What is the relationship between Apollo and the Furies? How do they view each other?

The Oresteia is one of many Greek literary works that takes places immediately after the Trojan War. Both the plot of the story and the characters within it would have been familiar to its audience.

The most important information you need to understand the relationship of Apollo to the Erinyes or Furies is actually the background found in Hesiod's Theogony about the generations of the Greek gods. 

According to Hesiod and other ancient sources, the...

The Oresteia is one of many Greek literary works that takes places immediately after the Trojan War. Both the plot of the story and the characters within it would have been familiar to its audience.

The most important information you need to understand the relationship of Apollo to the Erinyes or Furies is actually the background found in Hesiod's Theogony about the generations of the Greek gods. 

According to Hesiod and other ancient sources, the first generation of gods were primordial deities representing such natural elements as Chaos (or the Void), earth, night, and sky. The second generation sprang from these and overthrew them; this second generation was that of the Titans. The Furies were part of this generation. The third generation of Olympian gods (including Apollo) overthrew the Titans, imprisoning many of them or condemning them to eternal punishment.

The Furies are female goddesses of justice who see Apollo's support for Orestes as part of a pattern of the disrespect of the upstart younger gods for an older generation. They also argue that Apollo as a male god is advocating the rights of men in preference to those of women and mothers. Apollo sees the Furies as primordial, irrational, and vengeful. Thus the relationship is antagonistic until Athena, a female goddess of wisdom, creates a brilliant compromise, founding the Court of the Areopagus.

What does Miss Maudie mean by "sometimes the Bible in one hand of one man is worse than a whiskey bottle in the hand of-oh your father?"

Miss Maudie means that the Bible can be harmful when someone uses its content for evil. Even though the Bible is meant to inspire hope and love in modern Christian theology, people can twist its words in a negative way and use it to justify negative actions. Alcohol, on the other hand, was often seen as a negative; but it is all about the person using it, Miss Maudie says.

Miss Maudie is explaining to...

Miss Maudie means that the Bible can be harmful when someone uses its content for evil. Even though the Bible is meant to inspire hope and love in modern Christian theology, people can twist its words in a negative way and use it to justify negative actions. Alcohol, on the other hand, was often seen as a negative; but it is all about the person using it, Miss Maudie says.

Miss Maudie is explaining to Scout what she knows about the Radley family. Scout is curious about Arthur "Boo" Radley, a shut-in who Scout, Jem, and Dill wonder about all summer. Miss Maudie knew him as a child and explains that his family was very religious. They belonged to a type of Baptist group that Miss Maudie calls "foot-washing Baptists." They believed that every type of pleasure was sinful. 

Miss Maudie tells Scout:

"Wasn’t talking about your father," she said. "What I meant was, if Atticus Finch drank until he was drunk he wouldn’t be as hard as some men are at their best. There are just some kind of men who—who’re so busy worrying about the next world they’ve never learned to live in this one, and you can look down the street and see the results."

In this way, she is explaining how Boo Radley's father twisted the Bible's messages and made his home a sad one.

What is the Giver's favorite memory?

The answer to this question can be found in chapter 16 of The Giver. Jonas actually asks what the Giver's favorite memory is, but then he quickly backpedals and says that the Giver doesn't have to give it to him yet. 

"What is your favorite?" Jonas asked the Giver. "You don't have to give it away yet," he added quickly. "Just tell me about it, so I can look forward to it, because I'll have...

The answer to this question can be found in chapter 16 of The Giver. Jonas actually asks what the Giver's favorite memory is, but then he quickly backpedals and says that the Giver doesn't have to give it to him yet. 

"What is your favorite?" Jonas asked the Giver. "You don't have to give it away yet," he added quickly. "Just tell me about it, so I can look forward to it, because I'll have to receive it when your job is done." 

The Giver responds by saying that he would be happy to share his favorite memory with Jonas. The memory that he shares is a memory of a family at Christmas time. The memory contains a fire in the fireplace, candles on the table, snow falling outside, and lights on a tree that is inside the house. Jonas finds that last detail a bit odd, but that doesn't stop him from thoroughly enjoying the general feeling of the entire memory. Jonas witnesses the family sitting together and enjoying the company. The Giver asks Jonas what he felt, and Jonas describes two specific things. He explains that he felt "warmth" and "family." Jonas also says that he experienced a third feeling that he can't quite describe. The Giver tells him that the feeling is love, and the concept is completely new to Jonas.

"I certainly liked the memory, though.  I can see why it's your favorite. I couldn't quite get the word for the whole feeling of it, the feeling that was so strong in the room." 

"Love," the Giver told him. 

Jonas repeated it. "Love." It was a word and concept new to him. 

Do you think that Guleri and Manak love each other in the story "Stench of Kerosene" by Amrita Pritam?

The answer to your question will depend upon your personal opinion and perspective.

In the story, Guleri and Manak are married; however, Guleri appears to be barren and so cannot bear any children for Manak. Meanwhile, Manak's mother finds a second wife for her son while Guleri is away visiting her family. Obedient to his mother and tradition, Manak complies with what is required of him, but he finds no joy in his new wife.

...

The answer to your question will depend upon your personal opinion and perspective.

In the story, Guleri and Manak are married; however, Guleri appears to be barren and so cannot bear any children for Manak. Meanwhile, Manak's mother finds a second wife for her son while Guleri is away visiting her family. Obedient to his mother and tradition, Manak complies with what is required of him, but he finds no joy in his new wife.

Eventually, however, Guleri hears of Manak's second marriage, and she responds by dousing herself with kerosene and setting herself on fire. Guleri dies, possibly because she cannot imagine sharing Manak with another woman. For his part, Manak becomes grief-stricken when he hears the news. He goes about his daily chores mechanically and appears to pay no attention to his new wife. When a son is born and then brought to him, Manak screams for the baby to be taken away. He exclaims that the child smells of kerosene.

A possible reason for Manak's reaction is that thoughts of how Guleri died are still fresh in his mind, and he has yet to recover from his overwhelming grief at losing her. I would argue that both Guleri and Manak's reactions constitute the evidence you need to decide whether they love each other or not. Although Guleri's commitment to her yearly excursion may suggest indifference, her decision to kill herself can hardly be termed a dispassionate one.

You may well know of the obsolete Hindu ritual of sati, where widows burned to death as a symbol of their fidelity to their deceased husbands. In this story, Guleri commits suicide by fiery death after hearing of Manak's second marriage. It can be argued that Guleri's manner of killing herself can be seen as a statement of her love for Manak.

Was Calhoun's speech about the benefits of slavery effective?

John C. Calhoun gave a speech in which he stated that slavery is good. Whether this speech was effective for the time depends on one’s viewpoint. From a southern point of view, this was a good speech. It focused on why the South shouldn’t compromise at all on the issue of slavery. Calhoun believed that compromise will lead to more compromise, and this will eventually doom the existence of slavery in the United States. He...

John C. Calhoun gave a speech in which he stated that slavery is good. Whether this speech was effective for the time depends on one’s viewpoint. From a southern point of view, this was a good speech. It focused on why the South shouldn’t compromise at all on the issue of slavery. Calhoun believed that compromise will lead to more compromise, and this will eventually doom the existence of slavery in the United States. He also argued that the slaves were better off in the South as slaves than they would be in the North as freed people. Many southerners agreed with this position.

Many northerners would have felt that this speech was not effective, but instead counterproductive to compromise. They believed this speech encouraged southerners to refuse to consider compromise regarding the issue of slavery. To northerners, it appeared that the southerners would rather fight to keep slavery than reach compromises about it. This speech also condemned the way of life in the North. It implied that there was much poverty in the North and that there was much suffering in the region. The northerners believed that Calhoun thought that being a slave was better than being free. Many northerners strongly disagreed with Calhoun’s point of view regarding slavery.

How did Franklin Roosevelt respond to unfavorable Supreme Court rulings concerning New Deal programs?

America's federal government is divided into three branches by the Constitution. Article I delineates the powers of the legislature, Article II lays out the powers of the president and Article III offers only general guidelines for the judiciary and does not expressly determine the number of justices on the nation's highest judicial body, the Supreme Court. It took the Judiciary Act of 1789, passed by Congress, to limit the number of justices on the court...

America's federal government is divided into three branches by the Constitution. Article I delineates the powers of the legislature, Article II lays out the powers of the president and Article III offers only general guidelines for the judiciary and does not expressly determine the number of justices on the nation's highest judicial body, the Supreme Court. It took the Judiciary Act of 1789, passed by Congress, to limit the number of justices on the court to six, one chief justice and five associates. While the number fluctuated from seven to ten to eight throughout the first half of the 1800s, the Judiciary Act of 1869 settled on nine justices.

When Franklin Roosevelt ascended to the presidency in 1933 he inherited a country in the depths of the Great Depression with unemployment at an unprecedented twenty-five percent. His "New Deal" prescribed a series of programs to help alleviate the pain of the economic downturn. Conservatives on the court, however, believed the Roosevelt's programs were too heavy handed in their interference in the economy and they struck down as unconstitutional some of Roosevelt's most important reforms.

Since the Constitution did not explicitly limit the number of justices on the court, Roosevelt, in his unpopular court packing scheme, proposed increasing the number of justices to as many as fifteen. Because the president holds the power to appoint justices, Roosevelt was ready to name justices who would vote in favor of his plans for the nation. An immediate outcry against the idea was led by Republicans. Even a proponent of the New Deal, Senator Hiram Johnson from California, labeled the court packing scheme one step on the "road to fascism." a Gallup Poll revealed that over fifty percent of Americans were against the idea.

Ironically, a few weeks before Roosevelt's plan was revealed, the nine judges met privately and agreed not to oppose some of the New Deal's most important laws including the minimum wage, protection for labor unions and the advent of Social Security. Roosevelt's court packing plan then quickly disintegrated and the court remained at nine.

What do you think the world would be like if the Bretton Woods Agreement had never been signed?

The Bretton Woods Agreement is a significant landmark in world economic history. Developed at the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference in 1944, the Bretton Woods Agreement sought to establish a new post-war international monetary order. The plan was formed in response to lessons learned following World War I, with participating countries hoping to prevent similar economic instability caused by hyperinflation and retaliation against trade restrictions from occurring again.

If the Bretton Woods Agreement hadn’t...

The Bretton Woods Agreement is a significant landmark in world economic history. Developed at the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference in 1944, the Bretton Woods Agreement sought to establish a new post-war international monetary order. The plan was formed in response to lessons learned following World War I, with participating countries hoping to prevent similar economic instability caused by hyperinflation and retaliation against trade restrictions from occurring again.

If the Bretton Woods Agreement hadn’t been signed, European countries and Japan may not have rebounded from World War II as successfully as they did. By establishing a rules-based system of international finance through Bretton Woods, confidence in the world economy was somewhat restored. This, along with the Marshall Plan, helped increase world trade among developed countries in the 1950s and 1960s, leading to improved world output and living standards.

Two new institutions were created as a result of the Bretton Woods Agreement, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank Group. If Bretton Woods hadn’t been approved, these organizations may not have been formed. The IMF was created to monitor exchange rates and lend reserve currencies to nations. The World Bank was set up to provide financial assistance for countries during the reconstruction post-World War I era.

The Bretton Woods Agreement represents a transitional stage in world economics that ushered in a new international monetary order that exists today. Its collapse signaled a shift from disciplined economic policy to today’s more flexible system.