(d). details in the selection, can help you study and draw conclusions about the originating culture.
Answer:
Carl Vinson - advocated that it was important for the US to have a strong naval fleet, represented Georgia for 51 years in the US House of Representatives, known as the "Father of the Two-Ocean Navy", helped create legaislation that led to the development of new military programs;
Richard B. Russell - represented Georgia for seven consecutive terms as a U.S. senator, efforts led to 15 new military facilities being built in Georgia;
Both - Served on the Armed Services Committee and gained influence on the military policy, helped prepare the US for World War II, help bring tens of thousands of new jobs and economic opportunities to Georgia.
Explanation:
Carl Vinson and Richard B. Russell were American politicians, who served in the US Congress and both were members of Democratic Party. Both were in office for a long time and helped development of military and navy of the USA. Vinson was primarily responsible for naval expansion and for new legislation regarding navy army. Both of them made an effort during World War II and had a strong position towards US enemies in the war.
That would be manifest function.
The manifest function of education has to do with the educations role in the society mainly in how education helps social development and social interaction with other members of the society. There are six manifest functions of education according to Javier and his associates and they are the integration into political social sphere and advancing change, placing an individual into society, interaction with other society members that is socialization, social control, the transmission of culture.
The answer that will be best to complete the sentence is
that they are likely to be attracted to men who are affluent or mature enough
as this is the standards that most women look out for as these are the
characteristics that likely made them to be sexually attracted to.
The real reason for maintaining armies is the same reason why some men buy expensive sports cars... overcompensating.
Seriously, think of armies as insurance. Even if it's small, amateurish, and under-funded, it's likely to give potential bullies a little pause. (Of course, a big country like Iraq can sweep up a little country like Kuwait in no time flat, as we all know).
Part of the answer is social/ economic/ political inertia. The military is part of the playground for the elite and privileged. (I use the word playground as in "fork over your lunch money, weakling.") Who wants to get rid of their army just to balance the budget? I sure haven´t seen "fire soldier-boys" on any IMF or World Bank wish lists
A lot of countries, fragile democracies, say, find armies to be an effective tool to use on internal "problems." In a pinch, a loyal military can keep your nation away from chaos. On the other hand, they work equally well to keep dictators in power.
<span>Many countries do get a lot more mileage out of their armies than Iceland or Costa Rica could possibly get. Obviously, a lot of African countries find them pretty handy.
</span>
Also, keep this quote in mind
<span>"It takes two countries to maintain peace and only one to make war"</span>
