Author: eugene

Write an analysis of Sir Ector de Maris’s elegy for his brother Lancelot (553, beginning at “Ah, Lancelot!” at ending at “put spear in the rest”).

Write an analysis of Sir Ector de Maris’s elegy for his brother Lancelot (553, beginning at “Ah, Lancelot!” at ending at “put spear in the rest”). Do not write out the whole passage and then make a paraphrase of it, for I will have the passage in front of me when I grade your work. Nor should you write the passage out bit by bit with accompanying paraphrase, for again I can see all of the words myself.
The best approach will be to re-read the passage several times, taking notes. Then see if you can create a list or diagram of Lancelot’s leading traits. As you do so, determine to what extent some sort of structure underlies Ector’s elegy. If you create a structured document of your own, you will be in a position to compare your organizational strategy with his. How many paragraphs would you need to clarify the nature of Lancelot’s various traits and how they relate to each other?
When you do quote from the elegy, you will do so as evidence supporting the accuracy of your interpretation of what Lancelot ultimately was. In other words, your task is to perceive why someone might admire him so highly, while preserving the detachment that will allow you to engage in critical thinking. As a brother, Ector is not surprisingly partial in his view of Lancelot. All the indications are that Malory shared that partiality and expected his readers to do so too. But his readers (now) are not persons living in the Middle Ages, that is, they are in this context you. Your mission is not to do a hatchet job on Lancelot, for this would only reveal your inability to respond sympathetically to Ector’s and Malory’s values. But you do not have the same understanding of virtue, heroism, or other pertinent traits, so you can learn about your own values and about those values typical of the Middle Ages by putting Ector’s words into the context of your own words. passage below……
“Ah, Lancelot!” he said, “thou were head of all Christian knights. And now i dare say,” said Sir Ector, “thou Sir Lancelot, there thou liest, that thou were never matched of earthly knights’s hand. And thou were the courteoust(most courteous) knight that ever bore shield. And thou were the truest friend to thy lover that ever bestrode horse, and thou were the truest lover, of a sinful man,(of any man born in original sin) that ever loved women, and thou were the kindest man that ever struck with sword. And thou were the goodliest person that ever came among press of knights, and thou was the meekest man and the gentlest that ever ate in hall among ladies, and thou were the sternest knight to thy mortal foe that ever put spear in the rest.”(support for the butt of the lance)

Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury is a great, and classic, dystopian novel. Why does everything go downhill for society according to Bradbury.

Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury is a great, and classic, dystopian novel. Why does everything go downhill for society according to Bradbury? Is it because of the politics, the citizens, or the art they choose to destroy (and what they let survive)? Or are all 3 tied together?

Discuss how your chosen identity elements both strengthen and complicate your leadership practice -gender(female) -race(Black) -socioeconomic status (Lower-middle class) -nationality/citizenship (American) In other words, how do these parts of your identity impact how you practice leadership and are perceived as a leader?

All of us have multiple identities that are steeped in different cultures. Remember, culture is not only bound to a particular place in the world. Each individual is the sum of different types of culture, thus multicultural. The purpose of this assignment is to help us think of ourselves as multicultural individuals. Discuss how your chosen identity elements both strengthen and complicate your leadership practice -gender(female) -race(Black) -socioeconomic status (Lower-middle class) -nationality/citizenship (American) In other words, how do these parts of your identity impact how you practice leadership and are perceived as a leader?

Conduct a mini review of the literature on the effects of poverty on child welfare.

Conduct a mini review of the literature on the effects of poverty on child welfare. Locate, summarize and synthesize at least four articles  in an essay that addresses the role of social inequality, poverty, and racism in the entrée into the child protection system. Include details on the prevalence of poverty and child outcomes for various American minority groups and conclude with ways to improve outcomes for children of color in the child welfare system

How does refusing medical tests and treatments pose a threat to Emanuel’s – or anyone’s – health from a biomedical perspective?

Ezekiel J. Emanuel, at age 57, has an unusual ambition, a hope, really. He wants to die when he is 75. He doesn’t have a terminal illness. And he has no plans to commit suicide. He leads an active, productive life. He recently climbed Mount Kilimanjaro with two nephews. But come 2032, he will, without any fuss, refuse all [medical] tests and treatments. He will allow his body to take its natural course. He is very serious about his intentions. In fact, he argues that 75 is a good age for most of us to die. Dr. Emanuel is one of the most renowned and esteemed physicians in the United States. An oncologist, he is currently the Chair of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania. He has received dozens of awards from organizations such as the National Institutes of Health and the American Cancer Society. The interview followed an article that Emanuel wrote of the Atlantic entitled” Why I hope to Die ar 75″ Enright and most of the people who read this article wanted to know why he chose the age 75 to die.When reading Emanuel’s article, however, you will notice that he doesn’t actually say he wants to die when he is 75. He says that in 2032 he will stop having annual medical check-ups and he will refuse all medical tests and treatments. response paper that compares Ezekiel J. Emanuel’s justifications for deciding to refuse all medical tests and treatments after reaching 75 with Barry Glassner’s claim that individuals making independent life-plans concerning their health do so “for profoundly social reasons.” In his chapter, “In the Name of Health”Glassner observes that “people decide to alter their appearance not at indiscriminate points intheir lives but most commonly when their social circumstances are changing.” Although Glassner is focused on figuring out why people set out to improve their bodies through activities such as bodybuilding, weight loss programs, and cosmetic surgery, he shares with Emanuel an interest on how society imposes certain specific values and consequences for why individuals should “improve their bodies” (in Glassner’s case) or make decisions about whether or not they have become a “burdens” upon family and society (in Emanuel’s case). Be sure, in your essay, to include answers to the following questions: 1. How does refusing medical tests and treatments pose a threat to Emanuel’s – or anyone’s – health from a biomedical perspective? 2. What are the reasons Emanuel provides for the values he places on living – and life in general – appropriate for healthy living in the 21st century? 2a. In what ways are the reasons Emanuel provides for the values he places on living life different – and similar – to the reasons Glassner provides for why people set out to improve their bodies through activities such as bodybuilding, weight loss programs, and cosmetic surgery? 2b. Also consider whether Emanuel’s and Glassner’s arguments apply to everyone. Is refusing all medical tests and treatments after reaching age 75 or taking up activities such as bodybuilding, weight loss programs, and cosmetic surgery things that everyone should consider – or just some people? (Provide reasons for your answer to this question!) 3 What functions do bodily dys-appearance and eu-appearance play in Emanuel’s and Glassner’s arguments?