Who do you think is the true hero (or protagonist) of Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, Portia or Antonio?

Your question is actually more complicated than it seems since it demands two interpretations of the term, 'hero.' In literature, the word normally refers to the lead character. Because the play is titled, 'The Merchant of Venice,' Antonio becomes the most obvious reference since he is the only merchant we read about from beginning to end. In this sense, he is, therefore, the protagonist.

Further support for him being deemed the true protagonist lies in the fact that all the major events revolve around his actions. The main theme of the play explores the antagonism between him and his opposition, Shylock, and delves into the origin and nature of their dispute, its development, and final resolution. The actions of most of the other characters are determined by events which he influences and by situations which have an impact on him. In essence, he is the core around whom almost everything revolves.

It is Antonio's decision to assist Bassanio by agreeing to act as surety that affects the major events in the play: Shylock's demand for restitution in the form of a pound of his flesh; Portia's decision to disguise herself as a lawyer; the trial scene. The major themes all have their origins in these particular situations. Although Portia's role is important, her actions later in the play are all affected by Antonio's dilemma.

In addition, your reference to 'true' suggests 'real' in the sense of, 'Who is the real hero in the play?' I suggest that this requires an alternative interpretation of the word. In this definition, a hero is someone who undertakes an arduous task and is admired for acting bravely in the face of adversity. A more common interpretation is a reference to someone who saves another from jeopardy. In this interpretation, Portia is a hero, for she saves Antonio from Shylock's vengeance. She becomes his savior and her deed is much admired and appreciated by her contemporaries.

Antonio, for all his magnanimity, does not accurately fit this definition. The fact that he extended assistance to Bassanio, against his advice, does not entirely qualify him. His attitude in accepting the harsh and punitive conditions of Shylock's bond was born from his naive overconfidence. He had no doubt that his merchant ships would dock safely and not come to harm. 

On the whole, you'll to weigh up the two definitions and determine which best suits the purpose of your task.        

Please explain how resource mobilization theory explain some social movements. Give examples

Resource mobilization theory was a significant departure from previous theories of social movements, which were based primarily on psychological factors. Resource mobilization theory abstracts away from most psychological factors and instead treats human beings as rational agents, who act in their own self-interest according to the resources available to them. (In this respect resource mobilization theory was heavily influenced by rational choice theory in political science and neoclassical rational agents in economics.)

Under resource mobilization theory, people will not join a social movement simply because they believe it advances collective interests; they will only do so if the benefit exceeds the cost to them specifically. This is a somewhat cynical view of human behavior: Essentially, people don't join social movements to make the world a better place; they do it to make themselves better off---in some formulations, literally because they get paid a share of the bounty at the end.

I think resource mobilization theory is actually best at explaining failed social movements---they failed because they were unable to establish a collective identity, so they dissolved as soon as the individual cost exceeded the individual benefit. It is also fairly good at explaining the so-called "iron law of oligarchy" (which is hardly so strong as it sounds); when one oligarchy is overturned by a popular movement only to be replaced by an even more repressive oligarchy, this looks a lot like what resource mobilization theory would predict.

This kind of revolution has occurred many times around the world; most countries in Africa have undergone at least one. Idi Amin in Uganda, Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, Mobutu in Congo/Zaire, and Hastings Banda in Malawi are all examples of leaders who overthrew oppressive colonial regimes only to establish their own new brand of oppressive regime. They and their closest supporters benefited enormously, making their actions "rational" in the narrowly-defined sense of resource mobilization theory. Similar results occurred in the Soviet Union; while ostensibly the revolution was supposed to benefit the common people, mainly it benefited the leaders of the Communist Party.

Yet it's quite hard to see how resource mobilization theory can account for more successful and positive social movements.

The suffragettes in the US who fought so heavily for the right of women to vote couldn't have been acting in their own narrow self-interest; they were beaten and abused for months, all for what, the chance to fill out a ballot every few years? Their actions only make sense if they believed in something---if they thought of themselves as fighting not for themselves, but for all the women in America and perhaps even many women yet unborn.

Similarly, resource mobilization theory has no way to explain why so many White allies joined the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s and marched with leaders like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King; at least in the short run, it was hardly in the self-interest of White people to expand the rights of Black people. In fact, resource mobilization theory is even hard-pressed to explain the participation of so many Black people---because the costs of participation were immediate and personal while the benefits were delayed and widely shared. If resource mobilization theory were right, Martin Luther King would have had to essentially buy people off---pay them enormous wages to participate in the social movement, so it would be in their self-interest to bear the risk. That's a lot like what Robert Mugabe did, but it's nothing like what Martin Luther King did. MLK didn't pay people off; he persuaded them of the moral righteousness of the cause.

Some more positive changes may also be consistent with resource mobilization theory: The Magna Carta might be explicable in these terms, as the nobles who led the charge also benefited directly from the expansion of the rights of nobles, and there were few enough nobles that the benefits weren't too widely dispersed. Even the American Revolution makes some sense in these terms, as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson surely increased their own wealth and power as a result of the revolution. But even then, this explanation wears pretty thin; lower taxes were one goal of the revolution, but people rarely volunteer to fight and risk death simply to get slightly lower taxes. It was the representation part of "taxation without representation" that really seemed to matter to most people.

Resource mobilization theory may have been a necessary corrective to theories that assume that humans are perfectly altruistic and totally ideological, caring nothing for their own self-interest; but it clearly goes too far. Altruism and ideology clearly are major motivators for human behavior, as well as rational self-interest.

What is the irony of Miss Gates' statement?

Miss Gates was Scout's schoolteacher.  One day during an in class discussion, the topic of Adolf Hitler came up.  Miss Gates expressed her dislike for Hitler.  She also showed her empathy for the Jews in Europe.  She compared the dictatorship of Germany to the democracy of the United States.  Miss Gates told her students that:

'"Over here [people] don’t believe in persecuting anybody. Persecution comes from people who are prejudiced.'"

Miss Gates made it clear that prejudiced individuals treated groups of people badly.  She also stated that such things were against the beliefs of the United States.

Scout approached Jem one day with a question.  On the last day of the trial, she had overheard Miss Gates talking.  Her teacher had stated that it was "'time somebody taught [black people] a lesson, they were gettin‘ way above themselves.'"  She then expressed her disapproval of the idea that someday black people may want to marry white people.  

These statements were puzzling to Scout.  How could Miss Gates protest the persecution of the Jews, and yet speak to condescendingly of black people?  She wondered how Miss Gates could "'hate Hitler so bad'" and then speak of those in her own community in such a terrible way.  Miss Gates had stated that anyone who persecuted a group was prejudiced.  She also had said that such a thing was not tolerated in the United States.  Despite her words, black people in Maycomb and many other places were treated poorly.

In her novel To Kill a Mockingbird, why does Harper Lee present the theme of growing up?

One conclusion that can be drawn is Harper Lee saw a parallel between a child coming of age and the South growing and changing. Therefore, Lee decided to present the need for the South to grow and develop by capturing Jem's and Scout's development as they matured as children. In paralleling the children's growth with the South's growth, Lee presents the theme of the need to mature in To Kill a Mockingbird.

Just as the children undergo many changes as the book progresses, the town of Maycomb, representative of all small Southern towns, also undergoes many changes even though these changes are just baby changes. At the opening of the book, Scout describes Maycomb as a "tired old town." It is tired for several reasons: (1) it is in the midst of the Great Depression; therefore, there is no money to produce a great deal of activity within the town; (2) being rural, the town looks a bit worn out and run-down with its grass growing on the sidewalks and its courthouse sagging; and (3) its people are very stuck in their ways. Scout characterizes Maycomb's people as being stuck in their ways when she describes the men as, despite the heat, persisting in wearing stiff collars that were "wilted by nine in the morning" and ladies persisting in bathing and napping traditions.

Author Lee also uses several characters to describe Maycomb as being stuck in its ways such as Aunt Alexandra, who persists in holding the racist and sexist views of a Southern Belle, and
Mrs. Henry Lafayette Dubose, who is as equally racist as Aunt Alexandra and holds equally strict views about how children should behave. Interestingly, many of Aunt Alexandra's notions are rejected by Atticus, such as her view that Calpurnia should be dismissed because Finch children should not be being raised by an African-American woman, and Mrs. Dubose passes away. Aunt Alexandra's rejected notions and Mrs. Dubose's passing both symbolize the ensuing death of old Southern ways and beliefs. Hence, as the story progresses, the tired old town that is stuck in its ways begins to be challenged and to change a tiny bit.

The town's change is further symbolized by the children's success in disbursing the lynch mob and in the fact that Robinson's jury was out for so long before returning with the guilty verdict. Miss Maudie reflects on the subtle changes of the town after the trial when she says the following to the children:

[A]s I waited I thought, Atticus Finch won't win, he can't win, but he's the only man in these parts who can keep a jury out so long in a case like that. And I thought to myself, well, we're making a step--it's just a baby-step, but it's a step. (Ch. 22)

Hence, just as Scout and Jem mature a great deal as a result of what they experience due to Robinson's arrest and trial, Maycomb also matures just a tiny bit. Therefore, it can be said that Lee uses the parallel of the children's growth with the town's growth to point to the South's need to continue to grow and develop.

`int (dt)/(t^2 sqrt(t^2 - 16))` Evaluate the integral

`int1/(t^2sqrt(t^2-16))dt`

Let's evaluate the integral by applying integral substitution,

Let `t=4sec(u)`

`=>dt=4tan(u)sec(u)du`

Plug the above in the integral,

`int1/(t^2sqrt(t^2-16))dt=int(4tan(u)sec(u))/((4^2sec^2(u)sqrt(4^2sec^2(u)-16)))du`

`=int(4tan(u)sec(u))/(16sec^2(u)*4sqrt(sec^2(u)-1))du`

`=inttan(u)/(16sec(u)sqrt(sec^2(u)-1))du`

Now use the identity:`sec^2(x)=1+tan^2(x)`

`=1/16inttan(u)/(sec(u)sqrt(1+tan^2(u)-1))du`

`=1/16inttan(u)/(sec(u)tan(u))du`

`=1/16int1/sec(u)du`

`=1/16intcos(u)du`

Now use the standard integral:`intcos(x)dx=sin(x)+C`

`=1/16sin(u)+C`

We have used `t=4sec(u)`

`=>u=arcsec(t/4)`

Substitute back u in the solution,

`=1/16sin(arcsec(t/4))+C`

Simplify the above by assuming the right triangle with angle `theta=arcsec(t/4)`

Hypotenuse is t and adjacent side is 4, Opposite side(O) can be found by using pythagorean identity,

`4^2+O^2=t^2`

`O^2=t^2-16`

`O=sqrt(t^2-16)`

`sin(theta)=sqrt(t^2-16)/t`

Hence the solution is `1/16(sqrt(t^2-16)/t)+C`

I need help in writing an essay about chemical reactions.

A chemical reaction is said to have taken place when two or more molecules interact to form one or more new molecule/s. The interacting molecules are called reactants, while the new molecules are called the products. Chemical reactions involve chemical changes, which means the chemical composition of the reacting species change and the products have properties which are different from those of the reactants.

Chemical reactions can be represented by chemical equations using the chemical formula of various species involved. An example chemical reaction is the reaction involved in photosynthesis:

`6CO_2 + 6H_2O + sunlight -> C_6H_12O_6 + 6O_2`

Here, carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O) are the reacting species and the products are glucose (C6H12O6) and oxygen (O2). The bonds of the reacting species were broken and new bonds were formed to produce the products in this reaction. 

An important aspect of writing chemical equations for a reaction is balancing the equation, which means that the number of atoms of each species is the same on both the product and reactant side. Once that is done, we can use the well balanced reaction to solve numerical problems on the amount of product formed or reactant consumed.

Hope this helps. 

Money is not "everything," as it is often a source of much anxiety and trouble. How does this truth relate to the story "One Thousand Dollars" by...

The irony of O. Henry's story "One Thousand Dollars" is that the spendthrift nephew of the now deceased, wealthy Mr. Gillian has never been materialistic, and the greatest anxiety that he feels is how to be rid of money, not how to attain an inheritance from his uncle.

Young Gillian, who has lived in luxury without having to work, undergoes the task of spending $1000.00 that his uncle has stipulated in his will that he spend and report the manner in which it has been dispersed. Unable to think of a way to spend this money, Gillian goes to the men's club and asks the surly Old Bryson how he should dispense with a thousand dollars. Old Bryson sarcastically suggests that Gillian buy Miss Lotta Lauriere a diamond pendant and then go run a sheep ranch in Idaho.

Gillian then goes to the stage actress's dressing room and offers her "a little thing in the pendant line," but the materialistic Miss Lotta is uninterested in such a mere bauble when another actress has received a necklace valued at $22,000.00. Disappointed, Gillian departs; he asks people on the street outside how he can spend one thousand dollars, but receives only unethical answers. He then takes a cab to the law offices of Tolman & Sharp, who are handling his uncle's affairs. There he inquires if Miss Hayden, who has worked for his uncle, was left anything in the will besides the ring and the $10 that all the employees were given. "Nothing," says Mr. Tolman.

Gillian hurries to the mansion, places the one thousand dollars in an envelope and tells Miss Hayden that he has just come from the law offices where a codicil to his uncle's will was discovered and $1000.00 was left for her. "Oh," she exclaims, and Gillian professes his love for her. "I am sorry," replies Miss Hayden as she happily takes the money.

Greatly disappointed by this rejection, Gillian writes a note accounting for his expenditure of the one thousand dollars and places it in an envelope. He returns to the lawyers, informing them that he has completed his assignment of spending the money. However, the lawyers explain that the uncle wished to test Gillian to learn if he deserved any inheritance. If he has dispensed with the $1000.00 in an altruistic manner and not used it in "dissipation" as has been his habit, he can now receive $50,000.00.

Gillian cannot believe how much trouble money is causing him. He now has to be rid of a greater sum. So, as Mr. Tolman reaches for the envelope containing his explanation of his spending, Gillian quickly tears it into strips, saying that he has spent the money on gambling bets. Tolman & Sharp shake their heads "mournfully." 

Indeed, money is not "everything" to Gillian, who loves Miss Hayden. Even when he tries to give her some, it causes him trouble and anxiety. But he finally is rid of it, and he laughs as he departs.