Ranked in the top ten for our most popular subjects.

Top 10

Answered a question or shared learning resources in the last month.

Active Contributor

Valuable

Goldwater was a bit of an extremists in term of policy. He is responsible for taking Republican policies and taking them further right. He rallied against things like The Great Society (The Great Society was a program launched by President Johnson to try and eliminate poverty and racial injustice.) and he also rallied against welfare programs. Goldwater was seen as a racist by many. That hurt his support among normal Republicans.

Photos like these Klan members supporting Goldwater were spread throughout the country. In which hurt his support for minorities.

Goldwater was also known as a huge supporter of the nuclear program. Nuclear war was a real threat back than and still kind of is today. The Johnson campaign released an infamous "Daisy" ad attacking Goldwater's support of using nuclear weapons. 
The Election results were disastrous for Goldwater.

Goldwater lost by huge margins. Some very conservative states switched and voted Democratic. This election was the last time Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming voted Democratic. Goldwater even almost lost his home state of Arizona. He only won it by less than a percentage point. He did okay in the deep south, where his type of politics were more popular and widespread.

Overall, Goldwater fractured the Republican Party. Before then, Republican politics were pretty moderate. Like Susan Collins type of moderate. A more far-right wing of the Republican politics was created and still lasts to this day. He alienated Moderate Democrats, Independents, and mainstream Republicans.

Politics

Why did some people find Barry Goldwater's views threatening?

Arguments for the UK having a codified constitution are that it would clarify the law, help to limit our over-powerful government and help to decentralise power. Arguments against include that, as the USA experience shows, a written constitution doesn’t always clarify the law, it gives too much power to judges, an unwritten constitution enables our political system to involve in response to public demands and changing political circumstances, and that it is attitudes, not words, that defend freedom.


One of the arguments in favour of codification of the UK constitution is that it collects all of the rules into a set of documents, thus making the rules easily understandable, protected with entrenchments and it clear up the confusion of what is included in the constitution. This would allow them to be more easily enforced.

Secondly, many would argue that a codified constitution would make the rules clearer and that it would increase the power of the courts as it is codified as law. Although that it might be true, but the adoption of a codified constitution might affect the democratic rule in the UK and might also lead to judicial tyranny. The reason is that judges would be the ones policing the constitution and the interpretation of the constitution can be affected by the personal preference and values of judges. Furthermore, they are not elected and not socially representative of society with that they are “diminishing” the idea of democratic rule in the UK as they are taking power away from elected representatives in the House of commons.

The third point to be argued that a written constitution constrains government in ways that an unwritten constitution does not. “The government is subject to it, whereas with an unwritten constitution it is the constitution which is subject to the government; the government can choose to alter it or interpret it in ways that suits itself. A written constitution is therefore an important safeguard against abuses by government of their powers, not least because it would entrench civil liberties and the due processes of law.” However it can be argues that a written constitution is not a proper safeguard. A written constitution is no real form of protection to those trying to seek political domination.



THE CASE FOR AND AGAINST THE UK ADOPTING A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION

The introduction of Christianity created a unique African Church that has provided a sense of cultural and national identity to Ethiopia.

Explanation:

The Tewahedo Orthodox Church of Ethiopia though related to the Coptic Orthodox Church of Egypt is unique to Ethiopia. The Church is deeply rooted in the history, social life, and ethics of the nation.

The belief in Ethiopia is that the royal line of the nation is descended from King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. This belief is supported by the existence of a large Jewish practicing part of the population especially in the Northwest. Since the fall of the royal line, the advent of a socialistic government, and the rise of a more radical form of Islam the Israeli government has actively sought to expatriate this Jewish population. The Story is also supported by references in the Old Testament.

The introduction of Christianity created a strong cultural identity in Ethiopia. The Orthodox faith of Ethiopia is unique to that country, not dependent on outside influences,and has long held the nation together. More than 50% of the nation still practices the Orthodox faith in spite of the challenges to the traditional religion due to the introduction of the Catholic faith in the 16th century, Western evangelical missionaries, Socialistic governments, and radical Islam.

History

What crucial cultural contribution did the introduction of Christianity bring to Ethiopia?

All in all, the Allies won the Battle through a combination of technological advancement, a betterment of tactics, availability of supplies, and the advance of the war effort in different fronts.

The Battle of the Atlantic was the longest campaign in WW2 and involved Germany (and later Italy) disrupting shipments of military equipment and supplies from North America to Great Britain - the idea being that if the Axis powers could disrupt enough equipment and supplies from reaching Great Britain, it would be forced to surrender.
It's a plan that nearly worked. The destruction wrought by the Axis submarines on Atlantic shipping was huge. So the question now becomes: How was the Battle won?
It was a combination of factors that decided it. First and foremost, technology advanced, making finding submarines at longer and longer distances easier and enhancing the killing ability of ships and aircraft against submarines.
Another was changes in tactics. At first, shipping was sent individually - the thinking that it was harder for German U-boats to find a single ship in the ocean than a big convoy. This didn't work well - German U-boats operated in "Wolf Packs" and sank large numbers of supply ships.
Over time, the Allies changed tactics and placed heavily armed escort ships (along with the newly developed aircraft carrier and their ability to project airpower over long distances away from land air bases) with groups of supply ships moving together. At the same time, German tactics changed and now it was U-boats that operated singly - and they were destroyed en masse.
Another factor has to do with the ability to build replacements of what was lost. The American factories and shipyards were never bombed nor were the supply lines that brought in a constant stream of steel, food, and other supplies. The Germans, on the other hand, began experiencing shortages of those same materials as Allied air power took over German skies. And German shipbuilding facilities were bombed faster than the Germans could keep them fixed.
All in all, the Allies won the Battle through a combination of technological advancement, a betterment of tactics, availability of supplies, and the advance of the war effort in different fronts.



How were the Americans able to win the Battle of the Atlantic?

Trade routes that linked the Far East and Western Europe were evident in Roman times, and continued (with some generational interruptions) right up until today.

Explanation:
A valid trade route requires political stability at either end, and (mostly) among the middlemen in between the producer and the market. There was a European demand for silk, spices, gems, and later for ceramics from East and South Asia during Roman times. What China usually wanted in return was just silver.

Interruptions could result from major climate events (such as fallout from two supervolcano erruptions around 450 and 540 AD -- which led to widespread famine and epidemic, often followed by major political upsets). The start of the Medieval Warm period in the 9th Century also ushered in a new period of relative stability and prosperity in both Europe and Asia.

There were two routes -- overland through Central Asia and the Black Sea, and Maritime, through India and then the Red Sea into the Mediterranean World.

However, in the late 10th Century, the rise of the Seljuk Turks in Central Asia and their spread into the Middle East caused considerable distruption to trade -- and eventually triggered the Crusades.

Later, in the 14th Century, the Ottoman Turks would prove disruptive and significantly marked up prices for exports to Europe. This help prompt the European maritime response (pioneered by Portugal) that led to direct Oceanic trade between Europe and China.

When did Italy and Asia stop trading. I know they started in 983. My question really is what happened with Italy and Asia trading in the tenth century?

A great deal of mockery towards funerals comes in Chapter 35 of Great Expectations, where Mrs. Joe's funeral occurs.

The house is decorated by Mr. Trabb in a gaudy manner. He even coordinates a formal funeral procession and makes the villagers dress in black mourning costumes. Even Joe finds himself "entangled in a little black cloak tied in a large bow under his chin". This is downright disrespectful and prevents Joe from showing how much he was devoted to Mrs. Joe.

One of the boys knocks the door for Pip, because he assumes that Pip is too sad to do it by himself.

The children and women only came to the house to admire the "sable warders", not Mrs. Joe. They just wanted to explore the house and show off how they can behave and fake their respects at Mrs. Joe's funeral.

English

How does Dickens use satire to poke fun at funerals in Chapter 35 of Great Expectations?

From the start of the First World War in 1914, Germany pursued a highly effective U-boat campaign against merchant shipping. This campaign intensified over the course of the war and almost succeeded in bringing Britain to its knees in 1917.

At first, U-boats obeyed 'prize rules', which meant that they surfaced before attacking merchant ships and allowed the crew and passengers to get away.  This left U-boats vulnerable to attack, especially after the British introduced ‘Q-ships’ – disguised warships with hidden guns intended to lure U-boats in close and then sink them. The use of Q-ships contributed to Germany’s eventual abandonment of prize rules.

On 4 February 1915, Germany declared a war zone around Britain, within which merchant ships were sunk without warning. This 'unrestricted submarine warfare' angered neutral countries, especially the United States.

How is unrestricted submarine warfare a threat to neutrality?

Compared to his brother Louis XVIII, who ruled from 1814-1824, Charles X of France took a far more conservative line.

Charles X of France refused to bend to modern political fashions - he tried to be an old style “Church and Throne” King.

Louis Phillppe (1830 - 1848) tried to go in the direction of being a modern monarch - accepting the new flag and that Parliament would make policy (although the policy that French Parliament made in his time was mostly tariffs and government subsidies for politically connected French business enterprises).

In the end it did not matter - both the rigid Charles X and the flexible Louis Philippe were overthrown by Revolutions.

Compare charles X vs louis xviii

Utang na loob is a Filipino cultural trait which, when translated literally, means "a debt of one's inner self'. A debt of good will  is incurred when a person becomes the beneficiary of significant assistance or favour given by another. Usually, the beneficiary is in acute need of the assistance given or favour granted.

Pros:

1. It encourages us to do good deeds to each other.

2. Encourages camaraderie especially in circles of friends.

3. Makes us think ahead when establishing relationships.

Cons:

1. Some friendships can end because someone did not meet the expectation of another.

2. Makes conditional deeds that are meant to pay.

3. Friendships will depend on the benefits they receive rather than the tie itself.

Krishitha Mannan

Profile

Q&A

About

Krishitha is verified

Education

Queens University Belfast

Availability

Subjects

Krishitha Mannan