I need quotes that show equality from the book To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee.

In Chapter 3, Jem invites Walter Cunningham Jr. to their house for supper. Scout makes fun of the way Walter eats his food and she is scolded. Scout replies, "Cal, he's just a Cunningham." Scout probably heard this reasoning from other people in town. Neither Atticus nor Cal would ever say "just a Cunningham." Cal explains that Scout should treat all of her company the same. " Don’t matter who they are, anybody sets foot...

In Chapter 3, Jem invites Walter Cunningham Jr. to their house for supper. Scout makes fun of the way Walter eats his food and she is scolded. Scout replies, "Cal, he's just a Cunningham." Scout probably heard this reasoning from other people in town. Neither Atticus nor Cal would ever say "just a Cunningham." Cal explains that Scout should treat all of her company the same. " Don’t matter who they are, anybody sets foot in this house’s yo‘ comp’ny, and don’t you let me catch you remarkin’ on their ways like you was so high and mighty!" Scout also is surprised to see Atticus talking to Walter Jr. as if they were equals. 

In Chapter 12, Cal takes Jem and Scout to her church, the First Purchase African M. E. With the exception of Lula, everyone else is cordial and welcoming. This might have something to do with Atticus being their father, but it also has to do with the Christian notion of the Golden Rule. And in this Christian spirit, race should not matter. When they are confronted by Lula who asks why she's brought white children to a black church, Cal responds "It's the same God, ain't it?" 

In a book rampant with inequality, perhaps the most enduring example of treating others with equality is Atticus himself. He is respectful with Walter Jr. at the dinner table. He takes Tom Robinson's case and defends him as well as he can, in spite of a racist jury. 

Also, note that Tom had been willing to help Mayella multiple times. In Chapter 19, Tom notes this when he's being questioned by Atticus. The point here is that Tom was willing to help her regardless of race or any still widely held social conventions discouraging a community between whites and blacks. Later in the same chapter, when Tom is being questioned by Mr. Gilmer, Tom says "I felt right sorry for her." This does not necessarily help Tom's case, but he was being honest. He feels sorry for Mayella and that's why he helps her. She certainly did not get any help from her father or her siblings. 

What are the differences between the triscupid and biscupid valves?

The bicuspid and tricuspid valves are anatomical features of the heart, and their primary purpose is to ensure one-way flow of blood by blocking re-entry into the atria once blood has left them heading toward the ventricles. 

The primary difference between them is their location and their structure. Both valves are situated between the atria and ventricles, but the bicuspid is located in the left atria, and the tricuspid on the right. The differences in...

The bicuspid and tricuspid valves are anatomical features of the heart, and their primary purpose is to ensure one-way flow of blood by blocking re-entry into the atria once blood has left them heading toward the ventricles. 

The primary difference between them is their location and their structure. Both valves are situated between the atria and ventricles, but the bicuspid is located in the left atria, and the tricuspid on the right. The differences in structure are indicated by their names; the "-cuspid" aspect indicates that the valves are physically composed of or incorporating cusps, which can best be described as tooth-like shapes that are broad at their base and narrow toward the tip. The bicuspid valve has two of these structures, and the tricuspid valve has three. 

The physiological reason behind having a two-cusp valve on one side and three on the other has to do with the pressure of the blood being pumped through them; the bicuspid valve is easier to open and therefore provides less resistance against the higher-pressure blood flowing through it, as compared to the tricuspid and right atrium.

When does Westerberg encounter McCandless again?

This question is not as straightforward as it appears.  The reason for that is because Chris McCandless and Wayne Westerberg interact with each other on more than two occasions.  So I can't know exactly which "again" that the question is referring to.  I am going to assume that the "again" is referring to the second time that Westerberg and McCandless see each other.  

Wayne Westerberg owned a grain elevator in Carthage, South Dakota, but...

This question is not as straightforward as it appears.  The reason for that is because Chris McCandless and Wayne Westerberg interact with each other on more than two occasions.  So I can't know exactly which "again" that the question is referring to.  I am going to assume that the "again" is referring to the second time that Westerberg and McCandless see each other.  

Wayne Westerberg owned a grain elevator in Carthage, South Dakota, but every summer he operated a custom combine.  He would follow the harvest north from Texas all the way to the Canadian border.  

In the early fall of 1990, he was wrapping up the season and preparing to return to Carthage.  On September 10, in northern Montana, Westerberg picked up a hitchhiker.  That hitchhiker was none other than Chris "Supertramp" McCandless.  

The two of them drove together into a small town, had a beer together, and chatted for a bit.  McCandless told Westerberg that he was heading for a place several hundred miles down the highway.  Westerberg told him that he could take him part of the way.  When it was time to drop McCandless off, it was raining hard, and Westerberg felt guilty.  Westerberg offered to shelter McCandless for the night, and McCandless agreed.  McCandless ended up staying with Westerberg for three days.  At the end of the three days, McCandless said that he was moving on.  Westerberg told McCandless that he owned a grain elevator in South Dakota and that he would give him work if he ever showed up in Carthage.  

To Westerberg's surprise, McCandless showed up a couple of weeks later.  That, I believe, is the "when" that your question is referring to.  

“Was only a couple of weeks that went by before Alex showed up in town,” Westerberg remembers. He gave McCandless employment at the grain elevator and rented him a cheap room in one of the two houses he owned.

In Robert Frost's "The Mending Wall," are the two characters actually friends even though they rebuild the wall between them? Are there positive...

There are positive and negative aspects to the wall and this adds to the complicated notion of the relationship between the two neighbors. Every spring, the two neighbors meet in order to repair the wall. On one hand, the fact that they continue to mend and sustain a wall between them suggests that they want to remain separate, that they would not think of sharing the borderland, and that therefore, they are not on friendly...

There are positive and negative aspects to the wall and this adds to the complicated notion of the relationship between the two neighbors. Every spring, the two neighbors meet in order to repair the wall. On one hand, the fact that they continue to mend and sustain a wall between them suggests that they want to remain separate, that they would not think of sharing the borderland, and that therefore, they are not on friendly terms. On the other hand, they are willing to meet every spring. The narrator says it is "just another kind of outdoor game." The notion of it being a kind of "game" shows that they do not rebuild the wall out of mutual hate. Rather, they seem to treat it like a mutual play, something they might even enjoy. 

The narrator asks why fences make good neighbors. The poem provokes thoughts on both sides. The wall separates the two men, but the annual rebuilding brings them together. In effect, the wall itself is what brings the men together each year. It separates and brings them together. The poem is complicated and presents the wall in this paradoxical way. Does it prevent friendship? Does it annually mend the possibility of friendship? Does it simply sustain a cordiality between two men who are simply not suited to be friends? 

There is no direct evidence to suggest the two men are friends, but they might be. The speaker's comment about their differing orchards might also be a comment on the two men themselves. "He is all pine and I am apple orchard." This suggests that the men are quite different. So, the wall is just a necessary boundary between two different orchards and two very different men. There are no logical or ethical reasons to force these two men to be friends and/or share the land. 

The title "mending" is open to different interpretations as well. Perhaps they were friends and this annual rebuilding is a symbolic gesture of rebuilding that previous friendship. Again, there is no direct evidence for this. It is just a hypothesis. Even if they are not friends, the annual mending of the wall presents the opportunity to be "friendly" even if it is just once a year. In this respect, they are (functionally speaking) friends once a year for the limited time it takes to mend the wall. 

How is George resentful of Lennie? What does George wish he could do?

If Lennie were a child George could look forward to having him grow up and take care of himself. But Lennie is an adult with a child's mind. He seems destined to become a permanent responsibility and burden. As illustrated in the Weed incident, Lennie is creating more problems for George than had been the case before. It is evident in Chapter One that George is becoming wearied and bewildered by his burden. In an...

If Lennie were a child George could look forward to having him grow up and take care of himself. But Lennie is an adult with a child's mind. He seems destined to become a permanent responsibility and burden. As illustrated in the Weed incident, Lennie is creating more problems for George than had been the case before. It is evident in Chapter One that George is becoming wearied and bewildered by his burden. In an angry outburst at the campsite he tells Lennie:

God a'mighty, if I was alone I could live so easy. I could go get a job an' work, an' no trouble. No mess at all, and when the end of the month come I could take my fifty bucks and go into town and get whatever I want. Why, I could stay in a cat house all night. I could eat any place I want, hotel or any place, and order any damn thing I could think of. An' I could do all that every damn month. Get a gallon of whisky, or set in a poolroom and play cards or shoot pool....An' whatta I got,...I got you! You can't keep a job and you lose me ever' job I get. Jus' keep me shovin' all over the country all the time. An' that ain't the worst. You get in trouble. You do bad things and I got to get you out."

On the other hand, George is used to having Lennie with him. George may realize that he wouldn't really like being alone. He sees that most itinerant agricultural workers are loners and that they are not to be envied. The sort of life he describes in his angry tirade is a dead-end life. He would be working hard all month and then blowing all his money on cheap whiskey and other specious pleasures. Furthermore, he realizes that Lennie is good-hearted and loyal. When Lennie offers to go away and live in a cave, George regrets his outburst. Obviously he has a severe internal conflict regarding Lennie. He would like to be free, but he doesn't want to be alone. Besides, the two men share a dream of attaining freedom and independence by owning a little subsistence farm. He never resolves that conflict by himself, but he is forced to resolve it when Lennie kills Curley's wife in the barn and then flees the scene. 

What are the reasons why new conservatism rose to prominence in the US between 1960-1989?

If I were asked to name four reasons why conservatism rose to prominence in the time period you mention, I would list the Civil Rights Movement, the Vietnam War, the Great Society, and the Counterculture.  These can all be boiled down to one reason as well:  we can say that conservativism rose to prominence because many Americans felt that the US had moved too far towards liberalism.  All four of the factors I mentioned were part of this move to the left.

The Civil Rights Movement helped move America towards conservatism by awakening racial resentment among whites in the South.  Beginning with this movement, many whites have come to feel that liberals favor non-whites over whites.  The move towards conservatism is partly a move away from liberalism since many whites now feel that liberals are anti-white.

The Vietnam War helped move America towards conservatism because of the protests that it provoked. During the Vietnam War era, liberals were very anti-war.  Some liberals even seemed to be anti-America.  Many Americans who might once have been liberal or moderate were appalled by the attitudes of some anti-war activists.  They moved towards conservatism and its overtly patriotic attitudes.

The Great Society helped move America towards conservatism because it spent tremendous amounts of money trying to fix things that many Americans did not regard as problems.  Once the Great Society programs were enacted, the government was spending on (among other things) anti-poverty programs, on environmental protection, on consumer protection, and on the arts.  Now, the government was taking taxpayer money and spending it on things that did not seem important to many people or, at the very least, did not seem like things that the government should be responsible for.  Because of this, many Americans moved towards conservatism and its promise of smaller government and lower taxes.

Finally, the Counterculture helped move America towards conservatism because it seemed like traditional values were being completely thrown away.  Many Americans were horrified by the “sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll” focus of the hippies.  They felt that American society was turning its back on traditional morality and decency.  They gravitated towards conservatism with its greater respect for authority.

In all four of these instances, we see America becoming much more liberal in the 1960s.  As the country moved more towards the left, a backlash emerged among people who thought things had gone too far.  This backlash caused conservatism to rise to prominence during this time.

As the bourgeoisie grew in power, what happened to the other old feudal classes like the aristocracy and the peasants?

The rise of the bourgeoisie, otherwise known as the merchant class or middle class, created a third socio-economic stratum within European societies, which complicated the political landscape and put further pressure on the aristocracy. In France and England, the merchant classes grew out of the pool of skilled laborers (artisans) and shopkeepers, who in most cases had come from peasant families at some point along the way. For the peasant class, who were still mostly struggling to subsist, the emergence of the bourgeoisie was notable mostly because the richest of the merchants pressed for direct political representation in parliaments, such as the House of Commons in England. Although peasants did not generally (or at least initially) gain seats in the lower houses of parliament, they rightly saw that those "lower houses" could act as a counterweight to the "upper chambers," which were dominated by members of the aristocracy.

So while the interests of peasants and merchants did not always line up, peasants did benefit indirectly by the policies of economic liberalization that the lower houses of parliaments advocated. In England, for instance, the House of Commons initiated reforms that allowed peasants the right to have their animals graze on underutilized land belonging to local aristocracy, which became known as "commons." Peasants could also grow crops on these common lands, as they were known, without having to give all of the fruits of their labor to the aristocrats whose land they farmed. Other reforms to the legal system (such as curbs on debtor’s prisons) gave peasants and workers more rights, and made them less subject to the whim of local aristocrats. As a result, peasants in England fared much better than did those in France, where such land and legal reforms were not enacted proactively. In fact, the lack of progress on these points contributed the conditions that made the French Revolution possible.

In this way and in others, the impact of the rise of the bourgeoisie on the aristocracy was less positive. Many aristocratic families had become impoverished or "land rich, cash poor," as a result of mismanaging their estates and spending lavishly without thought to balancing their books. As a result, in many western European countries, to pay off their debts or simply to gain wealth, many noblemen and noblewomen began to marry the sons and daughters of the merchant class. In this way, the merchants got the nobility they wanted, while the aristocrats gained the cash infusions that they needed in order to stay afloat. In France, the government actually began to sell titles of nobility to rich merchants in order to shore up state finances. Acts such as these further undermined the prestige of the aristocracy, and laid bare the lie that aristocrats were inherently superior to those born of “common birth.”

All in all, the rise of a non-titled, independently wealthy class of men and women (the bourgeoisie) undercut the power and clout of aristocrats, who had to cede political and economic power to the bourgeoisie either through political reforms or violent revolution. Factory workers and servants (who had previously been peasants) became more willing to speak up for themselves and to advocate for increased political representation, largely because they had seen the merchants do so, and were emboldened by their example.

Is Odysseus a good leader?

When answering this question, it is vital that the reader look to both the Iliad and the Odyssey to determine whether Odysseus meets the criteria of a good leader. First, let us examine his role in ending the siege of Troy and ensuring victory for the Greeks. When all of the invading Greeks have given up hope after the almost ten year long stalemate at the gates of Troy, and after many of his fellow leaders have died (Achilles, Ajax, et all) Odysseus formulates a plan using cunning and subterfuge to penetrate the gates of Troy by hiding himself and other Greeks in the faux gift of the Trojan horse.

The plan requires stealth and creativity, and it also requires Odysseus to convince his comrades that such a ruse could possibly work, when many are skeptical. Of course, the plan does work and leads to the fall of Troy. Without a doubt, this victory proves Odysseus' leadership skills in battle. He gets his men to trust and follow him, using persuasive rhetoric and by appealing to his men's patriotism and desire to get home. These are the hallmarks of a great leader.

Yet in the Odyssey, Odysseus certainly makes some questionable decisions, and all of his countrymen eventually die on that voyage. That said, the voyage home is plagued by the wrath of Poseidon, Aphrodite and other gods who oppose the Greeks and hate Odysseus for sacking Troy. Poseidon controls the seas on which Odysseus and his men travel, and it is debatable whether another leader could have steered his men home safely. They are all so tired from the Trojan War and face such obstacles that their deaths are less an indictment of Odysseus's leadership than a demonstration of Odysseus’ remarkable skill as a survivalist, and the strength of his guardian, Athena.

To examine Odysseus' skills as a leader during his voyage home, one can look to the Island of the Lotus Eaters, where Odysseus's scouts could have been stranded forever, hooked on the narcotic that delays so many there forever. Instead, Odysseus manages to find his men and take them away from the island by force so that they do not become captives to their own sloth, forget their homes and families, and succumb to addiction. Odysseus again displays his creative leadership when he forces his men to fill their ears with wax as they travel by the Sirens, whose sweet songs have shipwrecked thousands of men on the sharp rocks nearby. 

Yet the perils of the ocean and the wrath of gods set against him are too great. Odysseus manages to outsmart the Cyclops, Polythemus, who kills many of his men and enslaves Odysseus for a time. He manages to navigate his ship between the sea monsters, Scylla (the hydra-headed leviathan) and Charybdis (the whirling vortex), and even though many of his men die, others survive because of Odysseus' bravery and unwillingness to succumb to despair.

Odysseus' remaining countrymen die because they fail to heed the warnings of Tiresias and Circe, who tell them not to eat the cattle on the Island of Helios. Odysseus himself does not eat the cattle, and thus survives. Again and again, Odysseus tries to instill in his men the same stoicism and self-control that he possesses, but they are not able to do so. For that reason, it is difficult to lay the blame for their deaths on Odysseus' lack of leadership. If anything, his men might have perished much sooner without his problem solving skills and ability to find inspiration and hope when hope seems like madness.

What major question is never answered in "The Cask of Amontillado"? (Look back to the beginning the story)

One major question that is never answered is whether or not Montrestor considers himself to have successfully exacted revenge on his nemesis, Fortunato.  He claims that revenge is incomplete unless it can be accomplished in a way that does not result in punishment for the avenger.  "A wrong is unredressed," he says, "when retribution overtakes its redresser."  He feels that it is not true revenge if the avenger is caught or otherwise punished because then...

One major question that is never answered is whether or not Montrestor considers himself to have successfully exacted revenge on his nemesis, Fortunato.  He claims that revenge is incomplete unless it can be accomplished in a way that does not result in punishment for the avenger.  "A wrong is unredressed," he says, "when retribution overtakes its redresser."  He feels that it is not true revenge if the avenger is caught or otherwise punished because then it's like he has been wronged twice by the one who he seeks to punish.  

By the end of the story, Montresor's success is somewhat ambiguous.  If he feels guilty for the murder of Fortunato and has been allowing it to weigh on his conscience for the past fifty years (he says it has been "half a century" since the events in the story took place), then he has not achieved real revenge because he has been punished by his own guilty conscience.  If, however, he has not really been feeling guilty for the murder, then he has achieved revenge because no punishment has been inflicted upon him.  Whether or not Montresor feels guilty about his action is uncertain, and so whether or not he's truly been successful in achieving his revenge is likewise unclear.

How does Shakespeare portray Macbeth as a hero or a tragic hero?

In light of all the terrible acts Macbeth commits during the play, it's easy to forget that he is actually a tragic hero. Indeed, before he begins murdering his way to the throne of Scotland, Macbeth is a widely respected and admired warrior renowned for his bravery in battle. For an example of this heroism, take a look at this speech from a sergeant in the Scottish army during Act 1, Scene 2:

For brave...

In light of all the terrible acts Macbeth commits during the play, it's easy to forget that he is actually a tragic hero. Indeed, before he begins murdering his way to the throne of Scotland, Macbeth is a widely respected and admired warrior renowned for his bravery in battle. For an example of this heroism, take a look at this speech from a sergeant in the Scottish army during Act 1, Scene 2:

For brave Macbeth—well he deserves that name—
Disdaining fortune, with his brandish'd steel,
Which smoked with bloody execution,
Like valor's minion carved out his passage
Till he faced the slave,
Which ne'er shook hands, nor bade farewell to him,
Till he unseam'd him from the nave to the chaps,
And fix'd his head upon our battlements. (18-25)

In this excerpt, the sergeant recounts Macbeth's prowess on the battlefield, focusing especially on Macbeth's battle with and defeat of the rebel Macdonwald. Based on this testimony, it's plain that Macbeth begins the play as an honorable hero worthy of the admiration that he receives. Shakespeare's portrayal of him as a tragic hero, therefore, relies on the disintegration of Macbeth's character throughout the course of the rest of the play. Indeed, by the time Macduff kills Macbeth, we've forgotten that the Scottish king was ever considered a hero, as his evil acts have entirely eclipsed his former bravery. It's this fact that truly makes Macbeth a true tragic hero. 

The past decade has seen a decline in prices of smartphones. At the same time, the use of paid smartphone applications as a new entertainment tool...

This question is about determinants of supply and demand and about the way in which changes in supply and demand change the equilibrium price and quantity in a market.

Because the price of smartphones has dropped, the demand for apps will have gone up.  This is because smartphones and apps are complementary goods.  That is, the two of them are used together.  If the price of phones drops, more people will buy phones and will...

This question is about determinants of supply and demand and about the way in which changes in supply and demand change the equilibrium price and quantity in a market.

Because the price of smartphones has dropped, the demand for apps will have gone up.  This is because smartphones and apps are complementary goods.  That is, the two of them are used together.  If the price of phones drops, more people will buy phones and will therefore want apps.  The demand for apps will rise.  (We can also see a rise in demand from the simple fact that, according to your question, the use of apps has grown rapidly.)

The other factor that affects the market here is the fact that more app developers are entering the industry.  This means that the supply of apps will go up.  One thing that can change supply is the number of producers.  When more developers enter the market, there are more people producing apps.  When more people produce apps, supply increases.

So what does this do to the market for apps?  The answer is that we are not sure.  We know that the quantity of apps will increase, but we do not know about the price.  When demand increases, the quantity bought and sold goes up.  When supply increases, the same thing happens.  Thus, the changes in supply and demand will both push the quantity up, so the result is clear.  However, when demand increases, price increases but when supply increases, the price drops.  That means that our two factors are pulling in opposite directions.  We cannot know what will happen to the price of apps because we do not know if the increase in supply will outweigh the increase in demand or vice versa.

According to Guns, Germs, and Steel, why did human development proceed at different rates on different continents?

The question that you ask here is actually the central question of Guns, Germs, and Steel.  This exact question can be found on p. 16 of the book.  The brief answer is that human development proceeded at different rates on different continents because of the different amounts of geographical luck that each continent had.

In this book, Diamond is trying to reject the idea that human development went at different rates because the people...

The question that you ask here is actually the central question of Guns, Germs, and Steel.  This exact question can be found on p. 16 of the book.  The brief answer is that human development proceeded at different rates on different continents because of the different amounts of geographical luck that each continent had.

In this book, Diamond is trying to reject the idea that human development went at different rates because the people of the continents are inherently different.  He says that there is no difference in intelligence between the people whose societies developed and those who did not.  He says that it is wrong to argue that some continents’ cultures were better suited to development than others.  In other words, we cannot blame the people whose societies did not develop for the fact that they failed to develop.

Instead, Diamond says, development was a matter of geographical luck.  Diamond says that development proceeded rapidly in places where agriculture began early and where it could flourish.  Places that had agriculture were able to create densely populated societies that could then create the technology that allowed them to get ahead in the world.  (These places also created good environments for infectious diseases to develop, thus creating the “germs” mentioned in the title.)  Some places got agriculture earlier than others, Diamond says, because they were luckier.  They happened to have more plants and animals that could be domesticated easily.  They happened to have geography that allowed agriculture and technology to diffuse easily from one place to another.  These factors, which they could not control, were the factors that allowed them to thrive where other societies did not.

Thus, Diamond argues in Guns, Germs, and Steel that human development proceeded at different paces in different places because some places had better geographic luck and were, therefore, able to develop agriculture and “civilization” more quickly than others.

What is the theme of "The Cask of Amontillado," and why?

The theme of "The Cask of Amontillado" is the execution of a perfect crime. The whole story is taken up with Montresor's description of how he did it, not why he did it. It might be called a "howdunit" rather than a "whodunit." Poe makes this clear at the outset because he glosses over Montresor's motive with a single sentence:

THE THOUSAND INJURIES of Fortunato I had borne as I best could, but when he ventured upon insult I vowed revenge.

That is all in the past. The story is concerned only with the present. This makes it easy to visualize, almost as if it were a motion picture. The other important sentence in the opening is:

At length I would be avenged; this was a point definitely settled—but the very definitiveness with which it was resolved precluded the idea of risk.

The motive and the decision to be avenged are both "settled." What remains is to carry out the murder. This is a very adroit way of handling the story. Poe only needs to focus on one problem, which is the logistical one of luring Fortunato to his palazzo and down into his catacombs. The reader is not distracted by other considerations. The story has immediacy. Something could go wrong. Fortunato could start asking questions or balking at being led so far. Montresor has enough problems in the immediate present without needing to deal with whatever must have happened in the past.

The story ends almost as soon as Montresor finishes building his stone wall. Fifty years have passed since he completed it, but he does not say anything about what he has been doing for an entire half-century. Poe whisks the story to a conclusion with just a few words:

Against the new masonry I re-erected the old rampart of bones. For the half of a century no mortal has disturbed them. In pace requiescat!

So the past is disposed of quickly and the future—what happened after he finished building the wall—is disposed of equally quickly. Poe focuses on the little time period between the men's encounter on the street and the completion of the "immolation." Virtually everything takes place in the "present," and virtually everything can be told in description and dialogue, as in a play or movie.

The theme, of course, is revenge, but the story is concerned only with the execution of that revenge. Poe hardly even touches on Montresor's feelings about Fortunato and says virtually nothing about their relationship. This is strongly suggestive of what Ernest Hemingway was to say about his "iceberg principle" many years later.

If a writer of prose knows enough of what he is writing about he may omit things that he knows and the reader, if the writer is writing truly enough, will have a feeling of those things as strongly as though the writer had stated them. The dignity of movement of an ice-berg is due to only one-eighth of it being above water. A writer who omits things because he does not know them only makes hollow places in his writing.

—Ernest Hemingway, Death in the Afternoon

Where was Manzanar located? |

The site of the Manzanar War Relocation Center (a camp where Americans of Japanese descent from the West Coast were interned during WWII) is in the Owens Valley in California.  This is a valley between Sequoia National Park and Death Valley National Park, in the eastern part of California not far from the Nevada border.  The camp is roughly due east of Fresno and is about 230 miles northeast of Los Angeles.

The Owens Valley...

The site of the Manzanar War Relocation Center (a camp where Americans of Japanese descent from the West Coast were interned during WWII) is in the Owens Valley in California.  This is a valley between Sequoia National Park and Death Valley National Park, in the eastern part of California not far from the Nevada border.  The camp is roughly due east of Fresno and is about 230 miles northeast of Los Angeles.

The Owens Valley is very sparsely populated.  In the early 1900s, it was a thriving agricultural center (“Manzanar” means “apple orchard” in Spanish).  However, agriculture in the valley soon died out as the city of Los Angeles started buying up the rights to the water in the valley.  The city bought the rights so as to be able to run an aqueduct to bring the water to the city.  Because of this, the valley lost most of its population.  The remote location of the valley made it seem like an ideal place to house Americans of Japanese descent during the war since many Americans wanted them to be in out-of-the-way places where they could not possibly harm the war effort by providing help to Japan.

You can find directions to the site of the camp at this link.

At a high school Algebra 2 level how do you solve x^2+4x +3 step by step?

We are asked to "solve" x^2+4x+3:

In the typical Algebra assignment you are asked to either evaluate an expression, simplify and expression, or solve an equation. Each of these, while related, involve a different approach.

We could evaluate x^2+4x+3 for a given value of x; say if x=3 then the expression has the value 3^2+4(3)+3=24.

If we are asked to simplify an expression, we strive to remove grouping symbols (parantheses, brackets, etc...) and then add/subtract...

We are asked to "solve" x^2+4x+3:

In the typical Algebra assignment you are asked to either evaluate an expression, simplify and expression, or solve an equation. Each of these, while related, involve a different approach.

We could evaluate x^2+4x+3 for a given value of x; say if x=3 then the expression has the value 3^2+4(3)+3=24.

If we are asked to simplify an expression, we strive to remove grouping symbols (parantheses, brackets, etc...) and then add/subtract like terms.

Here we are asked to "solve" x^2+4x+3. It is implied that we are to solve the general equation x^2+4x+3=0.

(a) You can factor the polynomial:

(x+3)(x+1)=0  

** One method is to rewrite the linear term as the sum of two terms where the product of the coefficients is the constant term: x^2+3x+1x+3; then factor by grouping: x(x+3)+1(x+3); use the distributive property to rewrite as (x+3)(x+1)=0 **

Now use the zero product property (if ab=0 then a=0, b=0, or a=b=0) to get:

x+3=0 ==> x=-3   x+1=0 ==> x=-1

So the solutions are x=-1 or -3

(b) You could complete the square:

x^2+4x=-3
x^2+4x+4=-3+4
(x+2)^2=1

x+2=1 or x+2=-1 

x=-1 or x=-3

(c) You could use the quadratic formula

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The solutions are x=-1 or x=-3

In Animal Farm, who are happier, selfish or unselfish people?

Since Animal Farm focuses primarily on animals as proxies for people, I am going to assume you mean both animals and people when you ask about selfishness. Answering this question also means defining happiness. What makes us happy? Having material goods and power for ourselves or living with integrity and having strong relationships? I would say Orwell says both are necessary, but that he puts much more emphasis on integrity and relationships (unselfishness). Thus, the...

Since Animal Farm focuses primarily on animals as proxies for people, I am going to assume you mean both animals and people when you ask about selfishness. Answering this question also means defining happiness. What makes us happy? Having material goods and power for ourselves or living with integrity and having strong relationships? I would say Orwell says both are necessary, but that he puts much more emphasis on integrity and relationships (unselfishness). Thus, the happiest characters are those who stay true to their natures and loyal to their friends. These are the unselfish animals, unselfish because they are willing to put their own safety and pleasure on the line for others. Snowball, who fights so bravely in the Battle of the Cowshed, would fall into this category, as would Boxer and Clover, who work endlessly and tirelessly for the community. Even Benjamin, who doesn't support the revolt and doesn't think life will get better, remains devoted and loyal to Boxer, coming to tend to him when he, Boxer, gets old, even after Benjamin has worked long days. These animals don't have much materially, and Orwell condemns that, but in the end they have, ironically, their "humanity" (or animalism), a quality of integrity that can't be corrupted and that cares for others. Orwell strongly sympathizes with these animals. These are the characters we love and care about and for whom our hearts break when they are betrayed. 

What kind of king was Ozymandias?

The traveler describes the ruins of a once great statue. The shattered face ("visage") of the statue is that of Ozymandias, also known as Ramses II. The face of the ruler is frowning, with a "wrinkled lip" and "sneer of cold command." The traveler notes that the sculptor understood the ruler's passions well. In other words, the sculptor knew how self-aggrandizing Ozymandias was in life. Therefore, the sculptor mocked him with the sneer. The sculptor...

The traveler describes the ruins of a once great statue. The shattered face ("visage") of the statue is that of Ozymandias, also known as Ramses II. The face of the ruler is frowning, with a "wrinkled lip" and "sneer of cold command." The traveler notes that the sculptor understood the ruler's passions well. In other words, the sculptor knew how self-aggrandizing Ozymandias was in life. Therefore, the sculptor mocked him with the sneer. The sculptor endeavored to portray Ozymandias as a tyrant. The wrinkled lip suggests that Ozymandias was condescending. The sneer of cold command suggests he was an unsympathetic ruler.

The message on the statue shows that Ozymandias wanted everyone in his lifetime and in subsequent eras to marvel at the statue and thereby marvel as his greatness. "Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" Ozymandias was clearly a vain king, primarily concerned with solidifying his greatness in the minds of all who might come across his monument. The irony is that the statue became a ruin. Just as the monument has withered and eroded with time, so has Ozymandias' power to intimidate.

What is one example of irony used in Chapter Four of The Outsiders?

In Chapter Four of The Outsiders, Ponyboy and Johnny are ambushed by a group of Socs. Because Ponyboy is without a weapon, he quickly is beat down in the fight; when he awakens from his unconscious state, he discovers that Johnny has killed one of the Socs. With the help of Dally, Ponyboy and Johnny make their escape, hopping on a train to Windrixville and hiding out in an abandoned church. 

Ponyboy claims about this journey: "This is the country, I thought half asleep. My dream's come true and I'm in the country." 

This is ultimately ironic because Ponyboy's fantasy about living in the country always involved him living a more peaceful life; now that he has finally ended up in the country, he is there as a result of extreme disruption and to hide from the police. The environment is right, and the circumstances are all wrong. 

Summarize "The Death of the Moth" by Virginia Woolf.

In this essay, Woolf sees a moth at her window on a pleasant mid-September day. The moth, full of energy, flies back and forth across the window pane. Woolf finds her attention caught by the moth's movement. The moth seems both pathetic to Woolf, because its area of activity is confined to a window pane, and yet at the same time marvelous:

It was as if someone had taken a tiny bead of pure life...

In this essay, Woolf sees a moth at her window on a pleasant mid-September day. The moth, full of energy, flies back and forth across the window pane. Woolf finds her attention caught by the moth's movement. The moth seems both pathetic to Woolf, because its area of activity is confined to a window pane, and yet at the same time marvelous:

It was as if someone had taken a tiny bead of pure life and decking it as lightly as possible with down and feathers, had set it dancing and zig-zagging to show us the true nature of life.

The moth eventually settles down quietly on the window sill. But when Woolf looks at it again, it is on its back, its feet waving in the air. It's dying, but Woolf nevertheless marvels at the valiant effort it makes to hang on to life:

this gigantic effort on the part of an insignificant little moth

The moth dies and Woolf finds his death as strange as his monumental struggle for life:

Just as life had been strange a few minutes before, so death was now as strange.

The essay is pure Woolf, showing how much attention she paid to the smallest details of everyday life. The moth becomes a symbol for all of our urgency to live to the fullest, no matter how insignificant our lives. Its death at the end shows that we all will die:

O yes, he seemed to say, death is stronger than I am.

What is the interior monologue of Eveline in "Eveline" by James Joyce?

Although "Eveline" is written in third-person, James Joyce employs a technique known as free-indirect discourse, which allows the narrator to channel the title character's thoughts and emotions. Joyce employs this technique throughout Dubliners.

In "Eveline," the title character is struggling with her decision to leave her father in Dublin so she can run off with Frank, a sailor who has promised to marry her and move her to his home in Argentina. However, Eveline...

Although "Eveline" is written in third-person, James Joyce employs a technique known as free-indirect discourse, which allows the narrator to channel the title character's thoughts and emotions. Joyce employs this technique throughout Dubliners.

In "Eveline," the title character is struggling with her decision to leave her father in Dublin so she can run off with Frank, a sailor who has promised to marry her and move her to his home in Argentina. However, Eveline is duty bound to her father and paralyzed by her mother's final words to her, which roughly translated from their Gaelic, are "at the end of pleasure is pain." So, it's with these in mind that Joyce taps into the internal monologue that Eveline experiences. 

The entire story consists of two settings. The first setting is where this interior monologue occurs as Eveline is sitting at her window "watching the evening invade the avenue." She sits pondering her life in Dublin, from her childhood, to her home and whether or not she made the right decision "to go away." She thinks about the things her home in Dublin with her father provide her, such as "shelter and food." However, she thinks of the bad things about Dublin: her abusive boss and her abusive father. She imagines what it would be like to be a married woman in "Buenos Ayres." She says that with her marriage, "People would treat her with respect then." Finally, she remembers her mother's final words and decides she must escape. Frank, she believes "would save her."

In the second setting, the narrator no longer uses free indirect discourse and removes himself, for the most part, from Eveline. The narrator describes how Eveline didn't leave with Frank, but stayed on the dock "like a helpless animal."

What information does the Federal scout bring to Farquhar?

The Federal scout tells Peyton Farquhar that the Union army is repairing the railroad to get ready for another advance into the South.  He says that they've gotten as far as Owl Creek Bridge (about thirty miles away from Farquhar's home) and that the commandant has announced that anyone who interferes with the railroads or bridges will be hanged.  This lets Farquhar know how important the railroad lines are to the Union war effort as...

The Federal scout tells Peyton Farquhar that the Union army is repairing the railroad to get ready for another advance into the South.  He says that they've gotten as far as Owl Creek Bridge (about thirty miles away from Farquhar's home) and that the commandant has announced that anyone who interferes with the railroads or bridges will be hanged.  This lets Farquhar know how important the railroad lines are to the Union war effort as well as how much damage he could inflict by damaging this particular bridge.  

Further, the scout also tells him that last season's flood pushed a great deal of driftwood up against part of the wooden bridge, and -- if lit -- it would burn the whole bridge down.  So, the scout gives him both the motivation and the means by which he can seriously injure the Union's ability to make inroads in this part of the South, and, as a slave owner and secessionist, Farquhar cannot seem to resist this opportunity.  (He obviously doesn't realize that the man telling him this is a Federal scout and not a Confederate soldier.)

Who is the speaker of "Mending Wall?"

The speaker of this poem is a man who questions the importance of the walls we put up- both physical and emotional. He starts the poem with the contemplation, “Something there is that doesn’t love a wall.” Here, he is referring to the tendency of some kind of force of nature that causes the “frozen-ground” to “swell” (2) and damage a wall, creating gaps in it. It seems that if this “something” is so determined...

The speaker of this poem is a man who questions the importance of the walls we put up- both physical and emotional. He starts the poem with the contemplation, “Something there is that doesn’t love a wall.” Here, he is referring to the tendency of some kind of force of nature that causes the “frozen-ground” to “swell” (2) and damage a wall, creating gaps in it. It seems that if this “something” is so determined to know the wall down, then maybe they are made to be torn down. At the same time, maybe the emotional walls people put up are meant to be torn down as well. The poem turns into a narrative of a time that the speaker and his neighbor work to repair the gaps created by “something.” All the while, the speaker wonders why they even need a wall if all they have to worry about crossing into each other's property are their pine and apple trees (24-25). The neighbor’s response is that “‘good fences make good neighbors (26)’” presumably because they help to keep people out of each other’s business. This bothers the speaker because he wants the neighbor to at least think about why walls are necessary, but the speaker only repeats himself, solidifying his desire to keep a wall between himself and the speaker and, thus, maintain the emotional barrier between the two.

As the guide (linked below) discusses, it can be said that the author of the poem, Robert Frost, is the speaker because they have many similarities, but more likely Frost and the speaker are two separate entities as Frost seems to be poking fun at or criticizing the speaker for being unable to see problems in his own thinking, namely, that he is just as bad as the neighbor about putting up walls and shouldn't be so quick to judge.

What methods did Sherlock Holmes use to solve mysteries?

Early in his career Sherlock Holmes trained himself to become a "private consulting detective." He told Watson when they first started sharing rooms at Baker Street that he was not interested in any knowledge that was not of use to him in his work. Their conversation on the subject is contained in the opening chapter of the novel A Study in Scarlet (1887). Holmes uses his extraordinary powers of deduction to solve mysteries, but he also relies heavily on his magnifying glass, microscope, and chemistry apparatus. He has an expert knowledge of all sorts of scientific subjects that are useful in detection. He is also a a great reader of anything that may be of use to him now or in the future. He reads all the newspapers and keeps clippings of articles about crimes and criminals. He also has his own personal set of files, so that he is better informed on the subject of crime that almost anyone in Europe. The police frequently come to him for advice. This is advantageous because the police are usually willing to give him help in return if he asks for it. Using the police for information and assistance is another of the methods Holmes employs to solve mysteries.

In "The Red-Headed League," Sherlock Holmes becomes interested in Jabez Wilson's apparently petty problem because he suspects that Wilson's assistant, who calls himself Vincent Spaulding, is really the notorious John Clay, described later by a man from Scotland Yard as:

“John Clay, the murderer, thief, smasher, and forger."

Holmes knows all about Clay's career because he is so well informed about crime and criminals through his reading, record-keeping, and many informants. He deduces that Clay must have some important ulterior motive for working in Wilson's shop. Holmes' cases almost always take him to the scene of the crime—or, in this case, to the scene of the anticipated crime. This is the author's way of bringing the reader, in imagination, to that same scene. One of Holmes' most commonly employed methods of solving mysteries is to make minute examinations of crime scenes, where he picks up minute clues that could easily escape the attention of police professionals. From what Wilson tells him about Clay's supposed interest in photography, Holmes makes deductions that would never occur to the "not over-bright pawnbroker."

“Oh, he has his faults, too,” said Mr. Wilson. “Never was such a fellow for photography. Snapping away with a camera when he ought to be improving his mind, and then diving down into the cellar like a rabbit into its hole to develop his pictures."

Holmes quickly deduces that Clay must be digging a tunnel, and by inspecting the neighborhood he deduces that the tunnel must be aimed at the Coburg branch of the City and Suburban Bank, where he later learns they are storing an enormous fortune in French gold coins.

So Holmes relies on his accumulated knowledge, his record-keeping, his personal investigation, and his deductive powers to capture John Clay and send him to the gallows. It is fortunate for the directors of the bank that Jabez Wilson came to Holmes with his trivial problem involving the nonexistent and now defunct League of Red-Headed Men.

Who is Merrick Garland and why is he important?

Merrick Garland is the current nominee to fill the vacant seat on the United States Supreme Court, the highest court in the country. The vacancy is a result of Judge Antonin Scalia's unexpected death in February of 2016. Merck Garland currently serves as the chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the second highest court in the country.

His nomination is important for a variety of reasons.

First, a Supreme Court vacancy does not come available very often, since judicial appointments are for life. A serving justice must either retire or die in order for one to come available, and with some current judges serving into their 70's, we see how seldom retirement happens.

Second, the vacancy currently leaves eight Supreme Court justices whose political and personal leanings may cause several ties as they go to decide cases. Four of them usually swing conservative when voting, and the other four usually swing liberal. This means the next justice to be elected will play a crucial role in breaking ties.  SO, Democrats would like to see a Liberal justice and Republicans would like to see a conservative justice.

Third, President Obama is considered a lame-duck President, meaning that his term is nearly over and much of the legislation he would like to pass in his final few months is likely to be blocked by Republicans. The majority of Republicans serving in the Senate vowed not to consider any of President Obama's Supreme Court nominees, believing that the newest justice should be chosen by the new President who will take office in January 2017.

Fourth, the Republicans made this vow prior to President Obama nominating Garland.  Things became a bit complicated when he chose Garland because he is "unequivocally qualified," and well-liked by both Democrats and Republicans. Obama was expected to nominate someone clearly liberal. Many Democrats have made the argument that if the Republicans refuse to give Garland a confirmation hearing (like a very official job interview where the Senate decides if they approve of him), they are doing so only as a political move and not based on the quality of the nominee, who many have said would be confirmed any other circumstances. In fact, several Republicans have come out and said that refusing to give Garland a hearing is based on principle, not the person. In other words, they feel that the President has the right to nominate someone, but the Senate has the right not to provide a hearing for that person. The Senate Republicans feel the next President should nominate the newest justice.

So, Merrick Garland is important because he happens to be nominated right in the middle of a very politicized and tense Presidential campaign, and represents a possible swing vote for many upcoming Supreme Court decisions should he be confirmed.

Why are the Jews of Sighet optimistic about the news they hear on the radio in late 1942 and 1943?

The Jews of the Transylvanian town of Sighet heard contrasting news about the war in 1942 and 1943. On one hand, the "London radio" brought news that suggested the German army was in retreat and would eventually be defeated. The Allies were bombing inside Germany and at Stalingrad, where the Germans would eventually lose a decisive battle. A second front was also mentioned (the Allies did open a second front, first in Italy and then...

The Jews of the Transylvanian town of Sighet heard contrasting news about the war in 1942 and 1943. On one hand, the "London radio" brought news that suggested the German army was in retreat and would eventually be defeated. The Allies were bombing inside Germany and at Stalingrad, where the Germans would eventually lose a decisive battle. A second front was also mentioned (the Allies did open a second front, first in Italy and then in France). The Jews were optimistic as they could not imagine the war reaching their town. They believed "better days" were just on the horizon.

In contrast, Moshe the Beadle recounts the horrible and, for the townspeople, unbelievable story of the atrocities in the forest of Galicia. Moshe escaped the atrocities where, according to Moshe, Jews were made to dig their own graves and babies used as targets for the Gestapo machine guns. The Jews in Sighet ignore Moshe and amazingly remain optimistic well into 1944, remaining in a state of denial even after German troops move into their houses.

Who did Montezuma rule? |

Montezuma II was the Tlatoani of the city of Tenochtitlan (modern day Mexico City), the capital of the Aztec Empire (or the Triple Alliance). He reigned during the initial contact between Europeans and the indigenous peoples of Mesoamerica in 1519 when Hernan Cortes reached the New World. The people he ruled, the Aztecs, lived in the Valley of Mexico, and in the final stages of their history were ruled by three city-states.

Government

When Montezuma ruled, the Aztecs were organized into the Triple Alliance, a name referring to the union of three city-states (Tenochtitlan, Texcoco, and Tlacopan). Tenochtitlan was the dominant city, and its ruler (the Tlatoani) was effectively the leader of the entire empire. Other cities and peoples conquered by the Aztecs were allowed to live in relative freedom so long as they paid a tribute to the conquering government. Below the city level, families were organized into clan-like units called calpullis, which owned and managed the land that family units lived on.

Language, Culture, and Religion

The Aztecs spoke a language called Nahuatl, which is still spoken today in Central Mexico. They were polytheistic, worshipping many gods, and their religion dealt predominantly with the attempt to keep nature in balance through understanding how humans and gods were connected. Human sacrifice was an important practice in Aztec religion, and those sacrificed were given over to the god Huitzilopochtli, patron of war and the sun, in his unending fight against darkness.

All Aztecs were required to undergo a formal education, regardless of the gender or social class of the student. There were two classes in Aztec culture, the pilli (nobility) and the macehualli (commoners). Within these two classes, there were further divisions of labor and roles.

Unfortunately, the Aztec Empire would see the beginning of its undoing during Montezuma's rule, ushering in an age of European colonization in Mesoamerica. 

"I've got oil wells," "I've got gold mines," "I've got diamonds." What is the effect of repetition here and of the particular images used?

These phrases are found in verses 2, 5, and 7 of Maya Angelou’s poem “Still I Rise.”  To add a further bit of context, the narrator says, “I walk like I’ve got oil wells/Pumping in my living room,” “I laugh like I’ve got gold mines/Digging in my own backyard,” and “I dance like I’ve got diamonds/At the meeting of my thighs.”

These images – oil wells, gold mines, diamonds – are all representations of monetary...

These phrases are found in verses 2, 5, and 7 of Maya Angelou’s poem “Still I Rise.”  To add a further bit of context, the narrator says, “I walk like I’ve got oil wells/Pumping in my living room,” “I laugh like I’ve got gold mines/Digging in my own backyard,” and “I dance like I’ve got diamonds/At the meeting of my thighs.”

These images – oil wells, gold mines, diamonds – are all representations of monetary wealth.  The speaker comports herself as though she were the possessor of all these things – that is, as though she were filthy rich.  Despite the fact that she has been “trod[den]…in the very dirt,” that she and her ancestors have been oppressed and insulted and hurt, she is not bowed, and certainly not broken.  Despite these things, she repeats, “still I rise.”  She bounces back with exceptional confidence, she holds her head up high and assumes an air of “haughtiness,” as though she were the most privileged person in the world.  She will not let injustice defeat her, but will come back stronger at every turn.  And it is this strength and confidence that is emphasized in the repetition of the lines you have quoted in your question.  Even though the speaker may not be wealthy, financially, she is equally as well-off spiritually – she has life, and sass, and confidence.  She has beauty and strength and determination.  And in the end, these things are greater and more powerful than any quantifiable fortune generated by oil wells or mines.

Suppose a woman marries her butler. After theyare married, her husband continues to wait onher as before, and she continues to support himas before...

In the situation that you describe here, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) would go down a little bit.  It probably should not go down, because the same amount of work is being done after the marriage as before, but it will go down nonetheless.

GDP is a measure of the market value of all goods and services produced in a country during a given year.  One aspect of GDP, then, is that it only measures goods...

In the situation that you describe here, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) would go down a little bit.  It probably should not go down, because the same amount of work is being done after the marriage as before, but it will go down nonetheless.

GDP is a measure of the market value of all goods and services produced in a country during a given year.  One aspect of GDP, then, is that it only measures goods and services that have a market value.  This, by definition, does not include goods and services that are not sold to anyone.  Because GDP does not count services that are not sold, GDP will go down after this marriage.  The woman will no longer be paying the man money for his services as a butler, even though he is doing the same work that he did before they married.  Therefore, GDP will fall by the amount that he was getting paid.

You can argue that GDP should not go down in this case.  GDP is supposed to measure everything that an economy produces in a given year.  The amount of services being produced did not change, so GDP should not have changed.  However, economists have defined GDP in this way because it would be very hard to measure the value of all unpaid work going on in an economy.  Because GDP is defined in this way, this marriage will cause GDP to drop even if, arguably, it should not.

Why and how does Mrs. Dubose make an attempt to change her behavior?

According to Atticus in chapter 11, Mrs. Dubose had a morphine addiction that she was trying to change before she died. She contacted Atticus to draw up her will and had explained the following to him:

"She said she was going to leave this world beholden to nothing and nobody. . . it's all right to take anything to make it easier, but it wasn't all right for her. She said she meant to break...

According to Atticus in chapter 11, Mrs. Dubose had a morphine addiction that she was trying to change before she died. She contacted Atticus to draw up her will and had explained the following to him:

"She said she was going to leave this world beholden to nothing and nobody. . . it's all right to take anything to make it easier, but it wasn't all right for her. She said she meant to break herself of it before she died, and that's what she did" (111).

For about a month before she died, Jem went over to read to Mrs. Dubose as penance for destroying her camellia's after she called Atticus a "ni***r lover." She had an alarm clock set during the time he would read to her which would clock his reading time as well as her own suffering without the morphine. Jem didn't know it at the time, but Mrs. Dubose extended the alarm's length of time each day in order to kick her habit and help to wean herself off of the medication. No wonder the reading time seemed to get longer each time!

Atticus says that Mrs. Dubose is very courageous for tackling a drug addiction at the end of her life like she did. She very well could have justified taking the morphine because she was dying anyway; but she didn't. She wanted to leave her life free from the morphine and Jem actually helped her to achieve her goal.

In what ways does Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird present the concept of fear? How does the children's fear of Boo Radley compare to their fear,...

In the final chapter of Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird, Scout comments that "nothin's real scary except in books" when she finds out that Atticus is reading a scary book of Jem's titled The Gray Ghost while sitting with him in his room as he sleeps after the attack. Scout also protests that neither she nor Jem were scared during the attack. The term fear, as Scout is thinking of it, can be defined as a "distressing emotion aroused by impending danger," the word impending meaning "about to happen," or likely to happen (Random House Dictionary). In other words, in Scout's mind, fear is only felt when one thinks one is in danger, not when genuine danger is present. During times of genuine tribulation, the feeling of fear must be replaced with courage. In addition, a genuinely dangerous moment can overwhelm a person to the point that the victim feels numb rather than afraid. For these reasons, Scout only felt afraid when she thought she had reason to fear Arthur (Boo) Radley and when Bob Ewell was beginning to pose a threat, not when Ewell was actually carrying out his threat.

The fear that Scout and Jem feel towards Arthur Radley when they are younger can be characterized as a fear of an imaginary danger. The imaginary danger stems from the fact that Arthur is mysteriously reclusive; therefore, Maycomb's citizens have developed multiple rumors and myths about him. As a result of the rumors and myths, Scout and Jem, along with other neighborhood children, developed a fear that Arthur posed a threat to their lives. We see Jem reveal their fears to their father and expunge them the night they find that Arthur had wrapped Scout in a blanket without them knowing it:

...--he's crazy, I reckon, like they say, but Atticus, I swear to God he ain't ever harmed us, he ain't even hurt us, he coulda cut my throat from ear to ear that night but he tried to mend my pants instead ... he ain't ever hurt us, Atticus--. (Ch. 8)

Since their fears are based on rumors and myths, we can even say their fears are not genuine.

In contrast, Scout and Jem feel genuine fear after the trial when they learn Bob Ewell has threatened their father; however, Atticus is too trusting a person to likewise feel afraid of Ewell, which proves to be  a significant mistake on Atticus's part. Likewise, Scout and Jem are equally afraid just prior to the attack. The more they hear someone following them who is clearly not Cecil Jacobs, the more they feel afraid. Scout confirms her feelings of fear when she tries to convince her brother he is just feeling spooked because it is Halloween night and thinks to herself, "I said it more to convince myself than Jem" (Ch. 28). However, at the moment of the attack, her feelings change; she calls out for help but bravely tries to escape their attacker along with Jem. At one points, she hears scuffling noises all around here and describes herself as being "stunned" and standing "there dumbly" (Ch. 28).

Hence, we could disagree with Scout when she says fear only exists in books, since she was clearly very legitimately felt afraid just prior to the attack. However, we can agree with her sentiment that she wasn't afraid during the attack because we see that her feeling of fear was replaced with a feeling of courage and later numbness.

Why was Prospero interested in listening to Ferdinand and Miranda talk in The Tempest?

Prospero listens to Miranda and Ferdinand so he can tell if they are falling in love.

Prospero was betrayed by his brother, Antonio, and Ferdinand’s father, Alonso.  They took his kingdom from him and stuck him on a boat.  He ended up on this island.  As fate would have it, Antonio and Alonso strayed into his path, and he used his magical powers and accomplices to shipwreck them on his island.

Ferdinand was separated from...

Prospero listens to Miranda and Ferdinand so he can tell if they are falling in love.

Prospero was betrayed by his brother, Antonio, and Ferdinand’s father, Alonso.  They took his kingdom from him and stuck him on a boat.  He ended up on this island.  As fate would have it, Antonio and Alonso strayed into his path, and he used his magical powers and accomplices to shipwreck them on his island.

Ferdinand was separated from the rest of the ship, and Alonso thinks he is dead.  Prospero sees Ferdinand as the perfect opportunity to exact some revenge on Alonso by doing some matchmaking.  He hopes to make Ferdinand and Miranda fall in love.  He spies on them to make sure that it works. 

Prospero wants to make sure that Ferdinand has to work for Miranda. 

They are both in either's powers; but this swift business
I must uneasy make, lest too light winning
Make the prize light. (Act 1, Scene 2) 

In other words, if he doesn't work for her he may not value her.  Thus, Ferdinand has to do some chores in order to win Prospero’s trust.  Miranda has never seen any young men, and she is infatuated with him.  She sneaks over to him and talks to him.  Prospero is aware of everything, but they have no idea. 

FERDINAND

My mistress, dearest;
And I thus humble ever.

MIRANDA

My husband, then?

FERDINAND

Ay, with a heart as willing
As bondage e'er of freedom: here's my hand.

MIRANDA

And mine, with my heart in't; and now farewell
Till half an hour hence. (Act 3, Scene 1) 

After they leave, Prospero remarks that he is just as happy as the young couple at this development, but he is too busy to worry about it right now.  They do not know that he is calculating and surveilling their every move, and that it is by his design that they are matched.

What goes wrong when Friar Laurence marries Romeo and Juliet?

Several things go wrong when the Friar marries the young couple. First, Tybalt kills Mercutio in the streets of Verona, and Romeo responds by killing Tybalt in a duel. This results in his banishment to Mantua, separating him from his new bride. Then Lord Capulet, ignorant of Juliet's marriage to Romeo, arranges a wedding between his daughter and Paris. In order to escape this fate, Juliet agrees to a plan concocted by the Friar. She...

Several things go wrong when the Friar marries the young couple. First, Tybalt kills Mercutio in the streets of Verona, and Romeo responds by killing Tybalt in a duel. This results in his banishment to Mantua, separating him from his new bride. Then Lord Capulet, ignorant of Juliet's marriage to Romeo, arranges a wedding between his daughter and Paris. In order to escape this fate, Juliet agrees to a plan concocted by the Friar. She takes a poison that makes her appear dead, and is thus buried in the Capulet family crypt. The Friar tried to get word of the plot to Romeo, but his messenger was unable to reach him due to a plague outbreak in Mantua. Balthasar, Romeo's servant, did get through, however, and, being ignorant of the Friar's plot, he tells Romeo that Juliet is dead. Romeo buys a vial of poison and rushes back to the Capulet mausoleum, where he kills young Paris and then, encountering Juliet's body, himself. Juliet awakes to find her lover dead by her side, and takes her own life. So after the marriage of Romeo and Juliet, everything goes wrong for the young lovers, who are, as stated in the Prologue, indeed "star-cross'd."

Are foreign citizens counted in the calculation of GDP?

I assume that you are asking whether the income of a foreign citizen in a given country (for example, a Chinese citizen in the United States) would be counted as part of the GDP of the host country (the US).  If this is what you are asking, the answer is yes.  GDP (gross domestic product) does not take into account who makes goods or services or who owns the factories that make them.  It only...

I assume that you are asking whether the income of a foreign citizen in a given country (for example, a Chinese citizen in the United States) would be counted as part of the GDP of the host country (the US).  If this is what you are asking, the answer is yes.  GDP (gross domestic product) does not take into account who makes goods or services or who owns the factories that make them.  It only takes into account where they are made.

When GDP is computed, every new good or service produced within the borders of a country is counted in that country’s GDP.  It does not matter who made the product or who owned the company that made it.  For example, Toyota, which is a company owned by Japanese people, has a factory in Kentucky.  All the money paid to workers in that factory counts towards US GDP.  It does not matter if the workers are from Kentucky or if they are managers who have come from Japan.

Thus, the income of a foreign citizen is counted in the GDP of the country where that person lives and works.

What would be a main character sketch of Helen Keller from The Story of My Life?

Helen Keller was a woman who accomplished much in her life. She wrote her autobiography, The Story of My Life, which detailed her experiences from infancy to her early twenties. When Helen was a little over a year old, she became very ill. Her illness left her deaf and blind. Helen's parents did not know what to do to help their daughter. She lived a very unstructured life until she was six and her...

Helen Keller was a woman who accomplished much in her life. She wrote her autobiography, The Story of My Life, which detailed her experiences from infancy to her early twenties. When Helen was a little over a year old, she became very ill. Her illness left her deaf and blind. Helen's parents did not know what to do to help their daughter. She lived a very unstructured life until she was six and her parents sent for a teacher. That teacher was Ms. Sullivan, who was partially blind. Ms. Sullivan was a determined young woman. She made many attempts to teach Helen and to tame her bad habits.

One day Helen and Ms. Sullivan were taking a walk. They came by a water pump, where "some one was drawing water." They stopped and Ms. Sullivan "placed [Helen's] hand under the spout." As the water flowed over Helen's hand, her teacher spelled "w-a-t-e-r" into her palm. While her teacher did this spelling action, Helen "felt a misty consciousness as of something forgotten—a thrill of returning thought; and somehow the mystery of language was revealed." Helen's life changed after this moment. She became an avid lover of learning.

Helen eventually went away to school, though Ms. Sullivan remained her constant companion. She even went to college. Helen became a highly educated woman. She had many friends and was an inspiration to others. She communicated effectively and became a talented writer. Her primary means of communication continued to be the manual alphabet, which was what Ms. Sullivan taught her from the beginning.

How do the monsters in Beowulf symbolize the Christianity of the translator?

It has been claimed that elements of Christianity were included in the story about Beowulf by Christian translators who sought to ensure the story complied with Christian religious beliefs. In this regard, Beowulf was portrayed as a representative of good. The monsters, on the other hand, represented evil in the Christian religious context.

The strongest connection between the monsters and Christianity was through the alleged relation between Grendel, Grendel’s mother and Cain, who in the...

It has been claimed that elements of Christianity were included in the story about Beowulf by Christian translators who sought to ensure the story complied with Christian religious beliefs. In this regard, Beowulf was portrayed as a representative of good. The monsters, on the other hand, represented evil in the Christian religious context.

The strongest connection between the monsters and Christianity was through the alleged relation between Grendel, Grendel’s mother and Cain, who in the Biblical story killed his brother Abel. The translator claimed that Grendel, Grendel’s mother and other monsters that existed were descendants of Cain.

On the kin of Cain did the sovereign God avenge the slaughter of Abel; Cain gained nothing from this feud and was driven far from the sight of men for that slaughter. From him awoke all those dire breeds: ogres, elves, and phantoms that warred with God a lengthy while; He paid their wage to them!

This was also the reason that the monsters were evil and only sought to disrupt the peace that existed by going on murderous campaigns against human communities. The dragon that battled Beowulf at the end of the story was also connected to the race of evil creatures that existed to torment God’s people.

The dazzling hoard was found standing exposed near that ancient evil one who haunts the burrows, blazing at twilight—the scaly dragonfiend, who flies by night robed in fire; the countryfolk hold him in awful dread.

In Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett, what are Vladimir and Estragon waiting for? I thought that Godot was a symbol of God and that the two...

This is the age-old question in regards to Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot; the play's first audiences were no doubt flabbergasted and flummoxed when the curtain fell and Godot (whoever he or she was) still hadn't shown up. Your idea that Godot stands for God is a good one that many critics agree with, so let's start there. 

First of all, Godot acting as a symbol for God makes sense because the play is...

This is the age-old question in regards to Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot; the play's first audiences were no doubt flabbergasted and flummoxed when the curtain fell and Godot (whoever he or she was) still hadn't shown up. Your idea that Godot stands for God is a good one that many critics agree with, so let's start there. 

First of all, Godot acting as a symbol for God makes sense because the play is chock full of references to Christianity. For instance, within the first moments of the play Vladimir and Estragon reference the thieves crucified alongside Jesus and muse upon the topic of repentance. Additionally, some scholars have taken the tree (one of the play's few set designs) as a symbol for the cross of Christianity. As such, it seems plausible that Vladimir and Estragon are indeed waiting for God, especially since the name God is rather obviously concealed within the name of Godot. If this association is correct, then the fact that Godot does not show up at the end of the play results in a rather pessimistic view of religion, and especially of Christianity.

The problem with both the play and Godot, however, is that both stubbornly resist easy applications of meaning. If one could say that Godot symbolizes God, for instance, then one could also argue that he stands for many other things and people. Some scholars might argue that Godot symbolizes the corrupt bourgeoisie who fails to arrive and take care of its laborers, as many critics have noted the play's considerably Marxist undertones. Additionally, one could argue that Godot stands for the Meaning of Life itself, the exact nature of which is always talked about but never concretely pinned down. Indeed, it's possible to even argue that Godot symbolizes any kind of meaning at all, and so it's therefore possible to see the play as a nihilist excursion detailing the meaninglessness of life. Since there are many ways to define Godot, I would caution you against making absolutist claims or arguing that Godot is only God and nothing else. Doing so would run into too many problems. Rather, try to argue that interpreting Godot as God is one possibility, and then provide plenty of examples and reasoning that backs up this claim. .com has plenty of great resources to use as secondary sources, and I've pasted the links to a few of these sources below. Good luck!

How did the US expand territorially after the American Revolution? What challenges did this expansion present?

The United States had two significant territorial expansions after the Revolutionary War. In the Treaty of Paris of 1783, the United States got land from Great Britain. Our boundaries went beyond the boundaries of the thirteen colonies. We now controlled the land that extended westward to the Mississippi River, northward to what is now the border with Canada, and southward to Spanish Florida.

There were some issues that came with this territorial expansion. The first...

The United States had two significant territorial expansions after the Revolutionary War. In the Treaty of Paris of 1783, the United States got land from Great Britain. Our boundaries went beyond the boundaries of the thirteen colonies. We now controlled the land that extended westward to the Mississippi River, northward to what is now the border with Canada, and southward to Spanish Florida.

There were some issues that came with this territorial expansion. The first issue was the threat of attack by the Native Americans. The Native Americans feared our presence and attacked us often. We fought the Native Americans, and after defeating them in battle, they had to move west. For example, after winning the Battle of Fallen Timbers, the Native Americans had to give up land and move west. Another issue was organizing these lands that we received from Great Britain. The Land Ordinance of 1785 helped organize the western lands. The western land was divided into townships that were six miles wide and six miles long. Within each township were 36 squares. Land could be sold in most of these squares for $1.00 an acre.

The second major expansion occurred in 1803. We wanted to buy New Orleans and West Florida from France for $10 million so we could use the Mississippi River and the port of New Orleans. Napoleon countered our offer by asking us if we wanted to buy the entire Louisiana Territory for $15 million. We agreed, and we got most of the land west of the Mississippi River up to the Rocky Mountains and to the border with Canada. This purchase doubled the size of our country. When we gained this land, we needed to learn more about it. President Jefferson asked Lewis and Clark to explore the land and report on what they found. As a result of their explorations, we learned about the land, and maps of the region were developed. We also had some issues and conflicts with the Native Americans who lived in this region. The Native Americans weren't pleased to see us expand into this territory.

After the Revolutionary War, we expanded westward. The westward expansion presented challenges for us, which we were able to deal with and overcome.

In The Crucible, what are three specific times in which people accuse Reverend Parris of causing great suffering, destruction or distress in an...

The Crucible is a play brimming with accusations and defenses, with characters constantly lying and deceiving each other. Lives are on the line, and so are honor and reputation, so these are desperate times.

Let's take a look at three accusations directed at Reverend Parris, who's one of the villains in the story, as well as three lines of defense that could be used by Thomas Putnam, the sneakiest villain, who causes misery to others only indirectly, when he ensures that they are found guilty so that he can purchase their land. (It would be much easier to argue, in a persuasive essay for example, that accusations hurled against Putnam are quite valid! But let's take a look at his defenses anyway, since that's what this question asks for.)

The page numbers below refer to the Penguin Classics edition of this play. If your version is a different one, you can find the page numbers by referring to an online text of The Crucible, searching for the relevant phrase in your quote, and seeing where it falls in that particular act of the play so you can quickly skim for it in your own copy.

Accusations aimed at Parris:

1. Page 11: Near the beginning of Act I, Abigail's voice is full of resentment as she accuses her uncle, Parris, of not wanting her in his home. "Do you begrudge my bed, uncle?" she asks. She's had trouble holding a job, and Parris's long string of harsh accusations of wrongdoing are making her feel ashamed and unloved.

2. Page 28: In Act I, Proctor shouts at Parris: "Can you speak one minute without we land in Hell again? I am sick of Hell!" He means that Parris focuses too much on the idea of eternal punishment in his sermons, and it's actually driven Proctor away from church—which is, as we see throughout the play, something that easily degrades someone's reputation at that time in Salem. And a bad reputation can be extremely dangerous, even deadly, in this play—Proctor's failure to go to church regularly is later brought up in court, to Proctor's detriment.

3. Page 45: Toward the very end of Act I, Tituba has a sort of insane fit, and she tells Parris that the Devil told her to kill Parris. "He say Mr. Parris must be kill! Mr. Parris no goodly man, Mr. Parris mean man and no gentle man..." It's hard to tell what's come over Tituba and why she's saying this, but as his slave, and considering what a terrible, manipulative person Parris is, Tituba certainly has reasons to hate Parris and use the excuse of being possessed to voice that hatred.

Defenses for Putnam:

1. Page 13: Near the beginning of Act I, Reverend Parris begs Thomas Putnam to avoid assuming that anything supernatural is going on. Parris wants to prevent rumors and keep his own job safe. "I know that you—you least of all, Thomas, would ever wish so disastrous a charge laid upon me." Parris is hinting that Putnam is a good man who wouldn't harm others' reputations or cause them to lose their jobs. Of course, readers beg to differ.

2. Page 35: In Act I, as Hale greets Putnam, he says: "Putnam! I had not expected such distinguished company, sir." The compliment pleases Putnam, and he'd gladly point out that it's evidence of his strong, morally upright character. Again, as readers, we know better.

3. Page 89: In Act 3, when Giles Corey accuses Putnam in court, Danforth defends Putnam, suddenly caring about proof needed to substantiate an accusation. Danforth says: "Mr. Putnam says your charge is a lie. What say you to that?" And a moment later, he berates Giles: "But proof, sir, proof!" The charge doesn't stand. These lines may be used as a defense of Putnam; Giles can't seem to furnish evidence of Putnam's crimes, and so Putnam remains safe from the violence perpetrated by the court.

In today's economy, with today's interest rates, should non-profit organizations use the time value of money?

Interest rates tend to reflect rates of inflation. The two are closely connected. Interest rates, which are set by the Federal Open Market Committee, which is comprised of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors a five of the regional Federal Reserve Bank chairmen, are manipulated to adjust to inflationary trends. If the costs of goods and services is rising, an obvious indication of inflation, then the Federal Reserve may choose to raise interest rates, which makes it more expensive to borrow money and, consequently, slows spending and economic activity. Conversely, lowering interest rates spurs economic activity by making it cheaper to borrow money to finance plant expansions or recapitalizations, new business start-ups, and so on.

The "time value of money" is a concept that suggests that investing money today makes more sense than holding that money static, like in a savings account when, as is the situation today, interest paid on savings is very low. Normal inflationary pressure degrades the constant value of money. That is why the dollar today buys far less than the dollar of, say, 1970. Inflation means that you get less for your money than you did yesterday. For the past decade, however, interest rates have remained historically very low, which means that it is relatively inexpensive to borrow money, but also that savings does not accrue much in the way of additional value. Your money may not be buying significantly less than it did ten years ago, because inflation has been low, but it also is not earning much because interest rates are also low.

When considering the path that a non-profit organization should take, then, one needs to estimate, to the extent possible, the direction in which inflationary trends will go, and the direction that interest rates will go. The non-profit organization that holds its money in a simple saving account will not accrue much in the way of added value. Interest rates are too low. Because inflation is also low, however, that money is not necessarily losing value, although it actually is because, while inflation has been very low, it exists nonetheless. (inflation today, March 18, 2016, is one percent) By definition, a non-profit organization is not in business to earn a profit. It is also, however, not in business to lose money. It has to do something with its reserves, or they will lose value over time. The organization, then, needs to consider safe, which means low-risk, which means low-reward, ways to invest its money, such as in money markets, that will earn more than banks are paying for basic savings accounts. Whether that organization wants to pursue a higher-risk, higher-reward investment strategy is the question for the organization's board to consider. As to the basic question, however, of whether a non-profit organization should view its financial status through the "time value of money" prism, the answer is yes, it should. Failure to pay attention will inevitably lead to diminished worth. Inflation can occur at any time. A natural or manmade disaster could adversely affect supplies of oil or natural gas, leading to increases in prices for those commodities as well as for products, like everything made with plastic, that are derived from petroleum products. Even a non-profit organization has to be concerned about the potential decrease in the value of its financial holdings should such a development occur.

What we know from history is that economies function in cycles. The United States has been experiencing a highly unusual period of seriously low inflation and interest rates, while much of the rest of the developed world, like across Europe, is undergoing serious difficulties in terms of debt ratios and expenses linked to financial problems in countries with which they are linked by treaty and/or custom. Nobody knows what the future will bring, either near- or long-term. The non-profit, therefore, should consider the time value of money, but it may want to err on the side of conservatism with respect to risk.

What health problems does Junior have? Describe his attitude toward these problems.

Junior was born with "water on the brain," also called hydrocephaly. This is a condition where fluid builds up in the cranium and can cause brain damage or swelling of the skull. Junior attributes his large skull to having been born with hydrocephaly, and believes it is also the cause of his abnormal number of teeth- forty-two in all. He also suffers seizures and has poor eyesight, which may be the result of some brain...

Junior was born with "water on the brain," also called hydrocephaly. This is a condition where fluid builds up in the cranium and can cause brain damage or swelling of the skull. Junior attributes his large skull to having been born with hydrocephaly, and believes it is also the cause of his abnormal number of teeth- forty-two in all. He also suffers seizures and has poor eyesight, which may be the result of some brain damage from the swelling in his cranium. When Junior was an infant, he had surgery to correct the hydrocephaly, but he is still physically atypical today. He also describes himself as being very thin, with big hands and feet.

Junior has been the subject of much discrimination and teasing during his life. Though he has built up a thick skin to such treatment, it still makes him angry inside when people attack his lisp or appearance. He spends a lot of time by himself, reading and drawing, to avoid being picked on. Despite being physically atypical and the fact that his family is impoverished, Junior has an unshakable thirst for opportunity. He hopes that his drawings might make him rich and famous one day and take him away from the troubles of the Reservation. When Junior becomes one of the best players on his basketball team, he finds that people are willing to overlook the ways in which he might be strange because he is good at something.

What were the effects of the Second World War on Italy?

Shortly before the end of World War II, Benito was caught and shot to death by communists.  With no leader at the end of the war, the Italian people were divided about the direction of their country's government.  Some Italians wanted a republic, and others wanted a socialist or communist government.  More than half of the Italians wanted the monarchy abolished.  The Italians wanted to create a Constitution.  They held elections for an assembly, whose...

Shortly before the end of World War II, Benito was caught and shot to death by communists.  With no leader at the end of the war, the Italian people were divided about the direction of their country's government.  Some Italians wanted a republic, and others wanted a socialist or communist government.  More than half of the Italians wanted the monarchy abolished.  The Italians wanted to create a Constitution.  They held elections for an assembly, whose goal would be to create that document.  The three main political parties at that time were the Socialist Party, the Christian Socialist Party, and the Communist Party.  The Constitution was created and a formal government was established.

Despite the progress made in the Italian government, much of Italy lay in ruins.  There had been an incredible amount of destruction during the war.  Rome, Naples, and many other Italian cities were bombed, causing widespread damage.  Both Italians and non Italians had been concerned about possible damage to historically significant structures.  Despite this, bombings continued. 

The Italian economy had suffered greatly during the war years.  Many Italians were left in poverty by the time the war ended.  In the 1950s, however, the Italian economy made an amazing recovery.  The lives of most Italians improved over this time, and their economy grew.

Who said, "So you're the little woman who wrote the book that started this Great War!"?

It is generally believed that Abraham Lincoln said to Harriet Beecher Stowe: "So you're the little woman who wrote the book that started this Great War!"  Stowe's family members claimed that Lincoln said those words to her when they met for the first time in 1862.

Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote Uncle Tom's Cabinabout a decade prior.  It became immensely popular.  An abolitionist, she wanted to shine light on the evils of slavery.  Stowe had lost...

It is generally believed that Abraham Lincoln said to Harriet Beecher Stowe: "So you're the little woman who wrote the book that started this Great War!"  Stowe's family members claimed that Lincoln said those words to her when they met for the first time in 1862.

Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin about a decade prior.  It became immensely popular.  An abolitionist, she wanted to shine light on the evils of slavery.  Stowe had lost her toddler son to sickness, and this also served as a motivation for writing the story.  She felt that this tragic loss helped her to relate to slave mothers who were forcibly separated from their young children.

After the publication of Uncle Tom's Cabin, those who defended slavery protested and complained that the book contained exaggerations.  It added further tensions to an already divided nation, which explains Lincoln's alleged comment to Stowe.

In Slaughterhouse-Five, what made Kurt Vonnegut choose a "Reagan for President" sticker years before he was elected?

Good question! If Reagan served as president from 1981 to 1989, and if Slaughterhouse-Five was published in 1969 and takes place between the 1920s and 1976, with most of the action happening around 1968, then what's up with the apparently anachronistic Reagan sticker?

Well, by 1966, Reagan was already the governor of California. Even earlier, in 1964, his political career had begun (according to this timeline from NPR).So by the time the story...

Good question! If Reagan served as president from 1981 to 1989, and if Slaughterhouse-Five was published in 1969 and takes place between the 1920s and 1976, with most of the action happening around 1968, then what's up with the apparently anachronistic Reagan sticker?

Well, by 1966, Reagan was already the governor of California. Even earlier, in 1964, his political career had begun (according to this timeline from NPR). So by the time the story takes place, it's possible that people were already interested in Reagan making a run for the presidency. People do make stickers for the candidates they're rooting for even before those candidates officially run. 

Let's see how the Reagan sticker fits into the story to make sure the explanation makes sense. The sticker is on Valencia's Mercedes, which we find out when she's struck from behind by another car. It's just a fender bender, and Valencia drives away--but without her exhaust system. So she dies of carbon monoxide poisoning right after that. Anyway, the Mercedes with the Reagan sticker is described, hilariously, as:

"The gaping trunk looked like the mouth of a village idiot who was explaining that he didn't know anything about anything. The fenders shrugged. The bumper was at a high port arms. 'Reagan for President!' a sticker on the bumper said. The back window was veined with cracks."

What do we know about Valencia, other than the foolish way she died? We know she's a bit silly and superficial, she's overweight and loves to eat candy, and she's very rich. I'm not saying that these personality traits are necessarily Republican by nature, but knowing what we know about Valencia, it does make sense that she would throw her support behind a handsome movie star like Ronald Reagan for president, even before he officially began a campaign. Therefore, Vonnegut probably chose this sticker as a way of further characterizing Valencia as a bit silly.