The evolution of human intelligence Essay Example for Free

The evolution of human intelligence Essay The evolution of human intelligence refers to a set of theories that attempt to explain how human intelligence has evolved. These theories are closely tied to the evolution of the human brain and to the emergence of human language. The timeline of human evolution spans approximately 7 million years,[citation needed] from the separation of the Pan genus until the emergence of behavioral modernity by 50,000 years ago. The first 3 million years of this timeline concern Sahelanthropus, the following 2 million concern Australopithecus and the final 2 million span the history of actual human species (the Paleolithic). Many traits of human intelligence, such as empathy, theory of mind, mourning, ritual, and the use of symbols and tools, are already apparent in great apes although in lesser sophistication than in humans. The great apes show considerable abilities for cognition and empathy. Chimpanzees make tools and use them to acquire foods and for social displays; they have sophisticated hunting strategies requiring cooperation, influence and rank; they are status conscious, manipulative and capable of deception; they can learn to use symbols and understand aspects of human language including some relational syntax, concepts of number and numerical sequence.In one study, young chimpanzees outperformed human college students in tasks requiring remembering numbers. This claim was refuted in a later study after it was noted that the chimpanzees had received extensive practice with the task while the students were evaluated on their first attempt. When human subjects were given time to practice, they substantially outperformed the young chimps. Chimpanzees are capable of empathy, having been observed to feed turtles in the wild, and show curiosity in wildlife (such as pythons)[citation needed].Homininae Around 10 million years ago, the Earths climate entered a cooler and drier phase, which led eventually to the ice ages beginning some 2.6 million years ago. One consequence of this was that the north African tropical forest began to retreat, being replaced first by open grasslands and eventually by desert (the modern Sahara). As their environment changed from continuous forest to patches of forest separated by expanses of grassland, some primates adapted to a partly or fully ground-dwelling life. Here they were exposed to predators, such as the big cats, from whom they had previously been safe. These environmental pressures caused selection to favor bipedalism: walking on hind legs. This gave the Homininaes eyes greater elevation, the ability to see approaching danger further off, and a more efficient means of locomotion (see main article for details).[citation needed] It also freed the forelimbs (arms) from the task of walking and made the hands available for tasks such as gathering food. At some point the bipedal primates developed handedness, giving them the ability to pick up sticks, bones and stones and use them as weapons, or as tools for tasks such as killing smaller animals, cracking nuts, or cutting up carcasses. In other words, these primates developed the use of primitive technology. Bipedal tool-using primates form the Hominina subtribe, of which the earliest species, such as Sahelanthropus tchadensis, date to about 7 to 5 million years ago. From about 5 million years ago, the Hominin brain began to develop rapidly in both size and differentiation of function. It has been shown that Great Ape cooperation and communication is severely impeded by their competitiveness, and thus that the apes would revolutionize their culture-bearing ability if they could just shrug off their competitiveness. It is also well known that even early hominins lacked the size and sharpness of their canine teeth that apes use as a threat signal, suggesting prehumans simply had no use for threat signals. That means they had already transcended ape competitiveness and thus developed superior cooperation and communication. There has been a gradual increase in brain volume as humans progressed along the timeline of evolution (see Homininae), starting from about 600 cm3 in Homo habilis up to 1500 cm3 in Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Thus, in general theres a correlation between brain volume and intelligence. However, modern Homo sapiens have a brain volume slightly smaller (1250 cm3) than neanderthals, and the Flores hominids (Homo floresiensis), nicknamed hobbits, had a cranial capacity of about 380 cm3 (considered small for a chimpanzee) about a third of that of H. erectus. It is proposed that they evolved from H. erectus as a case of insular dwarfism. With their three times smaller brain the Flores hominids apparently used fire and made tools as sophisticated as those of their ancestor H.erectus. In this case, it seems that for intelligence, the structure of the brain is more important than its volume. The social brain hypothesis was proposed by British anthropologist Robin Dunbar, who argues that human intelligence did not evolve primarily as a means to solve ecological problems, but rather intelligence evolved as a means of surviving and reproducing in large and complex social groups. Some of the behaviors associated with living in large groups include reciprocal altruism, deception and coalition formation. These group dynamics relate to Theory of Mind or the ability to understand the thoughts and emotions of others, though Dunbar himself admits in the same book that it is not the flocking itself that causes intelligence to evolve (as shown by ruminants). Dunbar argues that when the size of a social group increases, the number of different relationships in the group may increase by orders of magnitude. Chimpanzees live in groups of about 50 individuals whereas humans typically have a social circle of about 150 people, which is now referred to as Dunbars number. According to the social brain hypothesis, when hominids started living in large groups, selection favored greater intelligence. As evidence, Dunbar cites a relationship between neocortex size and group size of various mammals. However, meerkats have far more social relationships than their small brain capacity would suggest. Another hypothesis is that it is actually intelligence that causes social relationships to become more complex, because intelligent individuals are more difficult to learn to know. There are also studies that show that Dunbars number is not the upper limit of the number of social relationships in humans either

Comparison between Life of Pi and Brave New World Essay Example for Free

Comparison between Life of Pi and Brave New World Essay The heroes, Piscine Molitor Patel in â€Å"Life of Pi† by Yann Martel, and John in â€Å"Brave New World† by Aldous Huxley view their fears as an obstacle that they must overcome. Both heroes were faced with immediate challenges in their life. Through challenging their fears, personal or community morale benefits from their perceived success. In such a way, the hero’s success manipulates the situation as the feared become afraid. Each hero battled their fear differently and thus discovered a hidden truth behind the challenge they were faced with. John was born into his fear. He had no say or no choice. He had to find the positive out of every situation throughout his life. â€Å"Never put off till tomorrow the fun you can have today. † John did what he could to service happily with himself. Adversity was a struggle for him. His hidden truth was his ability to feel and show affection, of which no one was able to understand. This proved to be difficult for John being somewhat isolated. On the other hand, Pi was a quick and decisive learner. His fear was conquered through his self-determination. Fishing and taming Mr. Parker (the tiger) revealed much of his hidden truth. Pi revealed, â€Å"The presence of God is the finest of rewards. † To him, it was as if his fear now became the feared. Pi was rewarded with self-empowerment. With the conquering of the hero’s fears, different aspects of their lives were affected with their efforts. Individually, Pi was rewarded. Pi quoted, â€Å"Can there be any happiness greater than the happiness of salvation? † This can be related to the Warden from â€Å"Shawshank Redemption† saying, â€Å"Salvation lies within†. For Pi this meant he had the power in saving himself from any terrible circumstances. Being considered an anti-hero, John did not necessarily individually benefit from his fight against his fear from the world state itself, but he may have influenced others who might possibly follow his path. As for John, he believed suicide was an option under his situation, â€Å"Ending is better than mending. † He finally decided there wasn’t a way in changing the â€Å"New World† in which he committed suicide. In an effort to impact his fear, he was able to potentially influence others, like a domino effect. As this was easily the most feared situation the world state could be faced with. With the hero’s efforts, personal and community morale benefited. No matter the aspiration, change for the better will occur. As my mother has always told me, â€Å"Everything happens for a reason. † In both situations, Pi and John found a way through their fears, and influenced themselves and others as the feared are now the afraid.

Are Wars Good for the Economy?

Are Wars Good for the Economy? Mr. PRAKHAR MAHESHWARI Are Wars Good For Economy? INTRODUCTION â€Å"War, n: A time-tested political tactic guaranteed to raise a president’s popularity rating by at least 30 points. It is especially useful during election years and economic downturns.† Chaz Bufe, American Anarchist Author Wars. Invasions. Fights. The reason for these and the final consequence of these is economy. Communities, kingdoms and countries have been fighting countless wars and invading other countries and kingdoms in search for wealth and money. The Mughals and the English came to India having knowledge that the country was full of gold and had massive wealth. Americans declared war on Iraq in search of the precious oil. Even particular individuals fight with their own kin and family for property, wealth and money. But is destruction of life and property the only thing which happens before, after even during a war? This project deals with precisely that. The project focuses on the economic development and/or economic destruction of USA during world wars. However, the project isn’t strictly focused on only US. Countries like Britain, France and Germany needed to be given a special mention in such kind of a topic. Wars make or break a country. And it is an integral question that we must ask ourselves: Are wars really good for economy? ECONOMY AND WORLD WARS There are several reasons to enter a war. Although economic reasons are the most important, patriotism, loyalty and friendship towards a nation and the belief of â€Å"helping the needy and the right out† not only decides if a nation should enter a war but also decides which side that country would join. World War 1 The United States entered the war very late. They were participants for approximately an year and a half – from April 1917 to November 1918.[1] This little participation in terms of days was very different from the point of view of contribution. The number of Americans serving the Army was more than a staggering four million. Not only did they provide men to the fighting nations, they also equipped them with great supply of raw materials and weapons and ammunition.[2] Before the war, the American economy was in a bad shape. However, the buying of U.S. weaponry and goods for war by the fighting Europeans and when the U.S. itself joined the conflict, the economy boomed.[3] Hugh Rockoff writes that if the United States had not converted the opportunity of making and delivering goods and weapons to the European Allies, it would have been next to impossible for the country to enter and win the war.[4] The massive production of such goods, which were added only after looking at the demands made by the European countries, ensured easy entrance of the United States.[5] Also, the goods were made in such a way that the country itself would need it if it enters the war.[6] The Americans had actually realized that the spoils of the war, if they won, would be huge and the profits were not ignorable. Hugh Rockoff also observes that â€Å"Entry into the war in 1917 unleashed massive U.S. federal spending which shifted national production from civilian to war goods. Between 1914 and 1918, some 3 million people were added to the military and half a million to the government.†[7] Infact, the impact of such employment was that the rate of unemployment came down from 7.9 percent to 1.4 percent.[8] This was not only due to the addition of men in the armies but also because labours and workers were required in large numbers to new manufacturing jobs like manufacturing guns, war infrastructure and developing technology.[9] U.S. exports to the European countries, due to this war in 1917, shot up to almost three times the year 1913’s exports. While U.S. exported goods worth $1.5 billion dollars in 1913, the sales were in excess of $4 billion dollars in 1917.[10] Now let us assume that the United States had got nothing to do with the war. It was a neutral country and was not supplying any goods to any European country. Also, let us assume that the raw material used to produce these exports for the European countries were only able to manufacture about half as much value when such goods were transported to other countries which were not at war.[11] Based on these assumptions, if we calculate the value in output in the year 1917, the loss would come out to be a bit more than $2 billion dollars per year.[12] In 1917, this was worth 3.7 percent the U.S GNP and about 6.3 percent of the total U.S. cost of war.[13] Rockoff estimates â€Å"the total cost of World War I to the United States at approximately $32 billion, or 52 percent of gross national product at the time. He breaks down the financing of the U.S. war effort as follows: 22 percent in taxes, 58 percent through borrowings from the public, and 20 percent in money creation. The War Revenue Act of 1917 taxed excess profits profits exceeding an amount determined by the rate of return on capital in a base period by some 20 to 60 percent, and the tax rate on income starting at $50,000 rose from 1.5 percent in 1913-15 to more than 18 percent in 1918. Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary William Gibbs McAdoo crisscrossed the country peddling war bonds, even enlisting the help of Hollywood stars and Boy Scouts. The prevalence of patriotic themes created social pressure to purchase the Liberty bonds (and, after the armistice, the Victory bonds), but in practice the new bondholders did not make a tangible personal sacrifice in buying war bonds, sin ce the yields on these debt instruments were comparable to those on standard municipal bonds at the time. As can be seen, patriotic motives were not sufficient to alter market prices of assets during the war.†[14] Due to this war, various infrastructural projects were taken up and developed like Railroad, fuel and granaries. Since men had to go to war, the women took up the initiative of working in companies, etc. This ensured the economic freedom of women and more and more women started working. It is often said that the one’s gain is another’s loss. Wars are no different. Where one country’s, the United States’, economy was going through a positive transformation, the economies of the European powers were humbled. Even though the Allies won the war, the major participants, the British and the French, suffered massive losses. Saints have said that â€Å"Everything that shines is not gold.† They may have â€Å"won† the war, but economically, they had been fooled by this shine. However, the losses were restricted mainly to the battle fields. Overall, even the British economy (in terms of GDP) grew by around 14-15% during the four to five years of the world war. However, the country lost its men fighting for the country.[15] As discussed earlier, war also involves patriotism and many civilians hence started saving and investing in wars rather than the normal consumption. These investments were used majorly for ammunitions. The Government’s share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) rose from 8% to 38% in these five years.[16] The story of the Germans, the losers of the war, was however very different. Not only they had to give huge taxes and compensation, there economy was brought to the knees. Germany, just like any other country, had to borrow money from various banks, the axis powers and even its citizens. When the Germans lost, they had to pay back even these creditors. The Germans were left in huge debts and their economy was destroyed. And the main cause of their destruction was the Treaty of Versailles. Supposed to be a peace treaty, many people claim it to be an important reason of the Second World War. This treaty literally forced the Germans to pay huge compensations – a total sum of  £6.6 billion.[17] This amount was way beyond the financial capacities of the Germans. Economy doesn’t only mean the money or financial capacity. It also means the territorial extend of the country. After all, even territories are the properties of a country. After the First World War, Germany had to give up large chunks of its territories to the Allied Forces. â€Å"The Versailles treaty deprived Germany of around 13.5% of its 1914 territory (some seven million people) and all of its overseas possessions. Alsace-Lorraine was returned to France, and Belgium was enlarged in the east with the addition of the formerly German border areas of Eupen and Malmedy. Among other territorial re-arrangements, an area of East Prussia was handed over to Lithuania, and the Sudetenland to Czechoslovakia. The German army was limited to a maximum of 100,000 men, and a ban placed upon the use of heavy artillery, gas, tanks and aircraft. The German navy was similarly restricted to shipping under 10,000 tons, with a ban on submarines.†[18] The other financial and economical clauses of the treaty are dealt with in Article 248 to 312 with certain Annexes. Hence where some countries were enjoying the spoils of war, the other countries had to pay heavy compensations and reparations. World War 2 World War 2 was no different when the reasons for the war are given a thought. The world had seen one of the greatest economic tragedies ever in the form of the Great Depression of 1929, just 6 years before the start of the Second World War. There was chaos on the streets as people lost on jobs and the unemployment rate was on an all time high, crossing the 25% mark. The companies were going bankrupt, economy was in a disaster and depression, as the name phenomenon suggests, was spread across the world. It was evident that another war was on its way. With the rise of Adolf Hitler and economic woes of Germany after accepting the Treaty of Versailles, Germans had to wage wars, once again with the Allied Powers. The U.S., like the previous war, joined this one later, approximately by 2 years. The country, however, like before, started producing and manufacturing wartime goods for the â€Å"worst case scenario†. When the United States got involved in the Second World War, the demand for labor shot up. To fight a war, country needs weapons and for that the country needs manufacturing facilities and labor in huge numbers. The national employment suddenly fell to a minimal 10% in just a few months of the declaration of war by the country from its 1940 level.[19] The country was at war and weapons and infrastructure need to be built up with a rapid speed. Even fortification of borders and military bases abroad was equally important.[20] All these factors coupled with the fact that weapons and military equipments, vehicles and other wartime instruments needed to be transported and mobilized ensured vast labor requirement.[21] The Employers wanted to fill the vacancies as fast as possible so as to meet the production demand. This however, brought in vacancies in other non-war areas. These positions were then filled by women and non white people. They had been excluded from a long time from such industries which payed highly and involved high skills. Hence war meant employment for the whole country.[22] War doesn’t only bring profits. It brings massive destruction to life and property. Britain gave us the Industrial Revolution, and the very same industries, which were the pride of the Great Britain, were left nothing more to rumble. The damage that these facilities incurred, not only in Britain but also in other European countries, was much more than what they had incurred in the previous wars.[23] Where the damages incurred by France were approximately thrice of their total annual income, Britain suffered heavy losses in the form of damages to residential houses.[24] About 30% of the homes in Britain were destroyed by Germans in the Second World War, first by the aerial blitz and then by bombs and rockets.[25] The Germans, losing the war again, had their country divided into West and East Germany. While West was influenced by the capitalist USA, the East was the communist USSR. The economic woes for Britain and France were not limited to their own countries. They had to let go many important colonies as they had exhausted their money and resources and had none left for their militaries in these areas. India gained its independence as the growing revolts and violence in the country left Britain shocked. Britain had no more resources to deal with these violent outbursts and had to leave the country, just like they had to leave many other territories. USSR and US strengthened their economies during cold war, but USSR, after the recession of 1970, could not recover like the US and had to surrender in the cold war. It has been seen by historians that whenever countries have not gone to war or had no threat of being attacked, their economy have not grown or grown but with a very low percentage. But the wars, apart from developing or destroying economies, affect common man too. Inflation and rise in taxes are the two main effects. These are however short term. â€Å"Increasing taxes reduces consumer spending, which does not help the economy improve at all. Suppose we decrease government spending on social programs. Firstly weve lost the benefits those social programs provide. The recipients of those programs will now have less money to spend on other items, so the economy will decline as a whole. Increasing the debt means that well either have to decrease spending or increase taxes in the future; its a way to delay the inevitable. Plus theres all those interest payments in the meantime.†[26] Lack of wars The European countries in the western side of the continent have very little or no threat of being overtaken by another country in the present times. The politicians and ministers are therefore not criticized for not developing the economy faster. Infact, when these ministers lose their office, they are â€Å"garlanded† with income boosts from counseling and consultation as well as speaking fees. If not these, then they retire to an amazing and dreamy holiday spot.[27] This however is not true for the countries that face constant danger from their neighbors or other countries. An example would be that of China and Japan. The Japanese face great pressure, both territorial and geographical from the Chinese.[28] This is true for India and Pakistan. India today is the largest importer of ammunitions as she faces constant and grave danger from its parted neighbors, Pakistan. Hence where countries like India face constant danger from almost all its neighboring countries, they are the highest importers of ammunitions and weapons and countries like Switzerland, which are considered to be one of the most peaceful countries, hardly import any weapons.[29] US spend approximately $650 billion dollars in ammunitions.[30] This is what wars can do. They can make a country develop its resources and infrastructure. CONCLUSION As we can see, wars have the ability to develop an economy. In this project we dealt with three types of outcomes of a war. And each type had its representative. In the first type of outcome, the country wins. They win and enjoy a good deal of compensation. There economy grows by leaps and bounds, the rate of unemployment declines, infrastructure develops and the spoils of war compensate the losses they suffer. An example of this is the United States. While they joined late in the world wars, they had a great say and impact on the war. They had already developed their weapons and ammunitions and had gone to war with preparation. The second type of outcome is one in which although the country wins the war, they are badly hurt as far as economy is concerned. Their industries are destroyed, territories left damaged and even the spoils of war are not enough for their recovery. Britain and France are good examples of these. They â€Å"won† the Second World War but ended up losing m ore than what they won. They exhausted all their resources and their colonies gained independence. The third type of outcome is one in which the country loses; Germany being the example. Germany lost both its wars and had to pay damages which the obviously couldn’t. Infact, they had to ask for loans from the same countries they had to pay the damages. But leaving aside these so called boosters of economy, can any war, battle or fight justify the loss of human life? How can we as humans put a value to a person’s life? Economy may get boosted but for a short while. The damage to life, however, is a very very long one. In conclusion, I would like to say that war, like alcohol, is an addiction. Initially it tastes good, you think that all the worries are now away. But it’s not long before the person indulging himself in such addiction realizes that the pleasure was momentary, what he faces now is scars for life, which no money or economy can remove. [1] Price Fishback, U.S. Economy in World War I (eh.net 2010) http://eh.net/encyclopedia/u-s-economy-in-world-war-i/> accessed 28 June 2014. [2] Price Fishback, U.S. Economy in World War I (eh.net 2010) http://eh.net/encyclopedia/u-s-economy-in-world-war-i/> accessed 28 June 2014. [3] Carlos Lozada, The Economics of World War I (nber.org 2014) http://www.nber.org/digest/jan05/w10580.html> accessed 29 June 2014. [4] Ibid. [5] Ibid. [6] Ibid. [7] Ibid. [8] Ibid. [9] Carlos Lozada, The Economics of World War I (nber.org 2014) http://www.nber.org/digest/jan05/w10580.html> accessed 29 June 2014. [10] Price Fishback, U.S. Economy in World War I (eh.net 2010) http://eh.net/encyclopedia/u-s-economy-in-world-war-i/> accessed 28 June 2014. [11] Ibid. [12] Price Fishback, U.S. Economy in World War I (eh.net 2010) http://eh.net/encyclopedia/u-s-economy-in-world-war-i/> accessed 28 June 2014. [13] Ibid. [14] Carlos Lozada, The Economics of World War I (nber.org 2014) http://www.nber.org/digest/jan05/w10580.html> accessed 29 June 2014. [15] Niall Ferguson, The Pity of War: Explaining World War I (1st, Basic Books, 1988) 249. [16] Ibid. [17] London Jewish Cultural Centre, Economic effects of the Treaty of Versailles (theholocaustexplained.org 2009) http://www.theholocaustexplained.org/ks4/the-nazi-rise-to-power/the-german-economy-c-1919-29/economic-effects-of-the-treaty-of-versailles/> accessed 29 June 2014. [18] Michael Duffy, Treaty of Versailles, 28 June 1919 (firstworldwar.com 2009) http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/versailles.htm> accessed 29 June 2014. [19] David Siminoff and Deb Tennen, World War II: Home Front (shmoop.com 2009) http://www.shmoop.com/wwii-home-front/economy.html> accessed 29 June 2014 [20] Ibid. [21] Ibid. [22] Ibid. [23] Dr. Susmit Kumar, Consequences of World Wars I and II (susmitkumar.net 2010) http://www.susmitkumar.net/index.php?option=com_contentview=articleid=66:consequenses-of-world-wars-i-and-iiItemid=38> accessed 29 June 2014. [24] Ibid. [25] Dr. Susmit Kumar, Consequences of World Wars I and II (susmitkumar.net 2010) http://www.susmitkumar.net/index.php?option=com_contentview=articleid=66:consequenses-of-world-wars-i-and-iiItemid=38> accessed 29 June 2014. [26] Jodi Beggs, Are Wars Good for the Economy? (about.com 2014) http://economics.about.com/cs/issues/l/aa032003c.htm> accessed 29 June 2014. [27] Tyler Cowen, The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth (nytimes.com 2014) http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html?_r=0> accessed 29 June 2014. [28] Ibid. [29] The 15 countries with the highest military expenditure in 2013 (table). Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (2011). [30] Ibid. Georgia OKeeffe | Artist Biography Georgia OKeeffe | Artist Biography Georgia OKeeffe Georgia O’Keeffe is one of many famous American painters. Her paintings of flowers, skulls, horns, and pelvises against a colorful New Mexico background are what made her known to the art world (Zophy 448). There are so many interesting facts about Georgia O’Keeffe, which include her education and teaching, her major works and where they are, the honors she has received, and her charcoal drawings. Georgia and her siblings attended the Number Five District school house. This school was called the Town Hall School. Georgia once stated, â€Å"My memories of childhood are quite pleasant, although I hated school. I left the local school when I was twelve, and was sent to a convent school in Madison, Wisconsin. It was the one year I ever really learned anything,† (Robinson 24). While Georgia attended the Sacred Heart School, she was in the advanced section of her class. â€Å"At the convent in Madison, I don’t even remember wanting to do anything I shouldn’t,† she said (31). In 1902, she was sent to the big public high school in Milwaukee. She didn’t pay much attention to the academics and did not like the art teacher either. In the art room of the high school, she realized that the world through which she walked was a never ending source for her work. Since the age of ten, she knew that painting would be her life long profession (Zophy 448). Georgia first taught at the Chatham Episcopal Institute in Williamsburg, Virginia. The six weeks at Chatham showed Georgia how to continue her art, live in the country and be able to live off her artworks. It showed her a life she might make for herself after all (Robinson, 79). Georgia was offered a teaching position at the University of Virginia. When she wrote to a friend in Texas to get a reference, her friend told her about an opening in Amarillo. She immediately took the position in Amarillo. â€Å"I was very excited about going to Texas, where Billy the Kid had been,† (Robinson, 86). â€Å"Later she went to West Texas State Normal College in the Texas panhandle. Her teaching methods were unofficial. Georgia was head of her own department. She taught the students the methods of design, drawing, costume design, interior decoration, and the teaching of drawing† (Robinson, 159). â€Å"One of Georgia’s many famous paintings is the Jack-In-The-Pulpit series. This series is a powerful celebration of the strong thrust of spring and of the dark secret tower enfolded in green. Due to the natural design of the Jack, the paintings have been viewed as sexual. Georgia did not like her paintings to be put into that category† (Robinson, 354). Another series of Georgia’s paintings is the â€Å"Corn† series. â€Å"She got the inspiration to paint this series while living with Albert, her husband, in the country. She loved working in her garden which is where the vision came to her. The design of the young plants while she was looking down onto them made an exciting and stirring statement to her† (Robinson, 269). The Georgia O’Keeffe Museum opened on July 17, 1997 in Santa Fe, New Mexico and was built for the purpose of preserving and presenting the life work of one of America’s famous artists, this museum now houses a permanent collecton of O’Keeffe’s art (â€Å"Georgia†). O’Keeffe Museum’s Director, Peter H. Hassrick, added, â€Å"O’Keeffe’s life and work are central to the Santa Fe mix. When people visit Santa Fe, they think of Georgia O’Keeffe, and an institution devoted to her artistic accomplishments, located in the region that inspired much of her work, is long overdue.† (â€Å"Georgia†). â€Å"There are more than eighty paintings, watercolors, drawings, pastels, and sculptures in the collection. One of the centerpieces of the collection is â€Å"Jimson Weed†, a large-scale flower painting, one of her favorite flowers, created in 1982. She liked to make more than one version of her paintings† (â€Å"Georgia†). â€Å" The museum’s long-range plans include the building of a study center on the museum grounds providing scholars, students, and the general public with reference materials on the life and art of Georgia O’Keeffe and her fellow artists† (Robinson, 423) â€Å"Another place that Georgia’s paintings can be seen is at the National Gallery of Art. â€Å"Secretary of Treasury, Andrew W. Mellon, first wrote of his interest in creating a national art museum in Washington, D.C. in the year of 1928. Later in 1937, Congress passed legislation to build the National Gallery of Art as an independent agency within the Smithsonian Institution. Four years later, the National Gallery of Art was dedicated by President Roosevelt in the evening of the seventeenth of March which was attended by over 8,000 guests† (â€Å"National†). â€Å"The mission of the National Gallery of Art is to serve the United States of America in a national role by preserving, collecting, exhibiting, and fostering the understanding of works of art, at the highest possible museum and scholarly standard,† (â€Å"Mission†). â€Å"The 291st Gallery in New York was the first gallery to recognize her talent. There were few galleries in New York that showed American art because each artist had their own special style† (â€Å"Younger†). It soon closed shortly after its opening in 1917 (â€Å"Younger†). Georgia had received many great honors throughout her life. Here are some of them: in 1935 she was recognized for excellence in her field by the New York League of Business and Professional Women. â€Å"Later, in May of 1938, she received her first honorary degree, a doctorate of fine arts, from the college of William and Mary, in Williamsburg† (Robinson 423). In 1939, she was chosen as one of the twelve most outstanding women of the past fifty years. â€Å"Her painting, Sunset-Long Island, was picked to represent New York at the World’s Fair† (Ahsby, 432). â€Å"In 1942, she was given a second honorary degree, this one from the University of Wisconsin. In 1946, Georgia received an honor from the Women’s National Press Club, as one of ten women who had reached distinction in their fields† (Ashby, 451). Thirty-one years later, on January 10, 1977, Georgia was given the Medal of Freedom, which is America’s highest civilian award and was awarded to her by president Gerald Ford (â€Å"The Award†). Georgia recieved another award from a President in April of 1985. This one was the National Medal of Arts, given to her by President Ronald Reagan. This is the highest award given to artists and art supporters by the United States Government. â€Å"With this medal, the President recognizes the extent of creative expression of America’s artists. This is a lifetime achievement award.† (â€Å"The Award†) Georgia was given this medal one year before her death (â€Å"National†). â€Å"In 1962, the American Academy of Arts and Letters elected her into membership. That same year she was honored with the Bandeis University Creative Arts Award. In 1966, she became a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences† (Robinson 507). â€Å"Georgia O’Keeffe also did many charcoal drawings. Her very first charcoal drawing was titled the â€Å"Special No. 15,† a very early drawing of the Palo Duro Canyon in Texas. It sends a remarkable and significant sense of place. Then eighteen years later in 1934, she drew â€Å"Special No. 40.† She wrote, â€Å"This is from the sea – a shell – and paintings followed. Maybe not as good as this drawing.† Also in this group of Georgia’s drawings is a rare charcoal drawing of her friend, the African American painter Beauford Delaney from the 1940’s. In 1959, she made a charcoal drawing of a riverbed in a desert, which was inspired by sketches she made during one of her first airplane rides† (â€Å"Philidelphia†). â€Å"Another one, â€Å"Banana Flower No. 1,† was chosen by Albert to be shown in his gallery. Because of her high standards when drawing flowers, some people thought there was some hidden meaning in them† (â€Å"American†). â€Å"She also drew â€Å"Maybe a Kiss† in 1916, another of a series, because of a boyfriend who left â€Å"(Robinson 133). In 1934, she drew the â€Å"Eagle Claw and Bean Necklace (Robinson, 406). â€Å"All of Georgia O’Keeffe’s paintings and drawings had a reason to be drawn. The first reason is because she loved nature.† Many times, she said, â€Å"You know how you walk along a country road and notice a little tuft of grass, and the next time you pass that way you stop to see how it is getting along and how much it has grown?† (Robinson 233). Many of Georgia’s visions came from nature, she would tell people this by saying, â€Å"When you take a flower in your hand and really look at it, it’s your world for a moment,† (Robinson, 33). She would walk through the pines and hear â€Å"singing woods,† (Robinson, 118). â€Å"On the prairie she noticed how dried bones and skulls had a beauty of their own. She liked the color, strength, and shapes of these.† (Robinson, 119) â€Å"Another reason for her charcoal drawings is because of her emotions. In the nineteenth century, and in earlier decades of the twentieth century, art critics enjoyed the sentimental and long discussions of the emotional qualities in the paintings they saw: sadness, tenderness, passion, rage – all four were great feelings to be kept in print† (Robinson, 178). â€Å"It seemed she did most of her charcoal drawings when she was sad or lonely† (Ashby, 133). She once told a friend that art was a force that passed through the soul (Robinson, 28). Summing up her life, Georgia moved to Abiquiu, New Mexico permanently after her husband died in 1946. She had visited there many times before and fell in love with the place. She rented a ranch and stayed there six months out of the year (Ashby 204). â€Å"Her style was known as modernism. Some of her most innovative works were in watercolors, pastel, and charcoal† (â€Å"O’Keeffe†). By the year of 1984, she was blind (Robinson 249). â€Å"She spent the rest of her life with a nurse. She died on March 6, 1986 at a hospital in Santa Fe, New Mexico. She was ninety-nine years old. She was cremated and her ashes were scattered into the â€Å"windy landscape† near her house at Ghost Ranch† ( Robinson, 550). This paper has some of the many interesting facts about Georgia O’Keeffe, including: her education and teaching, her major works and where they are, all of the honors she has received, and her charcoal drawings. Georgia O’Keeffe had a ve ry interesting life, this term paper only touched on part of it. Works Cited â€Å"American.† Arkansas Art Center. 2000. 20 Feb 2008. . Ashby, Ruth, and Deborah Gore Ohrn. â€Å"Georgia O’Keeffe.† Herstory: Women Who Changed the World. New York: Penguin Books, 1995: 202-204. â€Å"The Award.† Presidential Medal of Freedom. 2007. 20 Feb 2008. . â€Å"Georgia O’Keeffe Museum.† Traditional Fine Arts Online, Inc. 1997. 22 Feb 2008. . â€Å"Mission Statement.† National Gallery of Art. 2008. 21 Feb 2008. . â€Å"National Gallery of Art.† National Gallery of Art. 2008. 19 Feb 2008. . â€Å"The National Medal of Arts.† National Endowment for the Arts. 22 Feb 2008. . â€Å"O’Keeffe on Paper.† Traditional Fine Arts Online, Inc. 1996-2001. 22 Feb 2008. . Robinson, Roxana. Georgia O’Keeffe: A Life. New York: Harper Row, 1989: 24-550. â€Å"Special.† Philadelphia Museum of Art. 1996-1999. 20 Feb 2008. . â€Å"Younger American Artists.† National Gallery of Art. 2008. 21 Feb 2008. . Zophy, Angela Howard, and Frances M. Kavenik. â€Å"Georgia O’Keeffe.† Handbook of American Women’s History. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data, 1990: 448. Bradford Assay: Standard Quantitative Method Determination Bradford Assay: Standard Quantitative Method Determination The Bradford assay is a standard quantitative method for the determination of protein concentrations. Bradford reagent used in the assay contains Coomassie Blue which produces a characteristic blue colour upon binding to proteins in solution (Bradford, Anal. Biochem. 72: 248, 1976).. Using a spectrophotometer the absorbance of the coloured product can be determined. Analysis of multiple samples may involve the use of a microtitre plate so that samples can be replicated and more reliable results obtained. The use of microtitre plates also automates the process so results are produced very quickly. Samples are pipetted into multi-well plates and the absorbance values measured using a multi-well microtitre plate reader equipped with a 595 nm filter. Part 1 Calibration Data for the Bradford Assay A calibration curve for the Bradford assay in the range 0.2- 1.0 mg/ml was obtained using three replicates for each concentration, using a microtitre plate. These data are shown in Figure 1 below. Linear Regression Analysis was performed and the equation of the line of best fit, y=mx +c, was produced (where y represents absorbance, x is the concentration of protein, m is the slope of the line of best fit and c is the intercept of the line on the y-axis). Q1. Describe the relationship between protein concentration and absorbance for the Bradford assay calibration curve. Q2. What is meant by a line of best fit? Q3. Comment on the value of R2 Using the values of the equation of the line of best fit, the absorbance value for each standard was used to calculate the actual concentration of protein in each replicate. The mean, standard deviation and coefficient of variation ((mean/SD)x100%) were calculated and are presented in Table 1 below: Comment on the reproducibility of the assay in the range 0.2 to 1.0mg/ml of protein. Part 2 Investigation of the effects of detergents on the absorbance of a set concentration of protein, using the Bradford Assay. Background You are part of a research team that is looking at the different proteins involved in a cell signalling pathway which leads to the increased synthesis of a specific protein, P. One technique used in this work involves the use of cells kept under tissue culture conditions. These cells are treated with inhibitors, after which they are broken open by solubilisation of their membranes (cell lysis) and the soluble cell contents taken up into solution. Before analysis of the solution for levels of P, the total protein content of each lysate has to be determined. One of the reagents in the buffer solution that can be used to solubilise the cell membranes is a detergent. Detergents can cause interference in a protein assay. In an investigation using the Bradford assay, two detergents at different concentrations were exposed to a set concentration of protein (0.5mg/ml). These are sodium dodecyl sulphate (SDS) and Triton X. The absorbance values were converted into protein concentrations using the equation of the line of best fit from the calibration curve and the data subjected to statistical analysis (One Way ANOVA). Mean data are compared in Tables 2 and 3, and Figures 2 and 3.

A Puzzle of Sovereignity :: Government Politics Essays

A Puzzle of Sovereignity ABSTRACT: National sovereignty presents a puzzle. On the one hand, this notion continues to figure importantly in our descriptions of global political change. On the other hand, factors such as the accelerating pace of international economic integration seem to have made the notion anachronistic. This paper is an attempt to resolve this puzzle. Distinguishing between internal sovereignty or supremacy and external sovereignty or independence, I investigate whether some insights from the discussion of the former can be applied to our puzzle concerning the latter. One response to the objection that the notion of internal sovereignty is inapplicable because no group in society holds unlimited political power is to distinguish between different types of internal sovereignty, such as legal and electoral sovereignty. The resolution of the puzzle lies in applying this response strategy to the objection that the notion of external sovereignty is inapplicable because no state is completely ind ependent. The subject of national sovereignty presents a puzzle. On the one hand, the notion of the sovereignty of the state figures importantly in our descriptions of, and our prescriptions for, global political change. (1) For example, a natural characterization of the political changes in Eastern Europe and Central Asia preceding and following the demise of the Soviet Union is that a number of national political communities have vigorously asserted, sometimes by force of arms, claims to national sovereignty. Against this is the claim that, as a result of the contemporary realities of global affairs, national sovereignty has become irrelevant, an anachronistic notion. According to this view, there is a variety of factors which, especially in the past several decades, have drained states of their sovereignty by depriving them of the ability to protect themselves and their citizens from the negative effects of the actions of other states or outside groups. The most important of these factors a re the accelerating pace of global economic integration and the increasingly wide-spread and detrimental human impact on the environment. While states have attempted to respond to this threat to their sovereignty by entering into mutual agreements in an attempt to mitigate or control the negative pressures from outside of their borders, the agreements themselves seem to represent a loss of sovereignty. Because they involve the states' binding themselves in various ways, and hence partially losing control of their own future actions, international agreements appear to exchange one form of constraint for another.

Emotional Break-down in Susan Glaspells Trifles :: Trifles Essays

Emotional Break-down in Trifles Trifles is an interesting story about the emotional break-down of a country woman. It is obvious by certain descriptions within the text that she did have an emotional trauma. However, it is never made clear if she killed her husband or did he commit suicide. The emotional trauma can be scene in the beginning of the story by her attitude towards Mr. Hale. Ms. Wright is in a state of shock her constant rocking; pleating of her skirt; her "queer" look and her dead pan response to how Mr. Wright died "He died of a rope around his neck"; all indicate a high level of emotional stress in a situation. She is not responding to anything. Also, Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters examine her quilting. The sewing is very nice and even and then suddenly it becomes a wild disaray of stiches. These actions and inactions truly indicate an unbalanced state of mental being, however, is it enough to charge a woman with murder. What further indicates the difficulty in deciding if Mrs. Wright killed Mr. Wright is the canary. Mrs. Wright shows that she loves the canary by trying to bury it in the pretty sewing box. This is not the action of someone who killed the canary. Mrs. Wright is also described as being like a bird. The reader can envision her as someone petite or slight. She is described as being sweet, pretty, timid and fluttery. It would take a lot for someone of this description to commit murder. On the other hand, Mr. Wright is described as someone who is difficult to live with. He is described by Mrs. Hale as having killed the bird like qualities in his wife. He appears to be an overbearing, unhappy person. I propose that it is Mr. Wright who kills the canary. He is taking something away from his wife trying to keep control over her. Also the cage is severely damaged. Mrs. Wright is not described as someone with a lot of strength. Following that vein of thought I also propose that Mr. Wright went crazy. He killed the bird and hung himself. It would take a lot of strength to hang a large man and Mr. Wright was envisoned to be. Also the sheriff and county attorney are baffled by the way the rope was strung up, it was rigged up strangely.

Schneck vs United States :: essays research papers

Schenck vs. United States- 1919 HOLLIES, J. This is an indictment in three counts. The first charges a conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917 . . . by causing and attempting to cause insubordination, &c., in the military and naval forces of the United States, and to obstruct the recruiting and enlistment service of the United States, when the United States was at war with the German Empire, to wit, that the defendants willfully conspired to have printed and circulated to men who had been called and accepted for military service under the Act of May 18, 1917, a document set forth and alleged to be calculated to cause such insubordination and obstruction. The count alleges overt acts in pursuance of the conspiracy, ending in the distribution of the document set forth. . . . They set up the First Amendment to the Constitution forbidding Congress to make any law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, and bringing the case here on that ground have argued some other points also of which w e must dispose. It is argued that the evidence, if admissible, was not sufficient to prove that the defendant Schenck was concerned in sending the documents. According to the testimony Schenck said he was general secretary of the Socialist party and had charge of the Socialist headquarters from which the documents were sent. He identified a book found there as the minutes of the Executive Committee of the party The book showed a resolution of August 13, 1917, that 15,000 leaflets should be printed on the other side of one of them in use, to be mailed to men who had passed exemption boards, and for distribution. Schenck personally attended to the printing. On August 20 the general secretary's report said, "Obtained new leaflets from printer and started work addressing envelopes" &c.; and there was a resolve that Comrade Schenck be allowed $125 for sending leaflets through the mail. He said that he had about fifteen or sixteen thousand printed. There were files of the circular in questio n in the inner office which he said were printed on the other side of the one sided circular and were there for distribu|tion. Other copies were proved to have been sent through the mails to drafted men. With; out going into confirmatory details that were l proved, no reasonable man could doubt that the defendant Schenck was largely instrumental in sending the circulars about.

Blood Promise Chapter Six

I bolted upright, every part of me awake and alert. There were no city lights to shine through the window, and it took me several seconds to make out anything in the darkened room. Sydney was curled up in her own bed, her face unusually at peace as she slept. Where was the Strigoi? Definitely not in our room. Was it in the house? Everyone had said the road to Dimitri's town was dangerous. Still, I would have thought Strigoi would be going after Moroi and dhampirs-though humans were a big part of their diet too. Thinking of the nice couple who'd welcomed us into their home, I felt something tight clench in my chest. No way would I let anything happen to them. Slipping quietly out of the bed, I grabbed a hold of my stake and crept from the room without disturbing Sydney. No one else was awake, and as soon as I was in the living room, the nausea went away. Okay. The Strigoi wasn't inside, which was a good thing. It was outdoors, apparently on the side of the house near my room. Still moving silently, I went out the house's front door and walked around the corner, as quiet as the night around me. The nausea grew stronger as I approached the barn, and I couldn't help but feel smug. I was going to surprise this Strigoi who'd thought it could sneak into a tiny human village for dinner. There. Right near the barn's entrance, I could see a long shadow moving. Gotcha, I thought. I readied the stake and started to spring forward-And then something struck me on the shoulder. I stumbled, astonished, and looked into the face of a Strigoi. Out of the corner of my eye, I saw the shadow by the barn materialize into another Strigoi striding forward. Panic shot through me. There were two, and my secret detection system hadn't been able to tell the difference. Worse, they'd gotten the drop on me. A thought immediately flashed into my mind: What if one's Dimitri? It wasn't. At least, this close one wasn't. It was a woman. I had yet to get a feel for the second one. That one was approaching from my other side, moving fast. I had to deal with this immediate threat, though, and swiped at the woman with my stake, hoping to wound her, but she dodged so quickly, I hardly saw her move. She struck out toward me in an almost casual way. I wasn't fast enough to react and went flying toward the other Strigoi-a guy who was not Dimitri. I responded quickly, leaping up and kicking him. I held the stake out, creating distance between us, but it did little good when the woman came up from behind and grabbed me, jerking my body against hers. I gave a muffled cry and felt her hands on my throat. She was probably going to break my neck, I realized. It was a fast, easy technique for Strigoi that then let them drag off a victim for feeding. I struggled, jostling her hands slightly, but as the other Strigoi leaned over us, I knew it was useless. They'd surprised me. There were two of them. They were strong. Panic surged in me again, an overwhelming sense of fear and desperation. I was afraid every time I fought Strigoi, but this fear was reaching a breaking point. It was unfocused and out of control, and I suspected it was touched by a bit of the madness and darkness I'd absorbed from Lissa. The feelings exploded within me, and I wondered if they'd destroy me before the Strigoi did. I was in very real danger of dying here-of letting Sydney and the others get killed. The rage and distress of that thought were smothering. Then, suddenly, it was like the earth burst open. Translucent forms, glowing softly in the darkness, sprang up everywhere. Some looked like normal people. Others were horrible, their faces gaunt and skull-like. Ghosts. Spirits. They surrounded us, their presence making my hair stand on end and sending a splitting headache through my skull. The ghosts turned toward me. I'd had this happen before, on a plane, when apparitions had swarmed and threatened to consume me. I braced myself, trying desperately to summon up the strength to build barriers that would shut me off from the spirit world. It was a skill I'd had to learn, one I usually kept in place without any effort. The desperation and panic of this situation had cracked my control. In that horrible, blood-curdling moment, I again selfishly wished Mason hadn't found peace and left this world. I would have felt better if his ghost were here. Then I realized I wasn't their target. The ghosts were mobbing the two Strigoi. The spirits didn't have solid forms, but every place they touched and passed through me felt like ice. The female Strigoi immediately began waving her arms to fend the apparitions off, snarling in rage and something almost like fear. The ghosts didn't appear to be able to hurt the Strigoi, but they were apparently pretty annoying-and distracting. I staked the male Strigoi before he ever saw me coming. Immediately, the ghosts around him moved to the woman. She was good, I'd give her that. Despite struggling to fend the spirits off, she was still able to dodge my attacks fairly well. A lucky punch from her made stars burst before my eyes and sent me into the barn wall. I still had that ghost-induced splitting headache, and my head slamming into the barn didn't help. Staggering up, dizzy, I made my way back to her and continued my efforts to get a shot in at her heart. She managed to keep her chest out of my range-at least until one particularly terrifying ghost caught her off guard. Her momentary distraction gave me my chance, and I staked her, too. She fell to the ground-leaving me alone with the spirits. With the Strigoi, the ghosts had clearly wanted to attack them. With me, it was a lot like on the plane. They seemed fascinated by me, desperate to get my attention. Only, with dozens of phantoms swarming, it might as well have been an attack. Desperately, I tried again to summon my walls, to block the ghosts off from me as I'd done long ago. The effort was excruciating. Somehow, my out-of-control emotions had brought the spirits, and while I was calmer now, that control was harder to bring about. My head continued throbbing. Gritting my teeth, I focused every ounce of my strength into blocking out the ghosts. â€Å"Go away,† I hissed. â€Å"I don't need you anymore.† For a moment, it looked like my efforts were going to be useless. Then, slowly, one by one, the spirits began to fade. I felt the control I'd learned before gradually slip into place. Soon, there was nothing there but me, the darkness, and the barn-and Sydney. I noticed her just as I collapsed to the ground. She was running out of the house in her pajamas, face pale. Kneeling at my side, she helped me sit up, legitimate fear all over her. â€Å"Rose! Are you okay?† I felt like every scrap of energy in my brain and body had been sucked out. I couldn't move. I couldn't think. â€Å"No,† I told her. And then I passed out. I dreamed of Dimitri again, his arms around me and beautiful face leaning over me to care for me as he'd done so often when I was sick. Memories of things past came to me, the two of us laughing over some joke. Sometimes, in these dreams, he'd carry me away. Sometimes, we'd be riding in a car. Occasionally, his face would start to take on that fearsome Strigoi image that always tormented me. Then I'd quickly order my mind to brush such thoughts away. Dimitri had taken care of me so many times and had always been there when I needed him. It had gone both ways, though. Admittedly, he had not seemed to end up in the infirmary as much as me. That was just my luck. Even when he was injured, he wouldn't acknowledge it. And as I dreamed and hallucinated, images came to me of one of the few times I'd been able to take care of him. Just before the school had been attacked, Dimitri had been involved in a number of tests with me and my fellow novices to see how well we reacted to surprise assaults. Dimitri was so tough that he was almost impossible to beat, though he still got bruised up a number of times. I'd run into him in the gym once during these tests, surprised to see a cut on his cheek. It was hardly fatal, but there was a fair amount of blood showing. â€Å"Do you realize you're bleeding to death?† I'd exclaimed. It was kind of an exaggeration, but still. He touched his cheek absentmindedly and seemed to notice the injury for the first time. â€Å"I wouldn't quite go that far. It's nothing.† â€Å"It's nothing until you get an infection!† â€Å"You know that's not likely,† he said obstinately. That was true. Moroi-aside from contracting the occasional rare disease, as Victor had-hardly ever got sick. We dhampirs had inherited that from them, just as Sydney's tattoo gave her some protection. Nonetheless, I wasn't about to let Dimitri bleed all over. â€Å"Come on,† I said, pointing to the small bathroom in the gym. My voice had been fierce, and to my surprise, he'd actually obeyed. After wetting a washcloth, I gently cleaned his face. He continued protesting at first but finally fell quiet. The bathroom was small, and we were just a few inches from each other. I could smell his clean, intoxicating scent and studied every detail of his face and strong body. My heart raced in my chest, but we were supposed to be on good behavior, so I tried to appear cool and collected. He was eerily calm too, but when I brushed his hair back behind his ears to clean the rest of his face, he flinched. My fingertips touching his skin had sent shock waves through me, and he'd felt them too. He caught hold of my hand and pulled it away. â€Å"Enough,† he said, voice husky. â€Å"I'm fine.† â€Å"Are you sure?† I asked. He hadn't released my hand. We were so, so close. The small bathroom seemed ready to burst with the electricity building between us. I knew this couldn't last but hated to let go of him. God, it was hard being responsible sometimes. â€Å"Yes,† he said. His voice was soft, and I knew he wasn't mad at me. He was afraid, afraid of how little it would take to ignite a fire between us. As it was, I was warm all over, just from the feel of his hand. Touching him made me feel complete, like the person I was always meant to be. â€Å"Thank you, Roza.† He released my hand, and we left, both off to do our own things that day. But the feel of his skin and hair stayed with me for hours afterward†¦ I don't know why I dreamed that memory after being attacked near the barn. It seemed weird that I'd dream of taking care of Dimitri when I was the one who needed care. I guess it didn't really matter what the memory was, so long as it involved him. Dimitri always made me feel better, even in my dreams, giving me strength and resolve. But as I lay in that delirium and moved in and out of consciousness, his comforting face would occasionally take on those terrible red eyes and fangs. I'd whimper, fighting hard to push that sight away. Other times, he didn't look like Dimitri at all. He'd turn into a man I didn't know, an older Moroi with dark hair and cunning eyes, gold jewelry glinting on his neck and ears. I'd cry out for Dimitri again, and eventually, his face would return, safe and wonderful. At one point, though, the image shifted again, this time into a woman's. Clearly, she wasn't Dimitri, but there was something about her brown eyes that reminded me of him. She was older, in her forties maybe, and a dhampir. She laid a cool cloth across my forehead, and I realized I wasn't dreaming anymore. My body ached, and I was in an unfamiliar bed, in an unfamiliar room. No sign of the Strigoi. Had I dreamed them, too? â€Å"Don't try to move,† the woman said with the faintest trace of a Russian accent. â€Å"You took some bad hits.† My eyes widened as the events by the barn came back to me, the ghosts I'd summoned up. It hadn't been a dream. â€Å"Where's Sydney? Is she okay?† â€Å"She's fine. Don't worry.† Something in the woman's voice told me I could believe her. â€Å"Where am I?† â€Å"In Baia.† Baia, Baia. Somewhere, in the back of my head, that name was familiar. All of a sudden, it clicked. Long, long ago, Dimitri had said it. He'd only ever mentioned his town's name once and, even though I'd tried, I had never been able to remember it. Sydney would never tell me the name. But now we were here. Dimitri's home. â€Å"Who are you?† I asked. â€Å"Olena,† she said. â€Å"Olena Belikova.†