Why does the revolution in Animal Farm fail?

There is
no one answer to this question as there are a number of contributing factors involved. Much
depends on the political opinions of each individual.

, for example, would
say that the revolution failed becausebecame a dictator and refused to spread the Animalist
revolution beyond the confines of Manor Farm. And look what happened! Napoleon, like the rest of
the pigs, has become almost indistinguishable from a human. Animalism was supposed to liberate
animals from humans. But now, thanks to Napoleon's lust for power and ideological ignorance,
animals have become every bit as repressive and exploitative as the humans.

Farmer Jones, representing humans in the story, on the other hand, would doubtless say
that the revolution failed because it was a stupid idea in the first place. Whoever heard of
animals running a farm? He would not be very surprised the place has been mired in chaos,
bloodshed, and chronic inefficiency since the animals took over.

, if he had
lived to tell the tale, might have offered his own unique perspective on why the revolution
failed. The revolution was a noble cause, one that had the potential to liberate the animals and
give them control of their own destiny. Although not everything went according to plan, the
revolution did nonetheless give the animals a taste of just how important they are, a real sense
of their own worth. Boxer might say Animalism isn't dead, that Manor Farm must keep its flame
alive in the hearts of millions of animals worldwide through ceaseless struggle. He would urge
others to aspire to build the Animalist utopia, only this time learning from the past mistakes
of some of their less ideologically correct former comrades.

Comment on Swami Vivekanandas addresses at the Parliament of Religions Response to welcome.

I would
say that Swami Vivekananda's welcome to the crowd was electrifying and reflective
simultaneously.  Consider that in 1893, Hinduism was not fully understood as a unifying force,
but rather seen as a primitive set of practices.  British Colonization was at its zenith, while
Western expansion all over the world was present.  The ingrained belief on the world stage at
the time was that the "East" was savage, or at the very least, disorderly.  When Swami
calls out to "brothers and sisters in America," knowingly or not, he is making a
direct call to what would be later called "globalization."  Swami Vivekananda's
welcoming address was constructed in such a manner that it seemed like Hinduism was welcoming
the West.  It made sense because from a chronological point of view, Hinduism is much older than
the other religions that were featured on the stage.  When he calls out to Saraswati, it is
almost as if he brings the divine force of learning and understanding to the Art Institute of
Chicago, to bless the convergence of figures present and to solidify the belief that Hinduism is
not something to be approached with foreign attitudes or demonizing fear.  Rather, it is only
through the divine grace of Saraswati that something like the Parliament of Religions can be
understood.  When Swami Vivekananda received a standing ovation and thunderous applause, it is
almost as if he knew that he was the primary force in bringing Hinduism into the West, the force
that would forever change how religions in the "East" would be seen in the light of
those in the "West."  When American reaction was almost "shameful," that
Western religions sought to convert those in the East and not fully embrace such traditions, one
can see Swami Vivekananda's true impact.  It is no surprise that Swami sought to make a
worldwide connection between Hinduism and the world.  When he returned back to India, his words
of how it is the individual's responsibility to serve God, in the form of Lord Shiva, and the
rest of the world were inscribed on the doors of one the holiest of Hindu shrines at
Rameshwaram.  At this location, where the narratives of Shiva and Vishnu in the form of Rama
intertwine, Swami Vivekananda's words are inscribed.  It seems as if the meesage to Chicago
traveled from India, and the meesage from Chicago traveled all the way back to
India.

href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Vivekananda">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Vivekananda
href="https://www.indiadivine.org/content/topic/1665796-from-swami-vivekanandas-address-at-the-rameswaram-temple-on-real-worship/">https://www.indiadivine.org/content/topic/1665796-from-sw...

What does the Misfit mean when he says that Jesus has "thrown everything off balance"?

Jesus
throws everything off balance by causing
the Misfit to question his murderous lifestyle and
even, perhaps, to feel
twinges of conscience over his chosen path. 

The

Grandmother and the Misfit have a relatively long conversation about Jesus. The
Grandmother, in
terror that she is going to be killed, starts crying out
"Jesus, Jesus," meaning to
say 'Jesus will help you' to the Misfit. She
realizes, however, it is coming out sounding like a
curse. 

The Misfit responds to the Grandmother's words "Jesus,
Jesus," by
saying that Jesus threw everything off balance. He goes on a little later to
add
to this idea:

Jesus was the only
One that ever raised the
dead," The Misfit continued, "and He shouldn't have
done it. He shown everything off
balance. If He did what He said, then it's
nothing for you to do but throw away everything and
follow Him, and if He
didn't, then it's nothing for you to do but enjoy the few minutes you got

left the best way you can by killing somebody or burning down
his...

What are the strengths and weaknesses of the person-centered model?

The
person-centered approach, developed in the 1950s and proposed by psychologist Carl Rogers, is a
model used in psychotherapy, the medical field, and even in business plans, that consists of
serving the client at every level of need, and basing the service provided entirely on who the
client is.  To be able to provide a person-centered approach, there must be a strong
relationship between client and provider, one where there is open communication, mutual trust,
and ongoing interaction. 

The strengths of the model lay in the solid nature
of the client-provider relationship. There is mutual...

href="https://www.who.int/westernpacific/activities/supporting-people-centred-integrated-health-service-delivery">https://www.who.int/westernpacific/activities/supporting-...

Discuss George and Lennie's dream in Of Mice and Men?

I think
it might be argued that the so-called "dream" or "American dream" in
Steinbeck's  is notand 's shared dream but really George's dream alone. He
has confided his dream to Lennie because he does a lot of talking to Lennie, although his
companion doesn't always understand what he is talking about. Lennie is not capable of inventing
such a complex dream. In fact, whenever the subject comes up he can only seem to imagine it in
terms of having rabbits to feed and fondle. Lennie has to hear George describe it to him, and he
believes in it as a potential reality even though George may only regard it as an idea to play
with in his mind. George probably does not mention his dream to any other person but Lennie
because Lennie is the only person who would share it with him. 

George's
dream is infectious. First Lennie is infected, then Candy, and finally Crooks. George is the
only creative person among them. He is compensating for his dissatisfaction and frustrations by
indulging in what he himself knows to be an unrealistic fantasy, a wish fulfillment. The reality
seems like a potential nightmare. George would be living in a shack with three severely
handicapped men. They would be "land poor." They might have enough food, but they
wouldn't have any money to spend on necessities, much less on luxuries. They would need shoes,
clothing, tools, and seed in addition to such things as coffee, sugar and flour. It seems like a
wretched existence, possibly even worse than George and Lennie are experiencing now. Lennie is
dumb enough to believe in it, and Candy and Crooks are desperate enough to believe in it--but
does George believe in it himself?

Why does Mrs Higgins say that Higgins cannot attend Doolittle's wedding?

Stubborn as always, Professor Higgins doesn't rise when everyone else does in order to
attend Doolittle's wedding.  (Doolittle, of course, is Eliza's father.)  From Act IV, here is
what the text says on the matter: 

LIZA. Quite. Is the
Professor coming?

MRS. HIGGINS. Certainly not. He can't behave himself in
church. He makes remarks out loud all the time on the clergyman's pronunciation.

 

The reason on the surface, then, is that
Higgins behaves just as badly in church as he does at the race track.  It is not appropriate, of
course, to correct the priest's pronunciation.  (Ha!)  Higgins always has to interject his own
opinion whever he is, whether it is appropriate and socially acceptable or not.  In my opnion,
this is why Mrs. Higgins is so exasperated by her son all the time.  Mrs. Higgins is a prime
example of an English socialite and is incredibly embarrassed by her son's inability to be the
same.  Therefore, he remains a continual embarrassment to her.

Below the
surface, however, the reason is that Professor Higgins doesn't actually
belong at Mr. Doolittle's wedding.  He has no relation to the bride, the
groom, . . . or the groom's daughter (Eliza) as anything but a business associate or former
"boss," so to speak.  Professor Higgins stands aloof from everyone and, as such,
wouldn't be welcome or even enjoy this blessed event.  So as always, Professor Higgins stays
home stewing about the exasperating events of the past few months with chagrin.

What are two conflicts in The Lovely Bones and what are their resolutions?

One
conflict is between Abigail and Jack. They each need to deal with Susie's death in a different
way, and they do not understand each other's grieving processes. Jack faces his memories
head-on, finds suspects, and talks about what he's feeling. Abigail needs to separate herself
from the trauma, so she first has an affair, then runs away to California. She returns years
later after Jack has a heart attack. They finally are able to talk to each other about how they
feel and to grieve together.

Another conflict occurs between Mr. Harvey and
Lindsey. It begins when Lindsey learns that Mr. Harvey has killed her sister. She breaks into
his house and finds evidence of his crime. After this, Mr. Harvey obsesses over Lindsey and even
stalks her, though he never has an opportunity to cause her harm. This conflict is resolved when
Mr. Harvey dies from an icicle falling on him and knocking him down a ravine. This icicle
scenario was proposed by a classmate of Lindsey's for a school project, and appears to have been
caused by Susie (as a spirit).