A Brief History of Banking Reform After the New Deal

A Brief History of Banking Reform After the New Deal As leader of the United States during the Great Depression, one of President Franklin D. Roosevelts essential arrangement objectives was to address issues in the financial business and money related division. FDRs New Deal enactment was his organizations answer to a large number of the countrys grave financial and social issues of the period. Numerous students of history arrange the essential purposes of focal point of the enactment as the Three Rs to represent alleviation, recuperation, and change. At the point when it went to the financial business, FDR pushed for change. The New Deal and Banking Reformâ FDRs New Deal enactment of the mid-to late-1930s offered ascend to new approaches and guidelines keeping banks from taking part in the protections and protection organizations. Before the Great Depression, numerous banks ran into inconvenience since they faced exorbitant challenges in the financial exchange or dishonestly gave credits to modern organizations in which bank chiefs or officials had individual ventures. As a quick arrangement, FDR proposed the Emergency Banking Act which was marked into law exactly the same day it was introduced to Congress. The Emergency Banking Actâ outlined the arrangement to revive sound financial foundations under the US Treasurys oversight and supported by government credits. This basic demonstration gave truly necessary impermanent stabilityâ in the industryâ but didn't accommodate the future. Determined to keep these occasions from happening again, Depression-period lawmakers passed the Glass-Steagall Act, which basically precluded the ble nding of banking, protections, and protection organizations. Together these two demonstrations of banking change gave long haul steadiness to the financial business. Banking Reform Backlash In spite of the financial changes achievement, these guidelines, especially those related with the Glass-Steagall Act, became dubious by the 1970s, as banks grumbled that they would lose clients to other money related organizations except if they could offer a more extensive assortment of monetary services. The government reacted by giving banks more noteworthy opportunity to offer purchasers new kinds of budgetary administrations. At that point, in late 1999, Congress authorized the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, which canceled the Glass-Steagall Act. The new law went past the impressive opportunity that banks previously delighted in offering everything from purchaser banking to endorsing protections. It permitted banks, protections, and protection firms to frame monetary combinations that could advertise a scope of money related items including shared assets, stocks and securities, protection, and car advances. Likewise with laws deregulating transportation, media communications, and different enterprises, the new law was relied upon to produce a flood of mergers among money related organizations. Banking Industry Beyond WWII For the most part, the New Deal enactment was fruitful, and the American financial framework came back to wellbeing in the years following World War II. Be that as it may, it ran into troubles again during the 1980s and 1990s to some extent in view of social guideline. After the war, the legislature had been anxious to encourage homeownership, so it made another financial division the investment funds and credit (SL) industry-to focus on making long haul home advances, known as home loans. Be that as it may, the reserve funds and credits industry confronted one significant issue: contracts normally ran for a long time and conveyed fixed loan costs, while most stores have a lot shorter terms. At the point when transient financing costs ascend over the rate on long haul home loans, investment funds and credits can lose cash. To secure investment funds and credit affiliations and banks against this projection, controllers chose to control loan fees on stores.

Compare The Treatment Of Doubles In Any Two Texts Essay free essay sample

In Affinity, it is as Margaret finds Selina s apparent disconnection, that there [ is ] nobody ( Waters 82 ) who thinks about her either inside Millbank or past its dividers, that she starts to appreciate Selina as a resonation of herself. Anyway Waters clarifies the degree to which such assignment results from her ain longing. It is through the consistent simple which Margaret draws among Selina and plants of craftsmanship, especially the Crivelli Portrait ( Waters 98 ) , that we learn of the technique of working through which she makes Selina as her two-fair hit. Margaret becomes like Michelangelo ( Waters 46 ) , an inventive individual whose spot of intensity permits her to represent Selina as she picks ; her journal turns into her canvas ( Waters 27 ) . However it is significant that only as a painter may romanticize the hypothetical record they delineate, going past all that they dispassionately view, so Margaret endeavors onto Selina her ain likeness. In spite of the fact that she accepts that they: may hold been painted [ ] from the equivalent hapless box of watery shades ( Waters 27 ) , Selina is non basically created as her ain identical representation. On the other hand she is passed on as a consummated vision of herself ; adored as an a holy person or a heavenly attendant ( Waters 27 ) . As all her features is glorified even her suspiration ( Waters 26 ) turns into an ideal suspiration ( Waters 26 ) . Her visual viewpoint is poeticized, as Margaret utilizes accentuation to liberally decelerate the sentence down ; appreciating each thing: Her hair, where it appeared at the outskirts of her top, was simply ; her cheek was pale, the breadth of brow, of lip, of ciliums chip against her anger ( Waters 27 ) .It is significant that before Margaret has even gotten familiar with Selina she is guaranteed, just by her visual angle, of her ethical quality. For it is in a territory of doubt that she requests: What can her offense have been? ( Waters 27 ) . The picture of Selina, which she has made for herself, is for the most part appeared in her mind before Selina even opens her oral pit. Subsequently we see that it is through Margaret s respect ( Waters 327 ) that she raises her sentiment of Selina. For case, it isher blissful face ( Waters 153 ) which persuades Margaret of her naiveté. Hence representing the evaluation to which this inclination is made, all together, to bring through her l ongings: the terrible stressing of [ her ] enthusiasm ( Waters 341 ) . It is as she reviews the hostage whose face was so good that she starts to hypothesize about her name and her uniqueness ( Waters 30 ) . Margaret practices the respect for her ain ( sexual ) fulfillment ( Llewellyn 210 ) . This may other than read as a cultural comment on the situation of sapphism in Victorian development, for stomach muscle initio, the solitary way wherein Margaret may appoint her sapphic want is through the inert demonstration of looking. Margaret must mallet a black market for her ain wants ( Llewellyn 208 ) .The copying witnessed all through the novel can in this way be comprehended as a signifier of possession ( Miller 416 ) in which Margaret s classification position, and as needs be her capacity as a woman visitant, let her to build a portrayal of Selina the lower classification hostage - in her ain thought. For, as Miss Ridley high spots, it is the jail which kept [ Selina ] flawless and close, for [ her ] to gaze at! ( Waters 327 ) . In spite of Margaret s d enouncing demeanor towards Millbank s harsh and prohibitive government, her activities have an unmistakable simple with those of the jail superintendents. Selina s female independence is denied her as the superintendents take her hair [ ] , and her customary attire ( Waters 214 ) ; she can no longer comprehend herself as Selina and should needfully assume another distinction. She should go Dawes ( Waters 112 ) . So also, Margaret does non liberate her yet offers a substitute distinction of her ain structure ; providing just another capacity for her to play.However, it is significant that Selina does non challenge this independence. On the other hand she accept this name by referencing to herself as your ain partiality ( Waters 275 ) : Margaret s extraordinary two-fair hit. She cheats Margaret that they structure two pieces of a similar soul: We are the equivalent, you and I. We have been cut, two parts, from a similar bit of reflecting issue. [ ] our tissue is simply the equivalent, and aches to bounce to itself ( Waters 275 ) . Like a fresh little entertainer ( Waters 85 ) Selina plays out this capacity so as to secure her flight. She effectively allows Margaret s request to Let me see you ( Waters 309 ) by discasing herself. However the depiction of Selina s uncovered tissue analyzes her neckline castanetss [ to ] the sensitive tusk keys of some fagot instrument of music ( Waters 309-310 ) . In this way foregrounding the way in which Selina abuses herself through her activities ; showing her ain natural structure to promise her opportunity. She permits herself to be played, and controlled, as though she were just an instrument ( Waters 310 ) by going an object of the respect ( Llewellyn 205 ) .Kohlke has drawn going to the injustice which permits Margaret to make a portrayal of Selina and gives her paternalistic composition of the Other s genuine account ( 160 ) . In any case, it is of import to see that, Margaret s journal sections do non flexibly the restrictive situation inside the novel. The peruser is to boot requested to see the portrayal from the situation of Selina s journal passages, ahead of the pack up to her detainment. Moreover, in spite of the fact that the copying which Margaret accepts to bind together Selina with herself is plainly illusional, and subsequently a bogus uniqueness push onto Selina, there is a substitute signifier of copying set up in the novel which neither Selina nor Margaret deliberately perceive. For Duality [ .. . ] can be differentiation or opposition [ or ] comparability. ( Herdman 1 ) . Selina is non situated as Margaret s two-fair hit, through simple or likeness, yet as the opposite of everything Margaret may be. In the event that we comprehend Selina through this division, it appears that there is a sense where we get looks of Selina s dependable singularity ; the way she would try to determine herself.There is a reasonable rationalistic relationship set up among Selina and Incredibly to represent two clashing spots. While Selina is related with the Sun, noticeable radiation and sunshine, Margaret is associated with the antonyms of these things ; murkiness, dim clasp and an insufficiency of life. It is no luck that Selina is over and again portrayed sitting [ ] with the Sun upon her ( Waters 43 ) . For she is portrayed by the Sun s characteristics ; its warmth ( 45 ) , the existence it brings and its obvious radiation. Indeed, even her aureate hair ( Waters 150 ) might be seen a consideration of the Sun s brilliance. Fundamentally, Selina looks to put herself through these characteristics, thus before she is kept she composes: I figure I will neer be warm again! [ ] I figure I will neer act naturally ( Waters 3 ) . Her warmth, vivacity and daylight signifier part of her self-portrayal. Anyway her ability to comprehend herself through these roads is constrained. For her independence is constantly modified by others. Her bewildering gold ( Waters 44 ) hair becomes dull ( Waters 44 ) inside Millbank s four dividers. Furthermore, her obvious radiation is devoured by the murkiness of mysticism: it resembles you are being eaten up by a shadow! ( Waters 172 ) .Yet in spite of the fact that Margaret perceives these highlights in Selina, she stays incognizant of the degree to which these things are at chances with her ain qualities. This is exemplified as she relates Selina with the figure found in the Crivelli depiction ( Waters 98 ) . Despite the fact that she relates Selina with a character conveys the Sun in the signifier of a blast plate ( Waters 52 ) , the miss is other than delineated keeping a mirror ( Waters 52 ) , foregrounding the degree to which Margaret sees Selina as thought of herself. However, while Selina sits washed in daylight, a start of verve and noticeable radiation, Margaret enters her phone in deprived hues ( Waters 24 ) ; stand foring everything despite what might be expected. Her dark ( Waters 59 ) outfit turns into an image of the inward obscurity ( Waters 87 ) of her downturn, and a portrayal of the perish of her male parent. While Selina is related with new life, through, for case, her resurgence of Margaret: she sent the existence spilling again into me ( Waters 244 ) , and the repetitive notices to her as a sheep ( Water 80, 268, 327 ) , Margaret gets connected with being inadequate throughout everyday life and with decease.Though her exertion at implosion was fruitless, it renders her dull ( Waters 206 ) ; missing of life and verve. Along these lines despite the fact that Selina is depicted breath [ ing ] ( Waters 27 ) new life into a violet ( Waters 27 ) , Margaret is portrayed like a foliage, squeezed tight inside the pages of a [ ] book ( Waters 201 ) . While Selina keeps a bloom despite everything uncovering characteristics of life, Margaret is contrasted with a dead foliage, who like her is protected however missing in verve. She lives, both genuinely and inwardly, in an extremely dull topographic point ( Waters 52 ) . She should go forward Selina s cell, a topographic point where the Sun sparkles if only discontinuously, to go into the thick middle shadows ( Waters 117 ) of the dim, and of her head. Besides, there is, subsequently, a sense where the line: the sun [ ] made the wound hued shadows extremely overwhelming ( Waters 28 ) , foreshadows the novel s stoping. As Margaret s tired ( Waters 350 ) being, is excited by her essence, so it must be one time again depleted of life in her nonappearance. In this manner Margaret s journal sections close with her request: when the yarn goes slack, will you experience it? ( Waters 351 ) .Margaret is non a two-fair hit in the comparability of Selina, however a cont

Investigate osmosis in blood cells Lab Report Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Examine assimilation in platelets - Lab Report Example The cell geometry, that is, the biconcave plate state of red cells, is basic for the cells' endurance. This cell surface shape gives a high proportion of surface region to cell volume. The ordinary volume of the erythrocyte is roughly 90 m3. The base surface region that could encase this volume is a circle of roughly 98 m3. The surface territory of a biconcave plate encasing this volume is roughly 140 m3. Subsequently, shape alone gives the red cell a lot of excess layer and cytoskeleton. This element gives the additional layer surface zone required when red cells swell. All the more significantly, this geometric plan permits red cells to extend as they experience disfigurement and twisting because of the mechanical worry of the course. The subsequent decrease in resistance of these cells to osmotic pressure clarifies why anaemias coming about because of layer surrenders regularly are joined by osmotic delicacy, the reason for the clinical research facility test. Essentially, if eryt hrocytes are engorged with water, they become macrospherocytic and less deformable (Dacie, J. V., Lewis, S. M., and Luzzatto, L., 1981). Red Cell Membrane Permeability: The ordinary red cell film is almost impermeable to monovalent and divalent cations, along these lines keeping up a high potassium, low sodium, and extremely low calcium content. Conversely, the red cell is exceptionally penetrable to water and anions, which are promptly traded. Thus, erythrocytes carry on as almost impeccable osmometers. Water and particle transport pathways in the red cell layer incorporate vitality driven film siphons, inclination driven frameworks, and different channels. A significant component of the ordinary red cell is its capacity to keep up a steady volume. The components by which red cells sense changes in cell volume and actuate fitting volume administrative pathways are obscure. The impacts of disturbance of the red cell porousness hindrance are represented by supplement intervened hemolysis. Supplement initiation on the red cell surface prompts development of the layer assault complex, which is made out of terminal supple ment parts installed in the lipid bilayer. This multimolecular complex goes about as a cation channel, permitting aloof developments of sodium, potassium, and calcium over the layer as indicated by their focus inclinations. Pulled in by fixed anions, for example, hemoglobin, ATP, and 2,3-BPG, sodium collects in the cell in overabundance of potassium misfortune and of the compensatory endeavors of the Na+-K+ siphon. The subsequent increment in intracellular monovalent cations and water is trailed by cell expanding and at last colloid osmotic hemolysis (Dacie, J. V., Lewis, S. M., and Luzzatto, L., 1981). Method of reasoning of the Test: Osmotic action in the red cells is tried by including progressively hypotonic convergences of saline answer for red cells. Because of assimilation, increasingly more water from the inexorably hypotonic arrangement will enter the red cells prompting expanded volume of red cells by growing. On the off chance that the focus goes past edge, more water will go into the cells which as of now are at greatest volume for surface zone, and will blast at the most hypotonic ordinary saline fixations. In any case, after hatching at 37C (98.6F) for 30 mins, these red cells will lose layer surface region more promptly than typical in light of the fact that their

Quantitative Methods Database Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Quantitative Methods Database - Assignment Example Our information remembered data for the area, the kind of houses, the quantity of rooms, the cost and the parking spot. From our examination, we present various graphs that sum up the various properties of our information. The principal graph presents the standard deviation of the costs of the various sorts of homes in our regions under investigation. Standard deviation shows the level of variety in the costs of homes. From the investigation, it is obvious that most noteworthy deviation of costs happens in the costs of houses between the urban communities which has a standard deviation of 1.182649718 with the variety in the costs of cottage being 0.559803074 and 0.245835672. Therefore, the deviation between the various sorts of homes for Colchester is 1.123087983, 0.337027783 for Jaywick and 1.072970694 for Mersea Island. The deviations in the costs of homes are most elevated is Colchester. The normal costs of the homes show that possessing a home in all the three zones will cost a normal of 0.713536982, while that of a level is 0.560563004 and that of a house is 1.273070162. Therefore, claiming a lodge will cost a sum of 10808630 while it will cost 4408989 for a level and 36343708 for a house. As respects the normal of costs for the various parts of the various homes, on account of a cottage and house, it is apparent that having a withdrawn home will cost an excellent aggregate of 1.171448428 while the great aggregate for a manufactured home will cost 0.116264276, 0.808875794 for a semi-confined home and 0.615969407 for a patio home. Notwithstanding, as respects the equivalent, the terrific aggregate for possessing a cabin is 0.658932363 while the great aggregate of claiming a house is 1.172291899. As respects the normal number of rooms, the great aggregate on account of Colchester zone is 3 while that of Jaywick is 2 and 3 on account of Mersea Island.

Shakespeares Presentation of the Character of Mark Antony in Julius Caesar - Literature Essay Samples

We meet the character of Mark Antony three times before Julius Caesars death, though he speaks little and we do not get much of an indication of his character. Antony fully enters the play exactly halfway through, when he makes a gripping speech, and his eloquence changes the course of Roman history. From this point onwards, Antony becomes a key player in the action and begins to change the nature of events in the play, especially with respect to Brutus and Cassius. He takes part in the struggle for power, and is driven by the need to avenge Caesars death. Antony emerges as a flamboyant character, but one who is also hard headed, clear-sighted, and ambitious.Mark Antony was Caesars closest and most faithful friend, confidante, and follower. The two men had fought many campaigns together, and knew each other very well. Antony is the only character in the play who calls Caesar by his first name, Julius, a sign of their strong friendship. Antony had also offered Caesar the crown three t imes, signifying his generosity and devotion. We see clearly Antonys love and admiration for Caesar in the three short statements he makes before Caesars death, and over his corpse as he says, thou art the ruins of the noblest man/ That ever lived in the tide of times. After the murder, he attempts to act as Caesar would have done. However, Mark Antony is also portrayed as a partier and womanizer, that revels long-a-nights and is given/ To sports, to wildness, and much company. He leads an extravagant and indulgent lifestyle and is also portrayed as powerful and athletic. Antonys many assets emerge throughout the play; by the end his character appears to have developed, and it becomes clear to the audience that he is a loyal general who is militarily accomplished, as well as politically shrewd and exceptionally skilled at oration. Antony is similar to Caesar in that his power leads to ambition. An important moment in the play showing Antonys power and significance occurs when Caesar asks him to touch Calphurnia as he passes her in his race during the celebration of the feast of Lupercal. According to superstition, the touch of an athlete during this holy feast would make a woman fertile, and the fact that Caesar chooses Antony to touch his wife suggests that he trusts and has faith in him, and possibly even sees him as a protector. However, as Shakespeare kills off the character the play is named for, he maintains dramatic tension by making Antony emerge as even more forceful than he initially appeared to be. Brutus makes a mistake in underestimating Antonys power, believing that he is not interested in politics and that he can do no more than Caesars arm / When Caesars head is off. Consequently, Antony becomes a troublesome and dangerous rival to the conspirators. As Antonys power increases, so does his ambition, and after Caesars death he proves to be a great opportunist, quickly devising a plan for revenge. Antony ensures his servant witnesses his oration s o that he can use it to impress Octavius, Caesars heir and Antonys ally. Antony is planning far in advance, showing his high hopes for the future. From this point onwards in the play, Antony becomes ruthless and calculating, willing to use his power and his abilities for his own purposes. His power over the people and soaring ambition become similar to Caesars.Antony confirms Cassius judgement of him as a shrewd contriver when he meets the conspirators after Caesars murder. He states he is now on slippery ground, and his words have a double meaning: both literally with blood, and metaphorically in that he opposes the conspirators, but must make them believe that he can still do business with them. Although he is initially at a loss for words, Antonys skill as an orator, wit, and ability to deceive and manipulate allow him to cover his feelings, succeed in pretending to befriend the conspirators and persuading them to trust him. He begins by flattering them in order to seduce them, u sing metaphorical language, naming them master spirits of this age. He has the nerve to call Caska valiant even though he knows that Caska is shifty, and says good Trebonius, despite knowing that Trebonius directed him aside so that they could kill Caesar. Although on the surface it appears that Antony has turned traitor to his memory of Caesar, he openly calls himself Either a coward or a flatterer, boldly speaking aloud the thoughts that they are evidently thinking to themselves. His ability to apparently see both sides of the argument and relate to the conspirators gives Antony some protection from the ill intentions of these murderers. He is in a delicate situation, but keeps them on the defensive by demanding reasons / Why and wherein Caesar was dangerous. Antony cleverly avoids dealing with Cassius by taking advantage of Brutus power and gullibility. He flatters him and attacks his weaknesses, naive sense of honour, and nobility. Antony knows that Brutus wants to believe that he will side with them he had said I know that we shall have him well to friend and therefore takes advantage of Brutus hope by deceptively telling the conspirators, Friends I am with you all, and love you all. This construct allows Antony to receive permission to speak at Caesars funeral, as it gives Brutus time to accept Antony and sympathize with him. Antony also makes a point of shaking each conspirators hand, and while doing so makes a mental note of each mans name, which allows him to improvise the act of the murder later in his speech to the crowd. Antony calls some of the conspirators by two names rather than one (for example, Decius Brutus rather than Decius, which is unusual in everyday Roman life, though this formality emphasises the tension of the moment). Antonys plan is a gamble, requiring quite some nerve, though he is not dissuaded by dishonesty. In comparison to all the conspirators, and even to Cassius, the most strategic and scheming of them all, Antony is stro ng and politically cunning.As soon as the conspirators depart, Antony begs forgiveness of Caesars dead body for being meek and gentle with these butchers. This provides a strong contrast to the gentlemen he spoke of just moments earlier, and therefore makes the audience aware that he is now able to express his true feelings and private thoughts, as well as emphasizing the falsity of his previous actions. Antony is incredibly emotional and filled with grief and anger in this soliloquy. His powerful and passionate words provide him with a sort of redemption and drive him to rouse the people of Rome to rebellion. He prophesizes Domestic fury and fierce civil strife in Italy, and uses horrific images such as infants quartered to predict the many future deaths and the chaos that are to come and to shock the audience. Antonys complete and utter loyalty to Caesars spirit, ranging for revenge, reminds us of great Caesars continuous presence despite his death, and demonstrates the extreme me asures Antony will take to avenge his friends betrayal. His words therefore set the tone for the rest of the play and prepare the audience for the forthcoming turmoil and bloodshed. Antonys soliloquy marks a turning point in the play, which begins with his masterful and manipulative speech to the plebeians to avenge his beloved friend and to gain power, and ultimately dooms Rome to endure Caesars revenge. Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears. Mark Antony begins his speech with an appeal for attention before a confused and hostile crowd. Commas punctuate his first line as he speaks slowly to give the retreating people time to hear him. This oration will test their loyalty towards Rome and towards Noble Antony. His speeches take the form of verse rather than prose, which make his words more strong, emotive, and poetic than Brutus. Antony immediately disables all opposition in the crowd with the words I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him. However, he soon begins to direct his audiences thoughts away from the evil ambition that Brutus spoke of by talking of Caesars legacy and hinting at his heroism, kindness, and honour. Being a master of rhetorical and political skill, Antony simultaneously maintains Brutus arguments while highlighting their flaws and suggesting the opposite, and thus is able to appear deferential to the conspirators but nevertheless incite a revolt against them, much as the previous scene, where he damns the murderers while appearing to pay them respect. Here, Antony states that Caesar was ambitious many times, then counters these arguments by using tangible images that appeal to the plebeians and remind them that Caesar brought money to Rome, showed compassion for the poor, and turned down the crown three times. This logical evidence questions the validity of Brutus argument and makes the crowd feel guilty by reminding them that they all loved Caesar once, though there are none so poor to do him reverence at his death. Antony also repeatedly calls the conspirators honourable men so that it seems that their view of Caesar as ambitious must therefore have been correct, and so as not to go against the crowd, who are, at this point, still in favour of Brutus. However, the use of this phrase is heavily ironic, as he believes the men are traitors. Antonys repetition of the term honourable men gives his speech power and infuses it with an increasingly sarcastic tone that questions their honour simply by drawing so much attention to it: For Brutus is an honourable man,/ So are they all, all honourable men. The emphasis on this phrase also builds rhythm into the speech which captures the crowds attention. Antony continues to flatter the conspirators by saying I am no orator, as Brutus is, despite offering a speech three times the length of Brutus. This also expresses his supposed low self-confidence, thereby evoking pity among the crowd in an attempt for support and praise of his great oration. Again demonstrating hi s ability to manipulate the thoughts of the crowd, Antony introduces the idea of mutiny and rage while claiming to prevent it, then says that if he were as skilled an orator as Brutus, he would stir the people to revenge and riot. Antony then proceeds to flatter the Romans, calling them gentle when they are in fact uncouth. By making it seem as if he is consulting the crowd, and by not explicitly enforcing any opinion, Antony does not appear dictatorial, but rather a statesman. He involves the crowd and gives the impression that they are in control. He asks rhetorical questions, to which he supplies answers. The consultation of the crowd (such as You will compel me then to read the will?) takes on a significance, as there is an intimacy among the crowd, the speaker, and the body. Antony uses the will itself as a device to tantalize the crowd as the possibility of money makes the people selfish and excited, meanwhile stating that he cannot read it as it would demonstrate how much Cae sar loved his citizens and therefore stir them up. Here, again, he is deviously employing the craft of the rhetoric, as a riot is precisely what he wants. He plays with their desire and strengthens it by holding back information until exactly the right moment, which consequently makes the mob even more passionate and dangerous. When Antony finally reads the will, Caesars generosity in bequeathing his private gardens and orchards and seventy-five drachmans to each citizen emphasises the injustice of the assassination and sends the crowd into a frenzy. Often, actions speak louder than words, and Antony successfully uses theatrics in his oration to create a dramatic effect that will have a lasting impact on the crowd. He initially makes a powerful entrance by entering the Forum bearing dead Caesars body, which moves the audience, and from this moment onwards, all eyes are turned towards him. He makes a final lasting image when he uncovers Caesars body and reveals his wounds, at which p oint one plebeian responds with O piteous spectacle. I have seen a production of Julius Caesar at The Lyric Theatre, Hammersmith, and the constant presence of the dead body at the forefront of the stage, draped in white fabric with the bloody head uncovered, increased and sustained the dramatic tension and suspense throughout Antonys speech, while the dim blue lighting created a sombre mood and cast shadows on the characters, achieving an air of mystery. Antony thus uses the power of theatre to prolong the strife following the assassination by shocking the audience with a improvisatory account of the death, claiming to know which conspirator made each wound. He deliberately uses hyperbole such as O, what a fall was there, my countrymen! / Then I, and you, and all of us fell down, to aggravate his audience. Harsh k, r and t consonants in words like unkindest cut emphasise the brutality of the murderous assault, while soft f and l sounds echo Caesars fall. By recounting the murder in a production filled with tragic pathos, he and all the citizens of Rome are forced to relive the traumatic experience. Antonys oration is clearly based more on emotion than on reason. His passionate mourning and sorrow, as shown by his genuine tears over the corpse, and his sentimental reminiscing about Caesar throughout his speech win over the feelings of the crowd and contrast with all the other characters actions and language. Antonys long speeches are actually motivated by grief for another individual, horror, and outrage, and the audience is enchanted by such a display of loyalty. Antony states, He was my friend, taking on a softer, more reflective tone. Concerns such as friendship are ones they can all understand, and the crowd can therefore empathize with him. Antony shows how much he has been hurt by Caesars death, stating, My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar. At this point, he feels the need to pause to recover himself, and it is precisely here where the crowd insti nctively began to change sides. Moved by his emotion, the fickle crowd begin to sympathise with Antony, commenting Poor soul, his eyes are red as fire with weeping. Caught up in their own emotion, they accept everything he says. The reason Antonys speech is so successful is because he employs theatrical effects and colorful language in a way that is powerful and attractive to the audience. He is clearly not the plain blunt man he claims to be, and instead proves himself to be eloquent and articulate, with a knowledge of managing crowds. Antony skilfully uses every piece of information he can to win over the crowd. His speech is well received, and public opinion turns against the conspirators.It is by targeting the masses that Antony is able to create a chaotic situation that allows him to seize power in place of the republicans. He even later attempts to dissuade Octavius from entering Rome, possibly to avoid sharing power. By means of his ruthless show of grief and persuasive rheto ric, Antony has convinced the unruly mob to revolt against the conspirators. They are enraged to the point of rebellion and violence, and leave to cremate Caesars body with due respect, burn the houses of the conspirators, and incite general mayhem. Consequently, Brutus and Cassius flee Rome. Antonys ruthlessness becomes ever more apparent as he personifies his mischief, saying Mischief, thou art afoot: / Take thou what course thou wilt. Delighted that the crowd is now acting to his advantage, Antony immediately thinks of ways he can profit from this chaos, and visits Octavius and Lepidus at Caesars house. Utterly confident about his military strategy, Antony personifies fortune, stating Fortune is merry, / And in this mood will give us anything. By readily trading the lives of the conspirators for his own political success, Antonys merciless nature is revealed. Henceforth, he uses his current position of leadership to defeat his opponents.At the beginning of Act V, as the two oppos ing sides argue before the battle, Shakespeare shows that language has gone past the point of having an effect. It is ironic, though, that Antony accuses the Villans of kissing Caesars feet while their vile daggers / Hacked one another in the sides of Caesar, when he did the same by betraying Brutus trust and friendship while turning the crowd against him at Caesars funeral. Nevertheless, no measure of insult or accusation will deter the inevitable violence brought on by that which has already been spoken. The war at Philippi that follows reveals much about Antonys character. We primarily see that he is a skilled military leader, as he makes better decisions on the battlefield than any of the other generals and is proficient at pinpointing the best point of attack; for example, when Brutus leaves Cassius army exposed, Antony attacks immediately. Even when Antony takes the inferior left hand of the even field he is victorious, while Octavius is defeated. Allowing Octavius to take the more advantageous right hand side of the battlefield could suggest Antonys modesty and reason, as it shows that he is loyal to Caesars great-nephew and heir and acknowledges his superiority. On the other hand, Antony and Octavius argue, as they are both power-craving. There is some personality clash, though they are both able to place their differences secondary to their shared aspiration to defeat Brutus and Cassius. To do this, however, they must be expedient and practical. Antony recklessly changes Caesars will, which he previously used to manipulate the Romans, by looking for ways to cut off some charges in legacies. He wants to reduce the amount of money left by Caesar to the poor of Rome, and instead keeps it for the triumvirate and to cut costs for his army. He also proves to be cold and hard-hearted in discussing the deaths of any senators with power who may threaten his reign (for example, by curtly stating that his own nephew, Publius, shall not live, rather than attempti ng to argue for his life). Antonys actions are filled with irony, as he is now assassinating people who he feels have power, just as the conspirators did to Caesar. Similarly, he goes behind the back of Lepidus, his ally, criticising him and using him resourcefully to do their errands and to ease themselves of diverse slanderous loads. Antony thus compares Lepidus to his horse, and plans to withdraw him from power as soon as they are done using him, despite him being a tried and valiant soldier. His plan is to then assume power in Lepidus place. In this scene Antony appears very controlling, and by talking down to Octavius, who defends Lepidus by reminding him that he, Antony, has seen more days than him and thereby implying that he is wiser, he comes across as pompous and self-important. By this point in the play we see how much Antony has changed. The generosity of Octavius that Antony himself used to manifest contrasts sharply with his personality now. The triumvirs, particularly Antony, defeat the conspirators, though they do so with no regard for cruelty, tyranny, and betrayal. As it stands after the battle, Antony and Octavius are both competing for domination. Antony has underestimated Octavius determination to rule Rome, and there is no clear winner, though Antonys prospects remain high. However, we have to question whether Antony would truly be a good ruler. He has been given power by the people of Rome, and they are clearly in favour of him, even though since his oration his principles appear to have changed. Although his actions have been carried out on behalf of Rome, he has adapted them for personal gain. It becomes evident that as a ruler Antony would be prepared to forget truth, loyalty, and basic principles as he has done in the past, thus losing his nobility. However, he is still able to recognize and commend nobility among others, as in the final scene Antony pays tribute to Brutus, calling him the noblest Roman of them all, recognizing that of all the conspirators he was the only one who acted with good intentions, rather than out of envy of great Caesar. This public show of praise has the added purpose of uniting the people of Rome. The future of Rome now seems to lie in Antonys hands. Brutus killed Caesar to create democracy and to prevent a one-man state, but the murder appears to have failed to solve their political problems, as Antonys climb to power indicates that he too will be a dictator like Caesar. Antony has little concern for the plebeians who will suffer due to the civil strife he has created. It is ironic that Antony hails Brutus as being a man rather than a god like Caesar was, but nevertheless is set out to be a similar type of leader. The future of Rome is the audiences primary concern in this scene, though the fact that the play ends with a sense of uncertainty means that many decisions are left up to the audience. Following the assassination we have a mourning Rome, a dangerous Rome, and since the po litical structure as it is at the end of the novel is largely how it was to begin with, the most likely conclusion is that little will change in the future. This is due to the overwhelming desire for power and authority among the ruling class. There is no prospect of hierarchy in the political system the triumvirate has created. These men should unite and work towards bringing Rome to stability, working for the good of the people, but they are in fact divided by their pride and self-interest, and their constant attempts to undermine each other. These concerns have preoccupied their minds, and as a result they have overlooked the qualities of honor and dignity that should be characteristic of all Romans. The tragedy of Julius Caesar therefore lies not only in the murderous assault on the central character, but also in the crisis of a powerful nation which rules one third of the world. Throughout Julius Caesar Mark Antony proves himself to be a sophisticated and artful public speaker, a successful military leader, and a sly politician, meanwhile fulfilling Brutus assessment of him as a wise and valiant Roman. Antony has a romantic side to him, which encourages his emotion to influence both other people, and many of his own decisions. His emotional oration over Caesars body is deserved and allows him to stand up for what he feels is right, though this emotion also provokes political unrest in Rome. Antony also embraces reason, particularly in his speech to the plebeians, and his outstanding charisma demonstrates the power of oratory, as it overwhelms the Roman people. However, his deliberate misuse of language reveals his calculating personality, which during the battle becomes brutal and cruel. Two contrasting sides of his personality are thus exposed: the logical and reasonable, and the ruthless. Antony thus symbolizes both the problem and the solution for Rome, which is the reason for the indefinite consequences of the action and events in the play.

Conjugation of French Verb Entrer (to Enter)

The French verb  entrer means to enter and its a very useful word to know. As you use French in more conversations or travel to French-speaking regions, youll find forms of  entrer  everywhere. Just like with all verbs, when we want to say entered or entering, the verb needs to be conjugated. A short lesson will demonstrate how to do that. Conjugating the French Verb  Entrer Entrer  is not only a very common verb, it also follows a very common verb conjugation pattern. This is a  regular -ER verb  and it shares the same infinitive endings with similar verbs like  enseigner  (to teach),  exister  (to exist), and many others. As with all French verb conjugations, begin by identifying the verb stem:  entr-. We can then add a new ending to match the present, future, or imperfect past tense with the appropriate subject pronoun. For instance, I enter is jentre and we will enter is nous entrerons. The easiest way to memorize all these verb forms is to practice them in context. Luckily, there are plenty of opportunities in everyday life to utilize  entrer. Subject Present Future Imperfect j' entre entrerai entrais tu entres entreras entrais il entre entrera entrait nous entrons entrerons entrions vous entrez entrerez entriez ils entrent entreront entraient The Present Participle of  Entrer The  present participle  of  entrer  is  entrant. Not only is it a verb, you can also use it as an adjective, gerund, or noun in some circumstances. The Past Participle and Passà © Composà © To express the past tense entered, you can use either the imperfect forms or the  passà © composà ©. Forming the latter is quite simple and you might find it the easier option of the two. To construct it, begin by conjugating the  auxiliary verb  Ãƒ ªtre  according to the sentences subject pronoun. Then, add the  past participle  entrà ©. As an example, I entered becomes je suis entrà © and we entered is nous sommes entrà ©. More Simple  Entrer  Conjugations Should you find that the action of entering is subjective or uncertain, use the subjunctive verb mood. Similarly, the conditional verb mood implies that entering will only occur if something else happens. The possibility of needing the passà © simple or the imperfect subjunctive is low. Thats because these are primarily reserved for writing. Yet, knowing them will help your reading comprehension. Subject Subjunctive Conditional Passà © Simple Imperfect Subjunctive j' entre entrerais entrai entrasse tu entres entrerais entras entrasses il entre entrerait entra entrà ¢t nous entrions entrerions entrà ¢mes entrassions vous entriez entreriez entrà ¢tes entrassiez ils entrent entreraient entrà ¨rent entrassent Forming short, direct commands or requests is very easy with the imperative verb form. When using this, the subject pronoun is not required, so tu entre can be entre. Imperative (tu) entre (nous) entrons (vous) entrez

How Did Feathered Dinosaurs Learn to Fly

As little as 50 years ago, the theory that birds descended from dinosaurs seemed completely ridiculous--after all, everyone knows that most birds are small, light, fluttery creatures, while most dinosaurs were huge, plodding, and distinctly unaerodynamic. But as the evidence--small dinosaurs possessing feathers, beaks, and other birdlike characteristics--began to mount, the connection between dinosaurs and birds became apparent to scientists, and then to the general public. Today, its the rare paleontologist who disputes the descent of birds from dinosaurs, though there are some outliers who try, and were left to explain why birds arent dinosaur-sized. This doesn’t mean, however, that all of the technical aspects of the dinosaur/bird transition have been settled once and for all. Researchers still disagree about which families of dinosaurs were most closely related to modern birds, whether the feathers of these dinosaurs were aerodynamic or ornamental, and--perhaps most contentiously of all--how these reptilian proto-birds managed to achieve the huge evolutionary leap into powered flight. The Origin of Feathered Dinosaurs Why, and how, did the small theropod dinosaurs of the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods evolve feathers? Its a common mistake among those unversed in evolutionary theory to assume that feathers evolved specifically for the purpose of flight. Evolution, however, is a blind process--it doesn’t know where its going until it gets there. For this reason, the most widely accepted explanation today is that dinosaurs evolved feathers as a means of insulating themselves in cold climates (and, possibly, as a way to puff themselves up in the eyes of the opposite sex with coats of garish plumage). If this sounds unlikely, bear in mind that even birds that have been flightless for millions of years, like ostriches and emus, still retain their feathers, an expensive accessory in terms of energy usage. If the purpose of feathers was solely to power flight, there would be no reason, from an evolutionary perspective, for penguins to keep these appendages: in fact, they might be better off completely naked, or sporting thick coats of fur! (For more on this subject, see Why Did Dinosaurs Have Feathers?) The first indisputably feathered dinosaurs--like Archaeopteryx and Epidendrosaurus--appeared on earth during the late Jurassic period, anywhere from 160 to 150 million years ago. As the eons ground on, the primitive (that is, short and hairlike) feathers of these early dino-birds gradually evolved into the broad, flat feathers were familiar with today, which are better suited to trapping air (and thus insulating the underlying skin). At this point the question asks itself: how did these feathered dinosaurs make the transition to flight? Theory #1: Feathered Dinosaurs Took a Running Leap Into Flight Extrapolating backward from the behavior of some modern birds, its reasonable to infer that the small- to medium-sized, two-legged theropods of the Cretaceous period (notably the ornithomimids, or bird mimics, but also raptors and possibly even small tyrannosaurs) could attain top running speeds of 30 or 40 miles per hour. As these theropods ran (either in the act of chasing down prey or trying to escape being eaten themselves), their coat of insulating feathers gave them a slight aerodynamic bounce, helping them land their next meal or live to see another day. Since well-fed dinosaurs, and those that avoided predation, produced more offspring, the evolutionary trend was toward larger feathers, which provided more lift. From there, the theory goes, it would only have been a matter of time before a feathered dinosaur achieved actual flight, at least for a brief period of time. But at this point, its important to understand what a short time means in an evolutionary context. There wasnt a single defining moment when a small, feathered theropod accidentally ran straight off the side of a cliff and magically took flight like a modern bird. Rather, you have to picture this process happening incrementally, over the course of millions of years--leaps of four feet, five feet, ten feet, until something resembling powered flight gradually emerged. In the excellent Nova episode The Four-Winged Dinosaur (about a specimen of Microraptor that had recently been discovered in China), a paleontologist is quoted as saying that the hatchlings of modern birds tend to recapitulate their evolutionary heritage. That is, even though these newly hatched chicks are unable to fly, they can jump for farther distances, and more easily scuttle up inclined surfaces, with the aerodynamic lift provided by their feathers--the same advantages as may have been enjoyed by the feathered dinosaurs of the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods. Theory #2: Feathered Dinosaurs Achieved Flight by Falling Out of Trees The trouble with Theory #1 is that birds arent the only animals alive today whose behavior can be extrapolated back to extinct dinosaurs. Flying squirrels, for instance, glide across forest canopies by leaping off the tall branches of trees and spreading the flaps of skin attached to their arms and legs. They’re not capable of powered flight, of course, but they can glide for impressive distances, up to two-thirds of the length of a football field for some species. (Another family of gliding and flying animals is the pterosaurs, which were only distantly related to dinosaurs and not directly ancestral to modern birds.) Conceivably, some types of feathered dinosaurs might have lived high up in trees (which would entail their being a relatively small size and having the ability to climb). These theropods, the reasoning goes, might then have followed the same evolutionary path as flying squirrels, gliding for longer and longer distances from branch to branch, or from tree to tree, as their feathers slowly evolved to the optimum shape and configuration. Eventually, they could leap off a high branch and take to the air for indefinite periods of time, and voila - the first prehistoric birds! The main problem with this arboreal theory of flight, as it’s called, is that its easier to imagine powered flight evolving in the ground-up scenario (picture a terrified dinosaur desperately flapping its vestigial wings while trying to escape a ravenous Allosaurus) than as a result of tree-to-tree gliding. We also have indirect evidence against this scenario, which is that, despite millions of years of evolution, no flying squirrel (with the exception of Bullwinkles pal Rocky) has managed to achieve powered flight--although, to be fair, bats certainly have. More to the point, though, paleontologists have adduced absolutely no fossil evidence for tree-dwelling dinosaurs. Current Thinking About Feathered Dinosaurs and Birds New genera of small, feathered dinosaurs are constantly being discovered, many of them in China. Since these dinosaurs date back to different geologic times ranging from the Jurassic to the Cretaceous, separated by tens of millions of years, it can be difficult for paleontologists to reconstruct the exact evolutionary line that led from dinosaurs to birds. For example, the weird, four-winged Microraptor has provoked intense debate: some researchers see it as an evolutionary dead end, others as an intermediate form between dinosaurs and birds, and yet others as not technically a dinosaur at all, but an offshoot of the archosaur family tree that predated the rise of the dinosaurs. Further complicating matters, its possible that birds evolved not once, but multiple times during the Mesozoic Era. (This type of convergent evolution is fairly common; its why, for instance, modern giraffes mimic the body shape of hundred-million-year-old sauropods). Some of these birds may have achieved flight runway-fashion, others by falling out of trees, and still others by some bizarre combination of the two. All we can say for sure is that all modern birds derive from one common ancestor; that is, if birds did indeed evolve multiple times during the age of dinosaurs, only one of these lines managed to survive into the Cenozoic Era.