1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
horrorfan [7]
3 years ago
6

My mother’s first criterion for a man is that he be interesting. What this really means is that hebe able to appreciate my mothe

r, whose jokes hinge on some grammatical subtlety or a workingknowledge of higher mathematics. You get the picture. Robbie is about as interesting as a pair ofred high-top Converse sneakers. But Robbie points to the mattress on the floor. He grins, slowlyunbuckling his belt, drops his jeans. "Lie down," says Robbie.This is interesting enough for me.Another thing: we want a sense that an important character, like a narrator, is reliable. We want tobelieve that a character is not playing games or being coy or manipulative, but is telling the truth tothe best of his or her ability. (Unless a major characteristic of his or hers is coyness or manipulationor lying.) We do not wish to be crudely manipulated. Of course, we enter into a work of fiction to bemanipulated, but in a pleasurable way. We want to be massaged by a masseur, not whapped by acarpet beater.This brings us to the matter of how we, as writers, tell the truth. A writer paradoxically seeks thetruth and tells lies every step of the way. It’s a lie if you make something up. But you make it up in thename of the truth, and then you give your heart to expressing it clearly. You make up your characters,partly from experience, partly out of the thin air of the subconscious, and you need to feel committedto telling the exact truth about them, even though you are making them up. I suppose the basic moralreason for doing this is the Golden Rule. I don’t want to be lied to; I want you to tell me the truth, andI will try to tell it to you.
Social Studies
1 answer:
shepuryov [24]3 years ago
4 0

Answer:

Wooooow!!! That... was.... something!!!!

Explanation:

That was great!!! did you make it

You might be interested in
Which of the following individuals can become a naturalized citizen?
Allushta [10]
A naturalized citizen is a citizen who was not born a citizen,but became a citizen later. One becomes a citizen by being born on American soil or by having American parents - so those people can't usually be naturalized.
The correct answer is:
c. Anyone born outside the United States to parents who aren't citizens of the United States

3 0
3 years ago
Why should you avoid using defense mechanisms to frequently?
Mashutka [201]
This is because defense mechanisms can stunt emotional growth. A defense mechanism  is an oblivious mental component that decreases tension emerging from inadmissible or possibly unsafe boosts. Sigmund Freud was one of the principal defenders of this develop. Guard components work at an oblivious level and help avert disagreeable emotions or improve great things feel for the person.
3 0
3 years ago
Why would investments in human capital make employers want to hold onto their employees?
vampirchik [111]

Answer:

The concept of human capital recognizes that not all labor is equal. ... Human capital is important because it is perceived to increase productivity and thus profitability. So the more a company invests in its employees (i.e., in their education and training), the more productive and profitable it could be

Explanation:

6 0
3 years ago
Why did the constitution grant congress the power to create "inferior courts���? the builders of the constitution ensured the ex
Neko [114]
Congress and the Judiciary Act of 1789<span>

When the First Congress turned to the organization of the judicial branch, much of the debate centered on whether to establish lower federal courts or to rely on existing state courts to exercise federal jurisdiction. Advocates of a strong central government thought a national system of federal courts was an essential requirement for energetic government. Other members of Congress, recalling the colonial experience under British rule, thought that justice was best served by courts tied to local communities. Those who were suspicious of the concentration of national power wanted to grant state courts authority to hear all cases involving federal law or to limit local federal courts to admiralty and maritime law. The judiciary act approved in September 1789 established a federal court system with broad jurisdiction, but the act reserved a significant role for state courts and guaranteed that the diversity of legal traditions throughout the country would be recognized in the local federal courts.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 established three types of federal courts. The Supreme Court, with a chief justice and five associate justices, would meet twice a year in the nation’s capital and hear appeals from lower federal courts and from the state supreme courts. The Supreme Court would also exercise the limited original jurisdiction defined by the Constitution. In each state and in Kentucky and Maine (then parts of other states), a district court with a single judge would have exclusive jurisdiction to hear cases involving admiralty and maritime law and conduct trials of minor federal crimes. The district courts shared with the state courts jurisdiction over small suits brought by the United States.

The most important federal cases would be initiated in the third type of court, called circuit courts, which would convene in the same judicial districts in which the district courts met. The circuit courts had no judges of their own, but were served by two Supreme Court justices and the local district judge. (Congress soon revised the law to require only one justice on each circuit court.) Congress grouped the judicial districts into regional circuits for the purpose of assigning justices to serve on the circuit courts within that region. The circuit courts would hear some appeals from the district courts, but they were primarily trial courts. The circuit courts had exclusive jurisdiction over serious federal crimes and shared with the state courts jurisdiction over suits involving disputes above a certain monetary value, suits involving the U.S. government, and suits between citizens of different states.

Congress protected distinctive state legal traditions by drawing the judicial districts to coincide with state boundaries and by providing for the use of the respective state’s rules for most district and circuit court proceedings and for the selection of federal juries. Perhaps most important for protection of regional legal cultures, the assignment of “circuit riding” duties for Supreme Court justices ensured that the judges on the nation’s highest court would learn about local legal procedures and would interact with citizens at the point where cases entered the federal judicial system. The Judiciary Act also promoted a local orientation of the lower courts by requiring district judges to live in the district where they served. In response to widespread concerns that defendants in federal trials would be forced to appear in distant courts, the Judiciary Act required civil trials to be held in the district in which a defendant was served with a writ and trials involving the death penalty to be held in the county where the crime occurred.

I hope all this helps I am taking judicial law in school .
</span>
4 0
3 years ago
A person who kills a member of his or her family is usually judged by society to be
frozen [14]

Answer:

See explanation below.

Explanation:

It is clear that a person who kills a member of his or her family is considered by the law to be a murder. However, society views can differ.

When it comes to a murder, people tend to perceive a person who kills  a stranger as much more dangerous than a person who kills a member of his/her family. This can occur because, in their minds, when someone kills a stranger, society tends to think that they are at risk too. On the other side, when a person kills someone of his/her family society feels safe thinking it couldn't have been them the ones who could have got killed.

5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • What is a simple moral to the myth of Psyche? If so, what do you think it is?
    8·1 answer
  • Back in the early 1620's, the pilgrims celebrated a "Day of Humiliation." What did they do on that day?
    12·2 answers
  • You are having a conversation with your psychology professor and she proposes that children acquire language the same way they l
    15·1 answer
  • Understanding human behavior as having many features or aspects is called the
    9·1 answer
  • ________ established by the government indicate when we must learn new behaviors, as these categories change through the lifespa
    6·1 answer
  • ASAP I NEED HELP I WILL GIVE BRAINLEIST
    12·2 answers
  • In what way did the marbury decison enhance the system of checks and balances provided for the constution
    14·1 answer
  • Based on your answers to question 1 and 2 where would the intensity be higher?? near the epicenter or a away from epicenter​
    9·1 answer
  • Why do you think countries choose to have a form of government
    11·1 answer
  • What are processing questions?.
    10·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!