holme

Use the historical argument below to answer the question.

It has been said that World War II was one of the major catalysts for the modern Civil Rights movement.

Briefly explain why this assertion might be considered true.

Use the historical argument below to answer a, b, and C.

It has been said that World War II was one of the major catalysts for the modern Civil Rights movement.

Briefly explain ONE piece of historical evidence from the period between 1941 and 1945, which could be used to support this assertion.

Use the historical argument below to answer a, b, and C.

It has been said that World War II was one of the major catalysts for the modern Civil Rights movement.

Briefly explain ONE piece of evidence, which could be used to refute this assertion

A roller coaster climbs a hill, then travels down the other side and up another hill. Where is the greatest?

a. At the top of the first hill

B)Halfway up the hill

c. At the bottom of the hill

d. At the top of the second hill

write a bio on Charlaine Harris share what they are famous for, how they were influenced by their surroundings, and peers. This is not just a report make it your own. You will need to use proper grammar, spelling, and sentence structure. Make sure to cite your sources.  You will find a link how to cite in APA format.

write a bio on Julie Mehretu share what they are famous for, how they were influenced by their surroundings, and peers. This is not just a report make it your own. You will need to use proper grammar, spelling, and sentence structure. Make sure to cite your sources.  You will find a link how to cite in APA format.

Solve FOR M -2(m - 3) = m + 5 - 3m

The roller coaster climb a hill then travel down to other side up another hill where ke greatest

A) top of the hill

B)bottom

C)halfway

D)top of second hill

How have you been socialized to handle interpersonal conflict ? Has your knowledge been sufficient? Have you had to unlearn or relearn certain aspects of how to get through tough social situations?

derive the Adair equation for a pentameric protein

3 questions for those arguing for slavery that will prove them wrong.

What way do you attract students to study at NORSU?

1. Identify the correct statement with reference to human digestive system.

(a) ileum opens into small intestine.

(b) Serosa is the innermost layer of the alimentary canal.

(c) ileum is a highly coiled part.

(d) Vermiform appendix arises from duodenum

How important is art in my chosen profession (education)?

What kind of artist are you?

What is morality?

What is the difference between morals and non-moral?

Cite 2 situations or actions regarding moral and non-moral

Is there a situation that a non-moral action/situation becomes a moral action/situation? If yes give example

10 sentence each

I am completely stumped! I have no idea what formula to use to getthis figured out.

A company's planned activity level for next year is expected to be100,000 machine hours. At this level of activity, the companybudgeted the following manufacturing overhead costs:

Variable

Fixed

Write a 1 page reflection on a time that you were biased as a consumer. What product,good,or service weee you influenced to buy? What drew you to that commodity , and what does that say about the intentions of the brand or producer?

Difference between macro and micro.

Subject-civics

Writing Activity 13: "I claim the 5th."

Instructions: You've heard it stated, "I decline to testify on the basis of my Fifth Amendment right!" Write a paragraph that explains the meaning of this statement. Also, state under what kind of circumstances might this statement be made and why? (This will take a little internet searching. Use "key word--Fifth Amendment--as a starting point.) 

On July 4, 1776, when the Continental Congress adopted the historic text drafted by Thomas Jefferson, they did not intend it to mean individual equality. Rather, what they declared was that American colonists, as a people, had the same rights to self-government as other nations. Because they possessed this fundamental right, Rakove said, they could establish new governments within each of the states and collectively assume their

"separate and equal station" with other nations. It was only in the decades after the American Revolutionary War that the phrase acquired its compelling reputation as a statement of individual equality.

Here, Rakove reflects on this history and how now, in a time of heightened scrutiny of the country's founders and the legacy of slavery and racial injustices they perpetuated, Americans can better understand the limitations and failings of their past governments.

Rakove is the William Robertson Coe Professor of History and American Studies and professor of political science, emeritus, in the School of Humanities and Sciences. His book, Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution (1996), won the Pulitzer Prize in History. His new book, Beyond Belief, Beyond Conscience: The Radical Significance of the Free Exercise of Religion will be published next month.

I view the Declaration as a point of departure and a promise, and the Constitution as a set of commitments that had lasting consequences - some troubling, others transformative. The Declaration, in its remarkable concision, gives us self-evident truths that form the premises of the right to revolution and the capacity to create new governments resting on popular consent. The original Constitution, by contrast, involved a set of political commitments that recognized the legal status of slavery within the states and made the federal government partially responsible for upholding "the peculiar institution."

As my late colleague Don Fehrenbacher argued, the Constitution was deeply implicated in establishing "a slaveholders' republic" that protected slavery in complex ways down to 1861.

But the Reconstruction amendments of 1865-1870 marked a second constitutional founding that rested on other premises. Together they made a broader definition of equality part of the constitutional order, and they gave the national government an effective basis for challenging racial inequalities within the states. It sadly took far too long for the Second Reconstruction of the 1960s to implement that commitment, but when it did, it was a fulfillment of the original vision of the 1860s.

With the U.S. confronting its history of systemic racism, are there any problems that Americans are reckoning with today that can be traced back to the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution?

I view the Declaration as a point of departure and a promise, and the Constitution as a set of commitments that had lasting consequences - some troubling, others transformative. The Declaration, in its remarkable concision, gives us self-evident truths that form the premises of the right to revolution and the capacity to create new governments resting on popular consent. The original Constitution, by contrast, involved a set of political commitments that recognized the legal status of slavery within the states and made the federal government partially responsible for upholding "the peculiar institution."

As my late colleague Don Fehrenbacher argued, the Constitution was deeply implicated in establishing "a slaveholders' republic" that protected slavery in complex ways down to 1861.

But the Reconstruction amendments of 1865-1870 marked a second constitutional founding that rested on other premises. Together they made a broader definition of equality part of the constitutional order, and they gave the national government an effective basis for challenging racial inequalities within the states. It sadly took far too long for the Second Reconstruction of the 1960s to implement that commitment, but when it did, it was a fulfillment of the original vision of the 1860s.

As people critically examine the country's founding history, what might they be surprised to learn from your research that can inform their understanding of American history today?

Two things. First, the toughest question we face in thinking about the nation's founding pivots on whether the slaveholding South should have been part of it or not. If you think it should have been, it is difficult to imagine how the framers of the Constitution could have attained that end without making some set of "compromises" accepting the legal existence of slavery. When we discuss the Constitutional Convention, we often praise the compromise giving each state an equal vote in the Senate and condemn the Three Fifths Clause allowing the southern states to count their slaves for purposes of political representation. But where the quarrel between large and small states had nothing to do with the lasting interests of citizens - you never vote on the basis of the size of the state in which you live - slavery was a real and persisting interest that one had to accommodate for the Union to survive.

Second, the greatest tragedy of American constitutional history was not the failure of the framers to eliminate slavery in 1787. That option was simply not available to them. The real tragedy was the failure of Reconstruction and the ensuing emergence of Jim Crow segregation in the late 19th century that took many decades to overturn. That was the great constitutional opportunity that Americans failed to grasp, perhaps because four years of Civil War and a decade of the military occupation of the South simply exhausted Northern public opinion. Even now, if you look at issues of voter suppression, we are still wrestling with its consequences.

You argue that in the decades after the Declaration of Independence, Americans began understanding the Declaration of Independence's affirmation that "all men are created equal" in a different way than the framers intended. How did the founding fathers view equality? And how did these diverging interpretations emerge?

At different moments, the Virginia colonists had tried to limit the extent of the slave trade, but the British crown had blocked those efforts. But Virginians also knew that their slave system was reproducing itself naturally.

They could eliminate the slave trade without eliminating slavery. That was not true in the West Indies or Brazil.

The deeper reason for the deletion of this passage was that the members of the Continental Congress were morally embarrassed about the colonies' willing involvement in the system of chattel slavery. To make any claim of this nature would open them to charges of rank hypocrisy that were best left unstated.

If the founding fathers, including Thomas Jefferson, thought slavery was morally corrupt, how did they reconcile owning slaves themselves, and how was it still built into American law?

When Jefferson wrote "all men are created equal" in the preamble to the Declaration, he was not talking about individual equality. What he really meant was that the American colonists, as a people, had the same rights of self-government as other peoples, and hence could declare independence, create new governments and assume their "separate and equal station" among other nations. But after the Revolution succeeded, Americans began reading that famous phrase another way. It now became a statement of individual equality that everyone and every member of a deprived group could claim for himself or herself. With each passing generation, our notion of who that statement covers has expanded. It is that promise of equality that has always defined our constitutional creed.

Thomas Jefferson drafted a passage in the Declaration, later struck out by Congress, that blamed the British monarchy for imposing slavery on unwilling American colonists, describing it as "the cruel war against human nature." Why was this passage removed?

Two arguments offer the bare beginnings of an answer to this complicated question. The first is that the desire to exploit labor was a central feature of most colonizing societies in the Americas, especially those that relied on the exportation of valuable commodities like sugar, tobacco, rice and (much later) cotton. Cheap labor in large quantities was the critical factor that made these commodities profitable, and planters did not care who provided it - the indigenous population, white indentured servants and eventually African slaves - so long as they were there to be exploited.

To say that this system of exploitation was morally corrupt requires one to identify when moral arguments against slavery began to appear. One also has to recognize that there were two sources of moral opposition to slavery, and they only emerged after 1750. One came from radical Protestant sects like the Quakers and Baptists, who came to perceive that the exploitation of slaves was inherently sinful. The other came from the revolutionaries who recognized, as Jefferson argued in his Notes on the State of Virginia, that the very act of owning slaves would implant an "unremitting despotism" that would destroy the capacity of slaveowners to act as republican citizens. The moral corruption that Jefferson worried about, in other words, was what would happen to slaveowners who would become victims of their own

"boisterous passions.

. "

But the great problem that Jefferson faced - and which many of his modern critics ignore - is that he could not imagine how black and white peoples could ever coexist as free citizens in one republic. There was, he argued in Query XIV of his Notes, already too much foul history dividing these peoples.

And worse still, Jefferson hypothesized, in proto-racist terms, that the differences between the peoples would also doom this relationship. He thought that African Americans should be freed - but colonized elsewhere.

This is the aspect of Jefferson's thinking that we find so distressing and depressing, for obvious reasons. Yet we also have to recognize that he was trying to grapple, I think sincerely, with a real problem.

No historical account of the origins of American slavery would ever satisfy our moral conscience today, but as I have repeatedly tried to explain to my Stanford students, the task of thinking historically is not about making moral judgments about people in the past. That's not hard work if you want to do it, but your condemnation, however justified, will never explain why people in the past acted as they did. That's our real challenge as historians.

Do you believe the founders of the United States are still relevant to our modern times? Why or why not? Use evidence from the text and materials from the unit to support your claim

35Cl2 (560 cm-1), 39K35Cl (281 cm-1), 1H2 (4401 cm-1). Calculate the force constants for these molecules if treated as harmonic oscillators. 

Post an example of a type of media you've encountered (so a book, film, show, meme, gif, podcast, song, etc.) that you think makes commentary or pushes back against any of the following: racist ideologies, orientalist ideologies, processes of racialization, gender stereotyping, processes of Othering. Give a line or two on how you think it does that. You can share links/images/gifs

Based on Eurocentric beauty ideals, give an example of a piece of media (from an advert, social media post, film, show, comic book, magazine, etc.) that you think celebrates a type of beauty that tends to fall outside of those parameters. Do you see yourself reflected in it? Give a few lines on how you think it does this. 

Describe the Social Penetration Theory and give an example of self-disclosure when

1) beginning a relationship, 2) developing a relationship, and 3) when in a close relationship.

Describe the Social Penetration Theory and give an example of self-disclosure when

1) beginning a relationship, 2) developing a relationship, and 3) when in a close relationship.

What is the botany

A circular glass plate has a diameter of 350 mm (13.78 in) and athickness of 10 mm (0.394 in). The edge of the plate is clamped,and air at 258C (778F) is on both sides of the plate. Determine the transmission loss for the plate for a frequency of [A] 250 Hz and [B]1000 Hz.

A circular glass plate has a diameter of 350 mm (13.78 in) and athickness of 10 mm (0.394 in). The edge of the plate is clamped,and air at 258C (778F) is on both sides of the plate. Determine thetransmission loss for the plate for a frequency of [A] 250 Hz and [B]1000 Hz.

What is a private individual and what is a public individual explain in depth and give examples.

How did the policies set forth by President Johnson's administration affect our country's economy today? Explain.

Application 1.3 How can we check the health of a stream?

Nitrates are organic compounds that are a main ingredient in fertilizers. When those fertilizers run off into streams, the nitrates can have a toxic effect on fish. An ecologist studying nitrate pollution in two streams measures nitrate concentrations at 42 places on Stony Brook and 42 places on Mill Brook. The parallel dotplots below display the data.

1. Explain what the dot above 12 in the Stony Brook graph represents.

2. What percent of the nitrate concentration measurements for each stream exceeded 10 mg/L?

Compare the centers of these two distributions.