Plasma Membrane and Diffusion Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Plasma Membrane and Diffusion - Case Study Example Diffusion is a means of active transport which results from thermal, random movement of molecular particles from regions of high concentrations to regions of low concentrations(3). There are six factors which influence diffusions in fluids, these includes: Concentration gradient, size of the molecules involved, Distance travelled by the molecules, Temperature of the medium and the molecules, Solubility of the molecule and the surface area of the plasma membrane in which the molecule can carry out its activities, Hence the rate of diffusion is given by the ratio of the product of solubility, gradient, temperature, surface and the product of distance the molecules moves by the square root of the mass of the molecule. Diffusion can be classified into three categories or types, which include; simple diffusion, channel diffusion and facilitated diffusion(3).Simple diffusion occurs when micro or small non-polar molecular particles go through a fluid (liquid or gases) mostly liquids through a lipid bilayer. This diffusion type is characterized by hydrophobic molecules moving to hydrophobic regions without being rejected(3). Hydrophilic molecules do not participate in simple diffusion because they would be rejected when they move into the hydrophobic region of the membrane.Channel diffusion is a type of passive transport which involves channel proteins in which the molecule moves through an open, aqueous pore and it can be regulated. Charged particles and ions can pass through the pore (1).

World Without Public Schools Essay Example for Free

World Without Public Schools Essay Should America have public schools, or would we do better without them? Nothing is more important to this country than the transformation of children into educated American citizens. Thats what public schools are for, and no institutions are better suited to the rolein principle. They used to fill it with distinction. But theres no reason we must have public schools. Granted, the public has a strong interest in educating Americas children, at a cost thats divided equitably among all taxpayers and not borne by the parents of school-age children alone. But these requirements dont imply any need for public schools. We need an Air Force, and the Air Force needs planes. Taxpayers pay for the force and the planes. But the pilots are supplied directly by the government, the airplanes by private companies (with government oversight and assistance). Schooling might be furnished on either model: mainly by public or mainly by private organizations. We know that private schools are perfectly capable of supplying first-class educations. So the question stands: Why have public schools? How should we decide whether to have them or not? Vouchers have been a popular and promising (and controversial) idea for years. Under voucher plans, the public pays part or all of the bill when a child attends private school. But here I am talking about the whole hog, not just the tail and a couple of trotters. If sending some children to private school at public expense is worth discussing, why not sending all children to private school? Why not liberate all the vast resources we spend on public schools to be re-channeled to private schools chosen by the nations parents? Any public school offering an education that parents will actually pay for (of their own free will) would presumably be replaced by a private school offering essentially the same thing. But a vast array of new private schools would germinate also. And a vast number of failed public schools would disappear. I n the system I am picturing, education would continue to be free and accessible to every child, and all taxpayers would continue to pay for it. Parents would be guaranteed access to reasonable schools that cost them nothing beyond what they pay in taxes. It would all be just like todayexcept that public schools would have vanished. Would private organizations be capable of providing enough new schools to replace our gigantic public schools establishment? Private enterprise is alleged to be smarter and more resourceful in America than anywhere else in the world. So lets suppose that private schools can indeed meet the needs of nearly all parents. Do we actually need and want our public schools, or do we keep them around out of fear of the teachers unionsand habit, like a broken childs toy we are too sentimental to throw away? The basic law of public schools Many sources agree that, on the whole, American public schools are rotten. In 2000, a whopping 12 percent of graduating seniors were rated proficient in science, and international surveys rank our graduating seniors 19th overall out of 21 nations. In 2002, the Washington Post summarized a different survey: Nearly six in 10 of the nations high school seniors lack even a basic knowledge of U. S. history. And so on. Our public schools are widely agreed to be in bad shape. But these are only problems of incompetence. Others cut deeper. The basic law of public schools is this: Public schools are first and foremost agents of the public. They exist to transform children into educated citizens as the public understands this termin other words, as a public consensus defines it. Of course the United States is a large country; standards have always differed from state to state. So each state has its own public schools, charged with satisfying the consensus definition of educated citizen in that state. In 1898, Nicholas Murray Butler (soon to be president of Columbia University) described universities in terms that make explicit this connection, one that is almost forgotten today. In order to become greatindeed, in order to exist at all, he wrote, a university [or public school! ] must represent the national life and minister to it. When the universities of any country cease to be in close touch with the social life and institutions of the people, and fail to yield to the efforts of those who would readjust them, their days of influence are numbered. The same is true of any system of educational organization. Public schools even more than universities must represent the national life and minister to it. They must minister to the consensus definition of an educated citizen. And what is a consensus? Unanimity or general agreement on matters of opinion, according to Websters; solid agreement by a large majority. And in states where there is no public consensus or general agreement on the meaning of educated citizen, public schools are in an impossible position. They cant act for the public if the public cant decide how they should act. This is true without regard to whether the schools are working well or badly. Today there are few states or none where a public consensus or general agreement exists on what educated citizen means. Schools exist not only to teach skills but to mold character. (Although many object to this old-fashioned language, few Americans disagree that schools must teach an approach to life, a worldview, a moral framework. ) The culture war that has been underway since the late 60s is precisely a war over approaches to life and worldviews and moral frameworks. Our politics mirror that divide. In the 2004 presidential election, Kerry and Bush differed on politics, but stood also for two different worldviews in the larger senseKerry the globalizing man-of-the-world with his European experience versus the plainspoken, ranch-living, Bible-quoting Bush. In simplest terms, Kerry stood for globalism, Bush for Americanism. As between these divergent visions, the country split down the middle. Its pretty clear that no consensus or general agreement on the nature of education is likely to exist in a country thats so divided. Which suggests in turn that, for now, the age of the American public school is over. Obviously we shouldnt make such judgments on the basis of short-term disagreements or divisions. But Americas culture war has been underway for a generation at least. You might argue that the solution is to have two varieties of public school, roughly moderate left and moderate right, each with its own curriculum, textbooks, and standards, and its own version of a worldview or moral framework to teach children. Every neighborhood or local region would vote on left versus right local schools. In many areas such elections would be extraordinarily hard-fought and bitteryet the solution might work, except that the school establishments bias is so consistently left (and not moderate left either) that it seems unlikely we could trust it to operate moderate right schoolsor even neutral schools, if there were such a thing. (The public schools bias often shows itself in exactly the form of neutrality, as Ill discuss. If you declare yourself neutral as between America and her enemies, or normal sexuality and homosexuality, your neutrality in itself is bias. ) Of course this whole analysis might be wrong. Maybe I misunderstand the point of public schools. Was there ever a consensus in this country on what an educated citizen should be? Maybe we always have been content for the schools to speak for just one section of American society, never the whole. What would the nation look like without public schools? Nearly all existing public school buildings would be leased to private schools. All the private schools in any town or district would discuss programs and fees among themselves (which would not count as illegal price-fixing), and with the public too, via local government or town meetings. Any public school whose staff believes in it would be allowed to keep its building and reorganize on a new basis. Some large public schools, especially high schools, would reorganize as confederacies of separate schools sharing one building: a science and math school, humanities school, arts school, sports school. Many students could attend more than one simultaneously. The Internets most important role might be to help coordinate such complicated arrangements. (Though its also true that a well-designed Internet school might attract students from all over the country. ) One final question: Is there any chance that Abolition will be acted on, or even discussed? Dont hold your breath. Yet it would take just one prominent (even medium-prominent) politician or public figure to get America talking. We desperately need this national discussion. And what could be healthier for Americas public schools than to learn that they might not be immortal after all?

Shakespeares Hamlet Essay: Comparison of Gertrude and Ophelia :: comparison compare contrast essays

Comparison of Gertrude and Ophelia within Hamlet      Ã‚   Shakespeare developed 126 female characters in his dramas. In his tragedy Hamlet there are Ophelia and Gertrude. This essay will explore the similarities or commonality of these two characters.    One obvious feature which both Ophelia and Gertrude have in common is that they are both recipients of Hamlet’s ill-will. T.S. Elliot in his essay, â€Å"Hamlet and His Problems† explains how Gertrude is the object of the protagonist’s disgust:    Hamlet is up against the difficulty that his disgust is occasioned by his mother, but that his mother is not an adequate equivalent for it; his disgust envelops and exceeds her. (25)    L.C. Knight in â€Å"An Approach to Hamlet,† agreeing with T. S. Eliot, comments on the â€Å"obsessive passion† which the prince exercises in his chastisement of Gertrude:    I am of course aware that what Hamlet says to his mother in the Closet scene may be regarded as part of a necessary and proper attempt to break the alliance between her and the smiling murderer; but through it all runs the impure streak of the indulgence of an obsessive passion.[. . .] If with genuine, even with passionate, concern, you want to help someone in great need, someone in desperate ignorance of his true condition, do you, I wonder, say, â€Å"This is what you are: see how ugly you look†? Well, perhaps you may; but certainly not in such a way that you seem about to make an aggressive attack. (70)    In similar fashion, Ophelia is verbally abused by the hero; and this episode is elaborated on in detail later. In the Introduction to Twentieth Century Interpretations of Hamlet, David Bevington enlightens the reader regarding the similarities between Gertrude and Ophelia as the hero sees them:    Yet to Hamlet, Ophelia is no better than another Gertrude: both are tender of heart but submissive to the will of importunate men, and so are forced into uncharacteristic vices. Both would be other than what they are, and both receive Hamlet’s exhortations to begin repentance by abstaining from pleasure. â€Å"Get thee to a nunnery†; â€Å"Assume a virtue if you have it not.† (9)    As Bevington says, both Gertrude and Ophelia are â€Å"tender of heart,† motivated by love and a desire for quiet familial harmony among the members of their courtly society in Elsinore. At the first social function in the play, Gertrude is motivated out of love for her son to advise:

Learning Denied Essay

Controversy over the special education of apprentices with learning inability into usual classrooms provides substantial evidence in favor of special education. Although the heated debate which has risen over the pros and cons of special education remains intense, arguments supporting special education tend to outweigh those against special education. Protesters of special education think only of the children with a high chance of academic success. In my opinion, the apparent query is who has the right to judge that only mentally advantaged children should be afforded the opportunity of a normal classroom education? After all, more than just academics are learned in the classroom. Social interaction skills, for instance, also play a huge role in the education process. Simply because mentally disabled children do not have great academic potential does not mean they should be stripped from the experience of attending a regular classroom. In an investigation done by eight graduate students, ninety-three students from two inner-city public elementary schools were observed. The reason was to scrutinize the dissimilarities amongst apprentices with learning inability, students with little educational accomplishment, and learners with regular educational success. In each of the 22 classrooms involved in the study, two children labeled as learning disabled were mainstreamed. To some extent unexpected outcome of the trial was that the students with education disabilities showed a better school commitment than the learners with small attainment. In addition, the pupils with learning disabilities demonstrated a huge attention in the school lesson and, as a result, established more awareness from their teachers. The data received from the research investigation proves that disabled children, like other children have the desire and self-motivation to learn. This fact contradicts the statements made by opponents of special education, who claim that learning disabled children in the regular classroom will bring down the level of learning of the average students. Instead, it seems from the outcome of the investigation that the opponents of special education need to admit that it could be the children with low academic attainment, rather than the children with learning disabilities, that bring down the average students’ level of learning. Although children with learning disabilities may not fare as well on tests as low or average achievers, their presence in the regular classroom certainly will not hinder the success of the other students. It is a known fact that students will respond according to the expectations placed on them (Denny Taylor, 1990). Another concern of many protesters of special education is that learners with disabilities have social difficulties. They believe that learning-disabled students that are incorporated into the standard classroom will become outcasts. I agree with who claim that the special education of disabled students results in better socialization skills for the disabled children. In a study of the social relationships of students in special education classrooms, researchers found that learners with disabilities were well incorporated into the regular classroom social setting. The results clearly disprove the concern that students with learning disabilities would be outcasts in a regular classroom. Another advantage of special education pointed out by experts is that exceptional children in a mainstreamed classroom will learn to accept people despite their differences. Nondiscrimination is an important life lesson, and special education provides the opportunity for children to learn it. In addition to reducing discrimination among peers, special education promotes a system of cooperation. Students are forced to work together and create a cooperative, not competitive, environment. All of the previous listed advantages of special education are part of the goal of mainstreaming which is to â€Å"create a classroom/community where all children can work together, learn, and develop mutually supportive repertoires with peers and adults. † Realizing mainstream or special needs education depends on many factors outside and inside the school. Mainstreaming or special needs education should be part of an encompassing development in society, in which the concept of disability and the position of people with disabilities and/or special needs are changing. In this perspective, persons with special needs should be seen as citizens who have rights within the society as a whole, and no longer should they be seen primarily in terms of their need for special care and treatment; the last to be treated for reasons of efficiency and convenience in special settings. Regardless of special need (handicap or disability), everybody should be treated as an integral member of society. The particular services essential must be offered inside the structure of the communal, learning, physical condition, and other services accessible to all associates of society. Without a solid inclusion-oriented people, comprehensive schools are not possible. Inclusion in education should be measured as one of the numerous features of inclusion in society (Mary Konya Weishaar, 2000). Solution to the Issues: A main task for the administration is to generate sufficient circumstances for the completion of inclusive or special needs education. Without sufficient government involvement, and without the government playing a leading role in promoting legislation, giving financial support, and developing policies, inclusive education will only receive lip-service. An obvious, complete, and decisive strategy declaration might take steps as a means to all stakeholders in teaching: policymakers, majors, educators, parents, amalgamations, non-government associations, referring organizations, and other experts. Schools and, therefore, principals, teachers, and parents are the active agents in the process of developing and implementing plans for mainstream or special needs education. Special education depends heavily on how schools organize their education and what teachers do in their classrooms. If the uniqueness of every child is the central focus of the school system, then finding manageable ways to meet those specific, individual needs is the main responsibility of the regular classroom teacher. Special education is not just an issue of placement of a special needs student in the regular classroom setting; it means both innovation and changes in regular schools as well as in special education schools (Arlene Sacks, 2001). Conclusion: The focus of the inclusive, special needs approach therefore is to support the regular special education school system, that is, the management, the regular classroom teacher and others involved in the teaching process. It should be part of a total school-wide reform resulting in some fundamental changes of policy, philosophy, structure, organization, curriculum, the instructional process, and the management of resources of the regular school. The most important meaning in this attitude modification ought to be that a regular instructor senses an ethical and societal obligation, and is capable and prepared adequately to offer teaching to learners with special wants, making utmost utilization of the resources that are offered. In order to achieve this attitude change, pre-service and in-service training should be provided, not only for teachers working in the program but also for principals and other personnel involved. The true coordinators of the special education process are the teachers. Each pair of teachers that work together must have the desire to teach all children in the least restrictive environment. The extra time and planning involved in creating such an environment requires an enormous amount of devotion. Jamaicans owe everything to the caring teachers who go out of their way to help our country’s children. If only everyone could see the benefits reaped from special education instead of showing a stubborn resistance to change, more children would gain the opportunity to succeed in life. Children are our future, and each child, regardless of intellectual capability, deserves a fair chance. References: Taylor, Denny. 1990. Learning Denied. Published by Heinemann. Hofstra University Foreword by William L. Wansart Weishaar, Mary Konya. 2000. Inclusive Educational Administration: A Case Study Approach. Published by McGraw Hill Sacks, Arlene. 2001. Special Education: A Reference Handbook. Published by ABC-CLIO

Kantian Ethics concerning human Cloning Essay

Cloning is a procedure conceived to notion in the late 1960s, but it is only recently that it was fully understood and that scientists have started to figure out how to successfully copy the genetic composition of one organism to another. Since science already knows how to do this, the only problems and obstacles that remains is efficiency and the success ratio of each operation. The cloning process consists of taking the nucleus of an organism, and placing it, along with the DNA that contains all the genetic material, in place of the nucleus of the host egg. The egg then forms an embryo and matures into the same exact â€Å"copy†, at least genetically, as the original organism. Already done on mammals, cloning is something that can be extended to utilize humans as subjects. In the future it will be wholly possible to create human clones to serve whatever purpose they were conceived for. However, presently there are numerous ethical issues surrounding cloning and there are pro blems about the implications of the use of cloning for the purpose of medicine. This issue plagues us so much that the constant objections of bioethicists and political and religious leaders have caused the US Government to propose a ban on all research concerning human cloning until a conclusion is reached on the moral and ethical aspects of the process. (Macer, 2) In this paper, I will discuss how Kantian views and ethics help us understand whether it is morally ethical to clone for the purpose of bettering our lives. Two points have to be distinguished. How exactly will human cloning aid medicine and society, and the implications of human worth and dignity when applied to clones. Kantian ethics were proposed by Immanuel Kant in his critical writing of the â€Å"Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals†. Kant argued that â€Å"non-rational things have only a relative value as means and are consequently called things. Rational beings, on the other hand, are called persons because their nature already marks them out as ends in themselves†¦ for unless this is so, nothing at all of absolute value would be found anywhere†. (Britannica, 473) All persons are able to adjust their behavior to what they reason to be moral behavior, but in using this capacity that all humans possess, they must act upon a categorical imperative to treat all similarly situated  people equally. They must uphold to their moral maxims and make their actions universal law, extending it equally to all persons. Kant reformulates this idea and states that we should â€Å"act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same times as an end†. (Britannica, 472) This means that we should never use people as only a means, and that because all persons have intrinsic human worth they should all be considered as ends in themselves. Kant’s vision involves only persons or rational agents. If no ‘person’ or rationality is present then it can be argued that the agent is simply a thing. Something that cannot rationalize and is not conscious of its existence cannot be argued as having human worth. So it is wholly possible, through some applications of science, to create â€Å"headless† clones that are not fully developed in the forebrain and who therefore cannot rationalize or exist consciously. (Friedman, 3) If able to be kept alive after their conception in order to mature, these clones can be used for harvesting of their organs for various medical purposes. Kant would not object to these kinds of clones because his concept of rationality is respected in accordance to the categorical imperative. If only rational agents are to be used as an end, and if no rationality exists, then whatever is left can be used only as a means to further some goal with no ethical wrongdoing involved. Developing a â€Å"headless† clone involves a process that prevents rationality and consciousness from ever being formed. This can be paralleled to other procedures that involve the same block of formation of rationality, particularly any form of birth control. Not allowing the development of â€Å"headless† clones because it is immoral makes any sort of birth control thus immoral too, because they also involve the preventing of the development of consciousness and rational thought. (Friedman, 4) If this imperative were to be upheld to a moral maxim, then we would need to be consistent in our actions and ban birth control just as human cloning is banned now. However, if human clones are developed as persons (with a whole brain and  fully functioning in every aspect) then our perspectives need to be changed to take a more moral view. Is it possible to morally clone a human to become an end in themselves? Suppose the case of a childless family where the mother is unable to conceive for whatever reasons. Somatic cell cloning can provide the family with a way to obtain a child through surrogate birth. (Friedman, 2) Even though copying the genetic composition of one parent and making the child a copy of them is somewhat strange, it is understandable from the parents’ point of view. If they are unable to naturally conceive, they should still be given some sort of chance to have a child. Cloning gives the parents this chance to have a child and have a somewhat normal family as an outcome. In this case the clone is treated as an end. He will grow up to be healthy and hopefully be regarded the same as a naturally conceived child. When he grows up, the clone will not denounce his existence. If asked the question of whether he would have rather not been born, the child would most likely thank cloning for his conception. The similar can be said for a clone that is used as a means for something but eventually becoming an end in themselves. Suppose the case of a family where a serious disease plagues an existing child and that only a specific blood type or a certain type of bone marrow will save him. If no donors are available, the child’s only ticket to survival might be a clone. Using the same genetic composition, his twin can be cloned in order to save his life. If this cloned twin is afterwards discarded, because he no longer serves a purpose or if he dies during the transfusion, this would in turn be highly unethical and immoral. However, if the parents exercise the human right of the clone as a person to exist, they are acting in accordance with the categorical imperative as stated above. They are extending the moral maxim to a universal law, and are treating the clone as a person, justly. The clone then becomes not simply a means to save a child’s life but an end in themselves also . The clone’s rationality and consciousness is not jeopardized. And in the same way as above, the clone would be thankful for having saved someone with his existence and would not regret his life. The immediately foreseeable problems with cloning for the purpose of childbirth might be seen when parents want to dictate the genetic makeup of  their child. They might not only want to eradicate genes that make a person susceptible to certain diseases, but they also might want to eliminate other unfavorable genes. Genes that control a person’s susceptibility to violence or other emotional factors, or genes that control a person’s appearance, such as height, hair and eye color and physical condition. In this way, parents might be able to mold genetically superior children to their liking. This would is most probable to eliminate uniqueness and individuality. There would be no randomness or pureness of nature in humans. Everything would be similar because certain specific qualities would be more favorable and popular. Also gene superiority would label clones as of higher value and might cause discrimination based solely on one’s genetic makeup. Only through tot al anonymity would this be preventable, and this condition is impossible. This problem can be directly related to the categorical imperative so crucial to Kant and Kantian ethics. Because morality must extended to be universal, it is imperative that both the superior clones and regularly genetically endowed humans are treated with similar regard. This however would seem to not be the case; the clones would always be favored in any situation. Therefore, this treatment would be immoral, as it would be immoral to clone human persons for such purposes, which are based only on vanity of people and discrimination of less favored genes. Many ethical issues and moral aspects of human cloning must be observed to get a larger picture of its implications. Kantianism gives us a way of differentiating in which situations will cloning be ethical or, the opposite, immoral. However, Kantian ethics is pretty specific in its situations and it can’t give a much more general and broad understanding of the ethics of cloning. It doesn’t tell us what to do, it only tells us whether something is moral or not. Kantianism is not a guide of morals but it is a very good understanding of them. Bibliography Friedman, Dan. â€Å"Cloning† Macalester Journal of Philosophy Vol. 9, 1999 Gardner, Jennifer. â€Å"To Clone or Not to Clone† http://pages.prodigy.net/darvi/clone.htm (12 Feb, 2001) â€Å"Kant, Immanuel† Encyclopaedia Britannica: In Depth Knowledge 1999 ed. Macer, Darryl R.J., Ph.D. â€Å"Ethical Challenges as we approach the end of the Human Genome Project.† N.p: n.p. 2000 Ruse, Michael, and Sheppard, Aryne. Cloning: Responsible Science or Technomadness? Prometheus Books, December 2000

Battle of Chapultepec in the Mexican-American War

Battle of Chapultepec in the Mexican-American War The Battle of Chapultepec was fought September 12-13, 1847, during the Mexican-American War (1846-1848). With the start of the war in May 1846, American troops led by Major General Zachary Taylor scored quick victories at the Battles of Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma before crossing the Rio Grande to strike the fortress city of Monterrey. Assaulting Monterrey in September 1846, Taylor captured the city after a costly battle. After the Monterreys capitulation, he annoyed President James K. Polk when he gave the Mexicans an eight-week armistice and permitted Monterreys defeated garrison to go free.   With Taylor and his army holding Monterrey, debate commenced in Washington regarding American strategy moving forward. Following these conversations, it was decided that a campaign against the Mexican capital at Mexico City would be critical to winning the war. As a 500-mile march from Monterrey over difficult terrain was recognized as impractical, the decision was made to land an army on the coast near Veracruz and march inland. This choice made, Polk was next required to select a commander for the campaign. Scotts Army Though popular with his men, Taylor was an ardent Whig who had publicly criticized Polk on several occasions. Polk, a Democrat, would have preferred a member of his own party, but lacking a qualified candidate, he chose Major General Winfield Scott.   A Whig, Scott was seen as posing less of a political threat. To create Scotts army, the bulk of Taylors veteran units were directed to the coast. Left south of Monterrey with a small force, Taylor successfully defeated a much larger Mexican force at the Battle of Buena Vista in February 1847. Landing near Veracruz in March 1847, Scott captured the city and began marching inland. Routing the Mexicans at Cerro Gordo the following month, he drove towards Mexico City winning battles at Contreras and Churubusco in the process. Nearing the edge of the city, Scott attacked the Molino del Rey (Kings Mills) on September 8, 1847, believing there to be a cannon foundry there. After hours of heavy fighting, he captured the mills and destroyed the foundry equipment. The battle was one of the bloodiest of conflict with the Americans suffering 780 killed and wounded and the Mexicans 2,200. Next Steps Having taken Molino del Rey, American forces had effectively cleared many of the Mexican defenses on the western side of the city with the exception of Chapultepec Castle. Situated atop a 200-foot hill, the castle was a strong position and served as the Mexican Military Academy. It was garrisoned by fewer than 1,000 men, including the corps of cadets, led by General Nicols Bravo. While a formidable position, the castle could be approached via a long slope from Molino del Rey. Debating his course of action, Scott called a council of war to discuss the armys next steps. Meeting with his officers, Scott favored assaulting the castle and moving against the city from the west. This was initially resisted as the majority of those present, including Major Robert E. Lee, desired to attack from the south. In the course of the debate, Captain Pierre G.T. Beauregard offered an eloquent argument in favor of the western approach which swung many of the officers into Scotts camp. The decision made, Scott began planning for the assault on the castle. For the attack, he intended to strike from two directions with one column approaching from the west while the other struck from the southeast. Armies Commanders United States Major General Winfield Scott7,180 men Mexico General Antonio Lopez de Santa AnnaGeneral Nicholas Bravoaround 1,000 men near Chapultepec The Assault At dawn on September 12, American artillery began firing on the castle. Firing through the day, it halted at nightfall only to resume the next morning. At 8:00 AM, Scott ordered the firing to stop and directed the attack to move forward. Advancing east from Molino del Rey, Major General Gideon Pillows division pushed up the slope spearheaded by an advance party led by Captain Samuel Mackenzie. Advancing north from Tacubaya, Major General John Quitmans division moved against Chapultepec with Captain Silas Casey leading the advance party. Pushing up the slope, Pillows advance successfully reached the walls of the castle but soon stalled as Mackenzies men had to wait for the storming ladders to be brought forward. To the southeast, Quitmans division encountered a dug-in Mexican brigade at the intersection with the road leading east into the city. Ordering Major General Persifor Smith to swing his brigade east around the Mexican line, he directed Brigadier General James Shields to take his brigade northwest against Chapultepec. Reaching the base of the walls, Caseys men also had to wait for ladders to arrive. Ladders soon arrived on both fronts in large numbers allowing the Americans to storm over the walls and into the castle. The first over the top was Lieutenant George Pickett. Though his men mounted a spirited defense, Bravo was soon overwhelmed as the enemy attacked on both fronts. Pressing the assault, Shields was severely wounded, but his men succeeded in pulling down the Mexican flag and replacing it with the American flag. Seeing little choice, Bravo ordered his men to retreat back to the city but was captured before he could join them (Map). Exploiting the Success Arriving on the scene, Scott moved to exploit the capture of Chapultepec. Ordering Major General William Worths division forward, Scott directed it and elements of Pillows division to move north along the La Verà ³nica Causeway then east to assault the San Cosmà © Gate. As these men moved out, Quitman re-formed his command and was tasked with moving east down the Belà ©n Causeway to conduct a secondary attack against the Belà ©n Gate. Pursuing the retreating Chapultepec garrison, Quitmans men soon encountered Mexican defenders under General Andrà ©s Terrà ©s. Using a stone aqueduct for cover, Quitmans men slowly drove the Mexicans back to the Belà ©n Gate. Under heavy pressure, the Mexicans began to flee and Quitmans men breached the gate around 1:20 PM. Guided by Lee, Worths men did not reach the intersection of the La Verà ³nica and San Cosmà © Causeways until 4:00 PM. Beating back a counterattack by Mexican cavalry, they pushed towards the San Cosmà © Gate but took heavy losses from the Mexican defenders. Fighting up the causeway, American troops knocked holes in the walls between buildings to advance while avoiding Mexican fire. To cover the advance, Lieutenant Ulysses S. Grant hoisted a howitzer to the bell tower of the San Cosmà © church and began firing on the Mexicans. This approach was repeated to the north by US Navy Lieutenant Raphael Semmes. The tide turned when Captain George Terrett and a group of US Marines were able to attack the Mexican defenders from the rear. Pushing forward, Worth secured the gate around 6:00 PM. Aftermath In the course of the fighting at the Battle of Chapultepec, Scott suffered around 860 casualties while Mexican losses are estimated at around 1,800 with an additional 823 captured. With the citys defenses breached, Mexican commander General Antonio Là ³pez de Santa Anna elected to abandon the capital that night. The following morning, American forces entered the city. Though Santa Anna conducted a failed siege of Puebla shortly thereafter, large-scale fighting effectively ended with Mexico Citys fall. Entering into negotiations, the conflict was ended by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in early 1848. The active participation in the fighting by the US Marine Corps led to the opening line of the Marines Hymn, From the Halls of Montezuma...

Indo-European Family of Languages

Indo-European Family of Languages Definition Indo-European is a  family of languages (including most of the languages spoken in Europe, India, and Iran) descended from a common tongue spoken in the third millennium B.C. by an agricultural people originating in southeastern Europe. Branches of Indo-European (IE) include Indo-Iranian (Sanskrit and the Iranian languages), Greek, Italic (Latin and related languages), Celtic, Germanic (which includes English), Armenian, Balto-Slavic, Albanian, Anatolian, and Tocharian. The theory that languages as diverse as Sanskrit, Greek, Celtic, Gothic, and Persian had a common ancestor was proposed by Sir William Jones in an address to the Asiatick Society on Feb. 2, 1786. (See below.) The reconstructed common ancestor of the Indo-European languages is known as the Proto-Indo-European language (PIE). Examples and Observations The ancestor of all the IE languages is called Proto-Indo-European, or PIE for short. . . . Since no documents in reconstructed PIE are preserved or can reasonably hope to be found, the structure of this hypothesized language will always be somewhat controversial. (Benjamin W. Fortson, IV, Indo-European Language and Culture. Wiley, 2009) Englishalong with a whole host of languages spoken in Europe, India, and the Middle Eastcan be traced back to an ancient language that scholars call Proto Indo-European. Now, for all intents and purposes, Proto Indo-European is an imaginary language. Sort of. Its not like Klingon or anything. It is reasonable to believe it once existed. But nobody every wrote it down so we dont know exactly what it really was. Instead, what we know is that there are hundreds of languages that share similarities in syntax and vocabulary, suggesting that they all evolved from a common ancestor. (Maggie Koerth-Baker, Listen to a Story Told in a 6000-Year-Old Extinct Language. Boing Boing, September 30, 2013) Address to the Asiatick Society by Sir William Jones (1786) The Sanscrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure, more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists. There is a similar reason, though not quite so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothick and the Celtick, though blended with a very different idiom, had the same origin with the Sanscrit, and the old Persian might be added to this family, if this were the place for discussing any question concerning the antiquities of Persia. (Sir William Jones, The Third Anniversary Discourse, on the Hindus, Feb. 2, 1786) A Shared Vocabulary The languages of Europe and those of Northern India, Iran, and part of Western Asia belong to a group known as the Indo-European Languages. They probably originated from a common language-speaking group about 4000 BC and then split up as various subgroups migrated. English shares many words with these Indo-European languages, though some of the similarities may be masked by sound changes. The word moon, for example, appears in recognizable forms in languages as different as German (Mond), Latin (mensis, meaning month), Lithuanian (menuo), and Greek (meis, meaning month). The word yoke is recognizable in German (Joch), Latin (iugum), Russian (igo), and Sanskrit (yugam). (Seth Lerer, Inventing English: A Portable History of the Language. Columbia Univ. Press, 2007) Also See Grimms LawHistorical Linguistics