Holland Christian And Zeeland Public Schools Essay

The demographic research that I conducted was a little bit confusing because I need to include not only the school that I went to but also, another high school and school district. I compared two different high schools (Holland Christian and Zeeland East), as well as two different school districts (Holland City Schools and Zeeland Public Schools), neither or which gave a firm view on the actual school I attended (Holland Christian), because it is private, it is not part of any of the public school districts. That being said, I was able to give a good picture of the area Holland, as well as the specifics about Holland Christian. Because of this, this summary will only reflect the work on Holland Christian and Holland School District. Although the majority of Holland’s population is White, they do have diversity in the city when it comes race and languages spoken. In Holland, 77.1% of the people are White and 17.6 are Hispanic. Also in Holland, 13.1% are foreign born, which brings up the number of people learning English as a second language (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). The religious demographics in Holland are a little less diverse. In Ottawa County (the county that Holland is located in), 52.07% are either, Evangelical Protestant, Mainline Protestant, or Catholic. 47.2% have no religion (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). This leaves only .73% of the population that falls under another religious category that was not previously listed. Holland has a median income of $53,482 (U.S.Show MoreRelatedEssay Harry Potter Hysteria: Is Harry Potter Dangerous2209 Words   |  9 PagesThese people are misinformed about the actual definition of Wicca and the occult. The Merriam Webster Dictionary (MWD) defines the word Occult as ‘to shut off from view or exposure’ (Occult). The MWD define Wicca as ‘a religion influenced by pre-Christian beliefs and practices of western Europe that affirms the existence of supernatural power (as magic) and of both male and female deities who inhere in nature and that emphasizes ritual observance of seasonal and life cycles’ (Wicca Merriam Webster)

Mary ShellyS Frankenstein Explores - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 2 Words: 690 Downloads: 6 Date added: 2019/04/12 Category Literature Essay Level High school Tags: Frankenstein Essay Did you like this example? Mary Shellys Frankenstein explores how abandonment and isolation can cause chaos and destruction. The humans assume that the monster must be dangerous based on its outward appearance when in reality the is warm and open-hearted. Every village he went to he finds himself being rejected time and time again. A blind man named De Lacy is the only one who accepts the monster. Walton says his crew members observed a huge savage figure in a dogsled speeding across the ice. When Walton uses the word savage he is judging the monster based on his looks only. After months of failing, Victor successfully brings his creation to life. But once the creation is alive, its appearance scares him so bad he runs out of the room and tries to sleep but is awaken by nightmares of death and tombs. When he opens his eyes, he sees the monster by his bed, reaching out and grinning. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Mary ShellyS Frankenstein Explores" essay for you Create order He runs, and spends the night outside. Victor is flawed he messes with the laws of nature and things take a turn for the worst. For this I deprived myself of rest and health. I had desired it with an ardour that far exceeded moderation; but not that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart (Frankenstein). Victor abandon his creation because its ugly and he imagines that its evil. Before his brother William was killed Victor saw a figure resembling the monster. Then he realizes the monster killed William which means Victor is really the one responsible because he created the monster. Victor realizes the cost of his misuse of nature and once again loses a little more of his innocence. Victor tries to escape through nature so he climbs a mountain called Montanvert. But Victor sees the monster and his whole mood was ruined, Victor curses the monster without knowing its intentions, and without knowing for sure that the monster murdered William. He blames the monster, but hes responsible for its creation. The monster only turned to violent because his creator abandoned it, when the monster and Victor talk things through the monster admits that he was seeking revenge, you can blast my other passions, but revenge remains-revenge, henceforth dearer than light of food! I may die, but first you, my tyrant and tormentor, shall curse the sun that gazes on your misery (Frankenstein). but implies that Victor destroyed his innocence by isolating it. It didnt seem to matter where the monster went its appearance terrifies human, so he decided to avoid them. The isolation is what pained the monster the most. All men hate the wretched; how then, must I be hated, who am miserable beyond all living things! Yet you, my creator, detest and spurn me, thy creature, to whom thou art bound by ties only dissoluble by the annihilation of one of us (Frankenstein). When the monster realizes why the family was upset he sets wood outside the house for them. The monster is actually kind and giving but most people are prejudiced and only judge on looks. When the monster finally sees its reflection in a pool of water he finally realizes why people would run and scream when they saw him, I am alone and miserable: man will not associate with me; but one as deformed and horrible as myself would not deny herself to me. My companion must be of the same defects (Frankenstein). he realized that people judge by appearance rather than what kind of person you are, so he does everything he can to make sure that the family sees past his appearance. As the monster learns more about humans and society he realizes that he doesnt have a society of its own he doesnt have anyone else like the humans do. When I looked around I saw and heard of none like me. Was I, a monster, a blot upon the earth from which all men fled and whom all men disowned? (Frankenstein). It is a key turning point in the story for the monster, he realized that he was going to be an outcast forever.

Analytical application Example

Essays on Analytical application Essay Factors Influencing Exchange Rate between the U.S. Dollar and Euro Factors Influencing Exchange Rate between the U.S. Dollar and Euro A look into the performance of dollar shows that it fell by 30% against euro in the year 2010. As Rahn (2003) points out, in the place of the 80 cents one had to pay for each euro in 2009, presently, one has to pay 1.24 dollars per euro. While some scholars argue that a further fall is in the pipeline, a rational assumption is that as dollar already reached its minimum, its value is likely to improve in the coming years. The various factors that are considered as influencing factors on dollar-euro exchange rate are the international real interest rate differential, relative prices in the traded and non-traded goods sectors, the real oil price, and the relative fiscal position (Dollar-euro currency exchange). A look into the various analytical works prove that the main reason behind the present fall in dollar value is the large trade deficit, which, in turn, was created by the flow of foreign investment dollars into the US economy. One can say undoubtedly that the world countries will not let the dollar go down as such a fall will adversely affect their own national interests. To illustrate, the US economy offers more return on capital than its European counterparts. As a result, foreign governments, especially the Asian giants like China, Japan and India, have purchased considerable amounts of US dollars as reserve backing for their own currencies. So, a significant fall in the dollar will have an adverse impact on these investor economies. Admittedly, the present day fall in dollar value is primarily as a result of the decline in private foreign investment and is in no way connected with foreign governments. Before its fall, dollar witnessed a sharp rise against the euro, and because of this growth, there arose a belief among private investors that dollar has become too expensive to afford. So, there was a natural shift towards euro as the only other option. As a result, dollar came down the way it went up. Now, experts point out that as far as America manages to offer a higher return on investment, it will remain as the primary destination of investment for foreign banks and private investors. As the demand for dollar will grow again, the current deficit will be overcome. However, there are certain governmental initiatives that have already tarnished the image of America as an investor-friendly nation. Some examples are the Patriot Act and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. As a result of such provisions (as reported by The Economist ) that require extensive paperwork and offer the threat of privacy intrusion, foreign investors have lost interest in the America economy. In the opinion of Gene Epstein, in order for dollar to further collapse, there conditions should exist at the same time. First of all, there should be an existing weakness for dollar that makes investors look for other options. Secondly, there should be another more beneficial option, and thirdly, there is the need for a triggering event. It is pointed out by the scholar that the first option is already in place. This is so because dollar has already fallen by more than 30% in a period of one year. However, the problem is that there is no viable alternative at present for dollar. According to Eps tein (2011), this is so because while 61% of the foreign currency reserves are in dollars, the nearest rival euro only has 30% of the reserves. In addition, there is the debt crisis faced by the euro-zone. As a result of all these, one cannot consider euro as a viable alternative to dollar. The third point is the occurrence of a triggering event. In the case of dollar, a possible triggering event is the dumping of treasury notes on the secondary market by foreign governments. If such a measure is taken by countries like China or Japan, there will be panic in the market leading to dollar collapse. However, a look into the business tactics of these nations proves that such a step is unlikely from either of them. To illustrate, it is a known fact that China has nailed its Yuan to dollar in an effort to keep its exports to the US cheaper. Thus, if it resorts to such measures that will cause a fall in dollar, China will lose its position as the cheapest exporter. Very similar is the case of Japan too. The nation wants to promote exports to the US, and the only way in front of them is to keep dollar high. So, despite its 800 billion dollars of treasury notes, Japan will not try to dumb the dollars as far as the nation wants to depend on exports. However, one cannot turn a blind eye towards the distant possibility of other nations becoming better markets than the US. Still, as far as US is the best market in the world, the investors will not let dollar go uncontrollably down. References Dollar-euro currency exchange. Easy Forex. Retrieved from http://classic.easy-forex.com/en/Forex.dollareuro.aspx Epstein, G. (2011). Milton Friedman’s Euro Smack down. Barron’s. retrieved from http://online.barrons.com/article/SB50001424052702303544204576542853219931480.html Rahn, R. W. (2003). How far will the dollar fall? Washington Times, 30 December. The rise and fall of the dollar: Go with the flows. The Economist. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/node/17956749

Why Did the South Lose the Civil War free essay sample

However, while a presentation of the wars events and key points may explain how the South lost the Civil War, it fails to explain why they lost. Why did the Southern war effort fail at three key stages? The Norths superiority in manpower and resources must not be omitted in any answer to this question. Lincoln had at his disposal a population of 22,000,000, compared with a Southern population of 9,000,000, which included 3,500,000 slaves whom they dared not arm. This provided a far larger base from which to draw troops, although it has been suggested that Southerners were keener to join up than their Union counterparts. Furthermore, in terms of resources, the Union advantage was huge: New York alone produced manufactures of a value four times greater than the total Southern output; the North had a virtual monopoly on heavy industries; coal, iron, clothing, armaments, shipyards, machine shops all were plentiful in the North and scarce in the South. The Union infrastructure was far better, with twice the density of railroads, and several times the mileage of canals and well-surfaced roads. Most shipping was carried out in Northern vessels, and the South had few shipyards, and only one machine shop capable of building an engine for a respectable warship. However, the ingenuity of many Southern officers compensated somewhat for her material disadvantages. Not once did a Southern army surrender for want of ammunition, and despite being in terrible disrepair, the Confederacys railroads somehow fulfilled their task of transporting troops to battle on several notable occasions. Historian Edward Pollard commented that something more than numbers make armies, and Southern leader P G T Beauregard remarked that the outcome could not be explained by mere material constraints. Furthermore, the South had several clear advantages at the start of the war. Firstly, fighting on home ground was easier since supply lines were shorter, natives friendlier, and knowledge of the climate and terrain better. The vast area of the Confederacy made occupation by an invader virtually impossible, and the coastline with its many inlets and bays made for difficult blockading. Secondly, most of the US Armys best leaders were Southerners, so, at the start at least, the Confederacy had superior leadership in battle. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, military historians reckon that attacking in this period required thrice the manpower that defending did, virtually wiping out the Norths demographic advantages. It would seem, therefore, that although the Norths superior resources undoubtedly helped, this alone does not fully account for the Southern defeat. Another view is that the South lost through bad conduct of the war. These criticisms fall into two main categories, military and political. There were four main shortcomings in the economic management which may have played a part in the Souths defeat. Firstly, the Confederacy failed to make use of its main resource, cotton. The Union blockade did not take full effect for many months, allowing the Southerners time to export their cotton harvest, and reap the financial benefits. Alexander Stephens had a plan at the start of the war that he estimated would net around $800M for the Confederacy, providing a sound financial base for the war effort. Although somewhat optimistic, and affected by practical difficulties, it is fair to say that the cotton crop would have been far better exported than stockpiled or burnt. Secondly, the Confederate government displayed an unwillingness to tax her citizens, preferring instead to print money, and suffer the rampant inflation that resulted. The Union financed its war effort mainly from taxation and bonds, while 60% of Southern funds came from unbacked paper money. The problems associated with this are clear to see: prices rose 100-fold over the four years of war, wiping out southerners savings, and devastating the economy. The governments reaction to this, the third mistake, was to impress public goods for military use. However, rather than curbing inflation, this merely acted as a disincentive to supply, making essential items increasingly scarce. This, coupled with the poor infrastructure and parochialism of some State governors, meant that the army went hungry in a nation with the capacity to produce plenty of food. Finally, it is argued that the Confederate government should have done more to improve infrastructure and manufacturing. However, this was easier said than done, given the lack of suitable labor, diminished value of private capital, and lack of the correct skills or machinery for such improvements. Some historians deem the very nature of the Confederacy doomed to defeat. Ideologically handicapped by the doctrine of States Rights, the Southern war effort was frequently hampered by the parochial and inward-looking political culture which prevailed in many states. When Lees army was fighting to defend Richmond during the last days of the war, desperate for rations, Governor Vance of North Carolina was congratulating himself on stockpiling 92,000 uniforms and 150,000lbs of bacon, to be used solely by North Carolinian troops. Doubt has also been cast over the determination of its leaders to the cause. Jefferson Davis was a reluctant secessionist, Stephens was heard to remark that Lincoln was not a bad man, and even fire-eating Robert Toombs voted against the firing on Fort Sumter. Much of the criticism of the Confederate government could be equally well applied to the Union. Peace Democrats north of the border harassed Lincoln; opposition was loud in many quarters following the suspension of habeas corpus, and it appeared for a while that Lincoln would not win the 1864 election. However, the government of the Union was more united, and more effective. Most historians agree that Lincoln was a greater leader than Davis, although at the start of the war it appeared that the opposite was true. The more experienced Davis soon built up a sound army, commanded by excellent generals. However, while a good military man, Davis was no politician. His ego bruised easily, and some of his decisions appeared to have been motivated more by personal like or dislike of an individual than any strategic reason. His decision to retain Bragg and leave Beauregard and Johnston in the cold is one such example of this. Lincoln, on the other hand, was a masterful diplomat, prepared to overlook personal differences, for example with McClellan, for the good of the Union. He never once faltered in his determination to save the Union, and entertained no doubts as to the wisdom of his policy. It must be remembered though, that Davis was by no means a weak leader, and had a great deal to contend with in terms of belligerent state governors, supply shortages, and simmering troubles which would affect any new government. Given the tragic circumstances surrounding Lincolns death, and the worthiness of his cause, there has been a tendency to romanticize him and his achievements, which any historian must guard against. The South lost the Civil War through insufficient will to seek and secure their independence. Firstly, merely because a bloodier and more devastating war has been fought is not to say that the situation in which many Southerner found them in was not a desperate one. Shermans raids devastated thousands of acres of land; inflation and shortages meant food was scarce and prohibitively expensive; men of working age were fighting, and therefore could not labor in the fields or factories. Men deserted to prevent their families from starving, and returned to battle afterwards; a question of necessity, not cowardice or lack of resolve. Rather than any loss of motivation it can be argued that the combination of civilian depredations, loss of military manpower, and loss of territory wrecked the Confederate war effort. Thirdly, the lack of morale argument is a somewhat circular one. Defeat and depredation reduce morale, which in turn promote defeat and further depredation. However, most would argue that the defeat came before the loss of will to fight, not afterwards. Furthermore, Northern morale was as fragile, if not more so. Before Antietam, many Northerners were ready to negotiate peace. One wonders how long the Union morale would have held out had it found itself in the same predicament as the Confederacy in 1864. Reasons for Southern defeat are as numerous as they are diverse. Some argue that Lincolns masterstroke was the Emancipation Proclamation. Ultimately, it gave the North 3. 5M potential new soldiers, removed a substantial section of the Confederate workforce, and extinguished any realistic hope of foreign help for the Confederacy. However, the policy was a divisive one, many Northern generals had misgivings about black troops, and many slaves preferred to ride out the war in familiar surroundings. Strategic defects may have played a role. The South should have attacked when it defended, and defended when it attacked. Given the numerical advantage of Union armies, defending would have evened out the odds. However, military theory and practice two different things, and battles can always be fought far more effectively in retrospect. The American Civil War was far from a foregone conclusion. The Norths larger population and superior resources were balanced by the geographical and strategic advantages of fighting on Southern soil. Lincolns greater ability can be negated by the Confederacys plentiful supply of experienced and competent generals. Before Gettysburg and Vicksburg, the war could easily have gone either way. If forced to give one reason why the South lost, it seems that the gross inadequacy of the Confederate government must be it. Attempting to go from nothing to a large institution running a full-scale war is difficult enough, and would not be helped by an overly-libertarian vice-president, belligerent and unhelpful state governors, a President who was severely lacking in diplomatic or political skill, and an underlying doctrine (States Rights) that was incompatible with full-scale warfare. The Confederacy effectively fought the Civil War with one hand tied behind its back, a disability that even the dashing and brave Southern troops could not overcome.