consumer goods for every new unit of capital goods.  Finally, we gain 10 more units of capital goods when we go from 30 to 40 units, but this time we lose 40 units of consumer goods.  Here, our opportunity cost is 4 units of consumer goods for each unit of capital goods.  These are the opportunity costs of getting more capital goods, stated in terms of the amount of consumption that we have to forego in order to get those additional units of capital goods.

Why was Mr Jones drunk on the day of the animals' rebellion, and why didn't he care about the animals in Animal Farm?

We learn that Mr. Jones started drinking because he was depressed after losing money in a lawsuit. The heavy drinking led him to neglect the animals on his farm. He would "lounge in his Windsor chair" in the kitchen for whole days, reading newspapers and guzzling alcohol. His farm began falling to rack and ruin from neglect, and the animals often went hungry.

On the eve of rebellion, Mr. Jones, apparently still upset over his...

We learn that Mr. Jones started drinking because he was depressed after losing money in a lawsuit. The heavy drinking led him to neglect the animals on his farm. He would "lounge in his Windsor chair" in the kitchen for whole days, reading newspapers and guzzling alcohol. His farm began falling to rack and ruin from neglect, and the animals often went hungry.

On the eve of rebellion, Mr. Jones, apparently still upset over his lawsuit, had gotten so drunk at the Red Lion pub that he stayed out all night and didn't return until the middle of the next day. His farm hands failed to feed the hungry animals, and when Mr. Jones got home, he went to sleep on the sofa rather than check on the animals' welfare. By evening, the animals were still unfed. When the hungry beasts couldn't stand it any longer, they broke into the grain bins and started to eat. Mr. Jones and his men arrived with whips, but the animals rebelled. They butted and kicked, frightening the men, who fled the farm.

In the novel To Kill a Mockingbird, what are some quotes that show Jem losing his innocence?

At the beginning of Chapter 21, Jem has confidence that the jury will acquit Tom Robinson. He mentions to Reverend Sykes that there is no way the jury can convict Tom Robinson based on the contradicting testimonies and lack of evidence. Unfortunately, the prejudiced jury finds Tom Robinson guilty of assaulting and raping Mayella Ewell. Jem is devastated and begins to cry.

In Chapter 22, Jem repeatedly tells his father, "It ain't right." (Lee 284) Jem had witnessed racial injustice for the first time in his life and lost his childhood innocence after the guilty verdict was read. The next morning, Miss Maudie invites the children over to her house for some cake. Miss Maudie tells Jem not to fret and tries to explain that Atticus had a very rough job. Jem says,

"It's like bein' a caterpillar in a cocoon, that's what it is...Like somethin' asleep wrapped up in a warm place. I always thought Maycomb folks were the best folks in the world, least that's what they seemed like." (Lee 288)

Jem elaborates on his new perspective of Maycomb's community members. After witnessing their prejudiced beliefs in action, Jem becomes jaded about his neighbors. He is having difficulty understanding how caring, good-natured citizens can be so full of hate. 

In Chapter 23, Scout and Jem are having a conversation about why Aunt Alexandra will not let Scout play with Walter. Jem says, 

"I've got it all figured out, now. I've thought about it a lot lately and I've got it figured out. There's four kinds of folks in the world. There's the ordinary kind like us and the neighbors, there's the kind like the Cunninghams out in the woods, the kind like the Ewells down at the dump, and the Negroes." (Lee 302)

Jem is trying to explain to his younger sister the social class system of Maycomb. These are recent thoughts that have developed since he witnessed racial injustice during Tom's trial. Scout disagrees with Jem and says, "I think there's just one kind of folks. Folks." (Lee 304) Jem replies,

"That's what I thought, too...when I was your age. If there's just one kind of folks, why can't they get along with each other? If they're all alike, why do they go out of their way to despise each other? Scout, I think I'm beginning to understand something. I think I'm beginning to understand why Boo Radley's stayed shut up in the house all the time...it's because he wants to stay inside." (Lee 304)

Jem is still trying to make sense of why his neighbors treat each other with such contempt. Jem not only notices how white people treat black people terribly, but also notices the contempt between social classes. Unlike Jem, Scout is not jaded after losing her innocence and still maintains that humans are caring, equal individuals. Jem's loss of innocence has a profound effect on his perspective of the world and his community.

How did America develop its economy and place in the world as a new nation?

From the 1790s to the 1820s, American political leaders made several key decisions that laid the foundation for economic growth and hegemony in the Western Hemisphere. Under the Presidencies of George Washington and John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, creator and first Secretary of the Treasury, established a common currency and consolidated the debts of individual states into federal debt as part of the Bill of Assumption (1790). This legislation gave the executive branch the power to control...

From the 1790s to the 1820s, American political leaders made several key decisions that laid the foundation for economic growth and hegemony in the Western Hemisphere. Under the Presidencies of George Washington and John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, creator and first Secretary of the Treasury, established a common currency and consolidated the debts of individual states into federal debt as part of the Bill of Assumption (1790). This legislation gave the executive branch the power to control monetary policy. Staunch anti-federalists like Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr (who later killed Hamilton in a duel) saw this as a brazen power grab. After all, the legislative branch was supposed to have the "power of the purse," under Article I, section 8. Nevertheless, centralizing the country's debt and currency gave Hamilton and his Federalist allies leverage with which to forge trading alliances overseas.

In 1803, Thomas Jefferson acquired the vast Louisiana Territory from the debt-burdened French, thus creating a vast nation with unimaginable resources that spanned from coast to coast. Yet it was not until The War of 1812 that America successfully projected its strength and resilience to the world by repelling a second British invasion. In the aftermath of the war, Senator Henry Clay helped transform America's primarily agricultural economy into a more dynamic manufacturing economy through what he termed the "American System." By instituting higher tariffs (taxes on foreign goods) Clay and his senate colleagues encouraged domestic production and raised money to build a system of canals, waterways and roads that made for easier transport of raw materials and finished goods, further supporting domestic production and trade.

Finally, another early Federalist, James Monroe, was instrumental in articulating and establishing American power with the Monroe Doctrine (1823). This document defined the Western hemisphere as an American hemisphere, and prohibited other European nations from establishing new colonies in the hemisphere. By this time, the United States had a formidable navy with which to buttress these claims, and was on its way to becoming a major world power.

What causes the Earth to move?

For objects moving with constant velocity, nothing is "causing" the object to move - there is no absolute movement, it all depends on your reference frame.Now, if there is a change in the object's velocity (the Earth is orbiting the Sun, with its velocity is changing direction continuously), then by Newton's Second Law a force is acting upon it (the gravitational force from the Sun).Applying this to Earth...If you are standing still...

For objects moving with constant velocity, nothing is "causing" the object to move - there is no absolute movement, it all depends on your reference frame.

Now, if there is a change in the object's velocity (the Earth is orbiting the Sun, with its velocity is changing direction continuously), then by Newton's Second Law a force is acting upon it (the gravitational force from the Sun).

Applying this to Earth...
If you are standing still on Earth, then the Earth isn't moving relative to you (look at the ground to notice this). But if you're travelling in a car and you look at the ground through the window, you'll notice the Earth is moving relative to you (rotating, to be more precise). Which reference frame is correct? Neither! There is no preferred inertial reference frame, the physics looks the same in all of them.

Now, what I believe your question refers to is about the Earth's movement relative to the Sun.

The Earth's trajectory around the Sun is an ellipse, which in our case looks a lot like a circumference. The reason for this elliptical trajectory has to do with how gravity behaves. More precisely, the fact that the gravitational force is proportional to 1/r², where "r" is the distance to the source (in our case, the distance between the Sun and the Earth), is why we get this sort of trajectories (you can get other types of trajectories as well).

Adopting a reference frame in which the Earth is orbiting the Sun, if our star were to disappear all of sudden then the Earth would follow a straight line! There wouldn't be any source for the centripetal force responsible for the "circular" trajectory (ignoring the gravitational attraction from the other planets)! So, in this case, you can consider the Sun as the responsible for causing the Earth to move in an almost-circular trajectory, that is, with acceleration (change in velocity with time)!

What comment is Fitzgerald making about The American Dream in the 1920's through The Great Gatsby?

The original American Dream was the idea that one could work hard, stay focused and determined, and ultimately one could achieve the goal sought. Throughout The Great Gatsby, Fitzgerald shows how the original American Dream has died, replaced by a desire for massive wealth for wealth’s sake, and to use it for personal pleasure, ultimately leading to destruction. Money murders the American Dream by replacing long lasting hope with materialism and greed.

Gatsby himself stands as the prime example of this. In some ways, he personified the hero of the old American Dream. He worked hard toward a deep-seated goal: winning Daisy. He persevered and never lost hope, even when Daisy deserted him. He believed that if he could acquire wealth--by any means, legal or not--he would be able to have Daisy. To this end he worked with Meyer Wolfsheim, bought the gaudy mansion, threw lavish, opulent parties filled with people only looking for an immediate good time, and obsessed over Daisy, staring at the green light at the end of her dock. In the end, he is alone and pays the ultimate sacrifice for his version of the American Dream.

Fitzgerald portrays the new, warped American Dream in many other ways as well. The West Eggers are the recently wealthy, thought to be tacky, less fashionable, and not of as high a social class as the East Eggers. The West Eggers had recently achieved their money; the East Eggers were born into wealth.

Nevertheless, even those of the old-money upper class are not happy. Tom has affairs; he looks down on others because of their skin color or income; he has no real job or purpose. Daisy lives only for the moment, unable to see beyond her immediate need for gratification or to plan for any future. The upper class is shown to be selfish and merciless. Nick aptly sums Tom and Daisy up this way:

"They were careless people, Tom and Daisy - they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together and let other people clean up the mess they had made..."

At one point Gatsby himself sums up the charm in Daisy’s voice with this phrase, “Her voice is full of money.” Daisy does not have a genuine charm or attraction; she has the allure of vast wealth.

Even minor characters show the death of the original dream. George Wilson was a common person just trying to get ahead to move somewhere better than the Valley of Ashes. Myrtle aspired to be upper class. Both relied on Tom to help them: George by selling him a car, and Myrtle by being his mistress and, she hoped, his eventual wife. Both believed his lies and both died because of their dreams. The ability to get ahead by working hard died with George; the pursuit of wealth for happiness did not work for any characters: Gatsby, Myrtle, or even the myriad of guests at Gatsby’s parties.