Essay --

Cyber Warriors: The future of warfare can be found at a military complex outside of Washington D.C., in a 358$ million office building that houses some of the worlds most powerful computers. This is the headquarters of Cyber Command, a new arm of the pentagon that wages combat not with missiles or bombs but with electronic signals that plant viruses, steal data and seize control of faraway hardrives. Run by a four-star general and soon to have a staff of thousands, Cyber Command is the nerve center that controls America’s battles against the hackers, terrorists and hostile governments who are already prying into sensitive U.S. systems. It will also be the launching pad for controversial new plans that use computers as offensive weapons against America’s Global Enemies. The U.S. has been furiously working to develop a wide range of new cyber strategies. And it is why Cyber Command, which opened its doors only in 2010, is booming at a time when almost every part of the military is suffering through deep budget cuts. President Obama’s last funding request sought a nearly 20% incr...

The Supernatural in Shakespeares Macbeth :: GCSE English Literature Coursework

The Supernatural in Macbeth Displays of supernatural activities were used throughout Macbeth, and evidence of this was brought out in the appearances of the three Witches. In Shakespeare's day, special effects were not used in his plays. Therefore, the dramatic performances and the suspenseful scenes were the fundamental qualities to making a great play. Shakespeare used the element of the unknown to evoke fear in the minds of his audience. By allowing the Witches to see into the future, it made Macbeth more suspenseful. With their prophecies about Macbeth?s future, they intrigue the audience to see if they are correct. The Witches were a symbol of evil, and Shakespeare uses this fear of the devil to give his plays an additional eerie and haunting effect. Shakespeare also used an evil character that can easily influence the main character in his stories, in this case, it was Lady Macbeth. It is essential that   Lady Macbeth and the three Witches create the plot of Macbeth. Without the Witches powers of forete lling the future and the evil persuasions of his wife, Lady Macbeth, Macbeth would have never become king.   Ã‚  Ã‚   The expression "weird sisters", used from the 1400's, means "Fatal sisters". The word "weird" or in Old English Wyrd was a noun meaning Fate. In Act 1, Scene 3, The three Witches describe themselves as fore-tellers of   destiny, and they all introduce themselves to Macbeth and Banquo as "The weird sisters, hand in hand". The appearance that the three Witches possess is that of pure evil. In the starting of the scene, each of the three Witches describe their wickedness with a proud manner. For example, when they asked the Second Witch where she had been, she replied, "Killing swine". This statement shows how the Witches enjoyed being devilish. The impression that the audience gets of Witches is that they are hideously evil. In Shakespeare's time, witches were believed to have supernatural powers, they could transform themselves into other shapes, usually animals. When the First Witch describes where she had been, she referred to sailing across the sea in a sieve and tra nsforming into a rat without a tail, But in a sieve I'll thither sail, and like a rat without a tail, I'll do, I'll do, and I'll do?. Witches were also believed to   fortunetellers. The three Witches prophecies in Macbeth, foreshadow later events in the play.

Two Sides of Billy Pilgrim in Kurt Vonneguts Slaughterhouse Five :: Slaughterhouse-Five Essays

Two Sides of Billy Pilgrim in Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five War can destroy. War can teach. In Kurt Vonnegut's book Slaughterhouse Five, the central character, Billy Pilgrim, is the outcome of a test. In creating and developing Billy Pilgrim, Vonnegut's intention is to show the effect of modern war on a sensitive person who tries to play the game the way society expects. This, along with family influence, shapes how Billy acts in his two different lives: life in the military and life alone. Torn inside and out, Billy Pilgrim was forced to make a choice. He had to choose the way he would live his life. Learning from his father, Billy could respond by taking his father's drive toward dominance over people and environment. Billy could also follow his mother, confusing him with her excessive demands for gratitude. Forced to decide, Billy chooses neither, which to him, is the easiest way to survive. He yields to his father's attitude without adopting it as a model, while withdrawing from his mother without complaint, without hurting her. He believes that sharing the guilt of aggression is more complicated than simply turning the other cheek, which shines through in moments under pressure. Denial is also crucial to Billy Pilgrim's character. The Dresden bombing intensifies the damage to his personality. He can survive only by denying his experiences at Dresden and he divides himself into two halves: a social half that says, "Yes," and a private half that says, "No." His conflicts force his "surrender to the world," first with a mental breakdown, then with an escape into fantasy. Publicly, he agrees with the Marine major who wants more bombing, more Green Berets, while internally, he sees a war-film backwards, in which he wishes to undo the ravaging effects of war. Looking for an outlet, Billy discovers science fiction, which gives him perspective and consolation. This perspective forces him to teach others, to improve not people's physical sight but their spiritual vision, which eventually leads to his commitment.

The Election of 1860

By the election of 1860 profound divisions existed among Americans over the future course of their country, and especially over the South's â€Å"peculiar institution,† slavery.During the presidency of James K. Polk (1841-1849), the United States had confirmed the annexation of Texas to the Union, negotiated a treaty with Great Britain for the Oregon territory up to the 49th parallel, and, as a result of the Mexican War, added California and New Mexico as well. The American eagle now spanned the entire continent, a source of nationalistic pride to those who thought expansion was the fulfillment of both God's will and America's mission to spread its republican institutions.But national exuberance turned sour when Americans confronted the issue of whether slavery should follow the flag into the new territories. During the 1850s, different views about slavery's expansion and its place in America's future fueled suspicion and bitterness between northerners and southerners. In Kans as, the question of whether the territory would be opened or closed to slavery erupted in violence and political unrest.â€Å"Bleeding Kansas,† the treatment of fugitive slaves, and other issues involving slavery strained and then shattered the nation's two-party system which had served for a generation to weld sections and interests into two powerful national institutions. Of the two major parties, the Whig organization totally succumbed in the mid-1850s to the sectionalizing effects of the slavery issue and ceased to operate as a national party.Like the country, the Whig party could not exist half slave and half free. Meanwhile, the Democratic party managed to remain intact throughout that decade, but slavery acted like a solvent to weaken its bonds. Increasingly, its powerful, predominantly southern wing was at odds with a smaller, northern contingent.The campaign of 1860 accurately registered the country's precarious condition after a decade of sectional turmoil. The lead ing political organization in the North was the Republican party. It was composed of former Whigs, a smaller number of ex-Democrats, as well as members of other parties, including some who had previously supported antislavery parties, such as the Liberty party, which had sought to end slavery by political means.Like any party, the Republican party contained a broad spectrum of opinions on many issues, including slavery. But most Republicans were, like Lincoln, moderates who were positioned between the more radical and conservative elements of their party.The key to the Republican party's success was its position on slavery. It opposed the expansion of slavery and called upon Congress to take measures, whenever necessary, to prevent its extension. It condemned slavery as an immoral institution, a relic of â€Å"barbarism,† and most Republicans thought that by confining slavery within its present boundaries, the institution would be placed on the road to eventual extinction.The party was, therefore, a genuine anti-slavery party, but most Republicans rejected a more radical stand that would associate them with abolitionism.The party, for example, upheld the constitutional sanctity of slavery within the South, and a significant minority (including Lincoln) were willing to support a constitutional amendment forever guaranteeing against congressional interference with slavery in the states.Republicans also acknowledged the legitimacy of the fugitive slave clause of the Constitution and accepted its enforcement by proper laws. Republicans, therefore, separated themselves from abolitionists who agitated for a quicker, immediate, end to slavery, and the adoption of measures, such as the emancipation of slaves in the nation's capital, which would render slavery insecure in its present boundaries.At the same time, moderate Republicans also distinguished themselves from the more egalitarian racial program of abolitionism. Most Republicans accepted the principles of the Declaration of Independence as assuring black people certain rights now and, perhaps also, as ultimate goals to be fully realized sometime in the future.But they disavowed measures that would immediately bring about true equality between the races. Lincoln, who may have been somewhat more conservative than the core of his party, declared himself against equal rights in voting and officeholding, and he advocated the colonization of blacks to lands outside the United States, an idea that was anathema to abolitionists. Southerners, however, hardly distinguished between the different antislavery and racial views of the Republicans and abolitionists.The Republican party's opposition to the expansion of slavery, therefore, encompassed a distinctive moral protest against slavery itself, but also contained, at least for many Republicans, a racial concern that the territories be reserved primarily for free white people. In addition, the Republican mainstream associated a free labor soci ety with economic opportunity, hard work, upward mobility, liberty, morality, and other essential elements of a true republic.Slavery, on the other hand, was associated with economic backwardness, aristocracy, violence, illiteracy, intemperance, and immorality. Worse yet, Republicans viewed slavery as an aggressive institution, whose leaders, in alliance with sympathetic northerners, were conspiring to spread this cancer throughout the nation.This idea of a â€Å"Slave Power Conspiracy,† which Lincoln boldly proclaimed in his â€Å"House Divided† speech to the Illinois Republican convention in June 1858, identified the party with democratic ideals and provided a shorthand expression of northern resentment against the South's political clout. Although a minority section, the South had disproportionate influence in national politics, and frequently scuttled measures desired by many northerners, such as higher tariffs to protect manufacturing, or homestead legislation to provide free land for western settlers.VIDEO: A House Divided (1.9 MB)In May 1860, the Republicans gathered in Chicago for only their second national convention and nominated Lincoln as their candidate. The platform held that the â€Å"normal condition† of all territory was â€Å"freedom.† The platform also endorsed measures to encourage industry, a homestead act, and a transcontinental railroad.VIDEO: Lincoln's Nomination (2.1 MB)As for the Democratic party, the corrosive effect of slavery finally made itself felt on this national institution. For years, Democrats had united behind the doctrine of popular sovereignty. Popularized by such prominent party leaders as Lewis Cass, its nominee in 1848, and Stephen A. Douglas, Illinois's eminent and ambitious United States senator, popular sovereignty left the question– whether slavery should be permitted to expand into a territory– up to the people in the territory.Popular sovereignty promised to keep the subj ect of slavery out of the hands of politicians in Washington, and to give it, instead, to the people, the territorial citizens, most directly involved. The doctrine sounded democratic, fair, and practical.But popular sovereignty proved a hollow idea. Most northern Democrats assumed that, under this doctrine, slavery would never actually expand into territories. Climate, terrain, the swift movement of free state settlers into the West, and other considerations would discourage slaveholders from entering the territories.Thus, the initial settlers in a territory would favor free labor and would take measures to keep slavery out. Fairly applied, popular sovereignty would hold the territories (or virtually all of them) for the North without insulting the South by explicitly excluding slavery under federal authority.Republicans, however, denounced popular sovereignty as inadequate to prevent the spread of slavery, and morally bankrupt because it implied that a decision for slavery was mor ally equivalent to one against. Equally problematic was the view of most southern Democrats, who interpreted popular sovereignty to permit and even protect slavery in the territories throughout the entire territorial stage.Southerners insisted that slaveholders had the same constitutional right as nonslaveholders to bring their property, including slaves, into the territories. Moreover, since the territories were the common property of all the states, slaveholders must have equal access. For the South, the question of whether slavery would actually go into a territory was of less moment than establishing the principle that slavery must have equal standing to free labor.Honor and security demanded that slavery be treated as no less sacrosanct than freedom. Southerners, therefore, interpreted popular sovereignty to mean that only at the very end of the territorial stage, after slavery had been permitted to take root, could the citizens of the territory declare against the institution. There could be free states in the United States, but no free territories.These different definitions of popular sovereignty, which actually expressed variant attitudes towards slavery itself, came to a head when the Democratic party assembled in Charleston, South Carolina, in April 1860. Southern Democrats insisted that the party endorse the idea of a federal slave code for the territories.This would secure the rights of slaveholders to enter the territories throughout the territorial period. When the majority of delegates refused to accept the southern position, delegates from the deep South states, plus a few from the upper South, marched out of the convention. The remaining delegates, after failing to nominate a candidate, adjourned to meet again in Baltimore in June. The only political party with a truly national constituency was now split asunder.The following June 1860, efforts to reunite the Democratic party failed, and Democrats met in two separate conventions in Baltimore. The predominantly northern wing nominated Douglas, and adopted a platform upholding popular sovereignty without mentioning a federal slave code, and leaving it to the Supreme Court to determine the specific powers of a territorial legislature. Herschel V. Johnson of Georgia was selected as Douglas's running mate.The southern Democratic wing nominated the present vice president of the United States, John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky, as its presidential candidate, and Joseph Lane of Oregon as his running mate. The southern Democratic platform affirmed the right of the federal government to protect the slaveholder's equal right to settle in a territory.Further complicating the election was the formation of a fourth political party, the Constitutional Union party. Composed of conservative members of the moribund Whig and Know Nothing parties, the Constitutional Union party denounced the major parties for inciting sectional divisions, and appealed for a popular, patriotic rallying to th e cause of the Union.Its convention, which met in May 1860, also in Baltimore, nominated John Bell, a Tennessee Whig, for President, and Edward Everett of Massachusetts for vice president. The party's conservative appeal attracted a following, especially in the border states; throughout the South, it constituted the main opposition to the Breckinridge ticket.The campaign of 1860 demonstrated that a national political system was no longer operating. The contest was actually two elections, one in the North and one in the South. In the North, the Lincoln and Douglas forces vied for victory; in the South the contest was between Breckinridge and Bell. The sections were insulated from each other.Lincoln did not even appear on the ballot in most southern states, and only in a few northern states did Breckinridge muster any discernible support. In the end, Lincoln won the election by carrying seventeen free states, while Breckinridge triumphed in eleven slave states. Neither candidate captu red a single state in the opposite section. Bell and Douglas trailed far behind.The highly sectionalized nature of the campaign meant that northerners and southerners waged battle against a shadow opponent. Lincoln refused to issue public assurances to the South that he would uphold slavery in its present confines. Nor did southerners have to pay heed to the Republican party's official denunciation of John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry, Virginia.This attack on a federal arsenal in the fall of 1859, by the Ohio abolitionist did not provoke the intended insurrection of slaves, and ended in Brown's capture and hanging.The raid sent shock waves through the South. Despite Republican disclaimers, southerners readily linked the party to abolitionism and the violent overthrow of slavery. Similarly, northerners, swept up in the renewed Lincoln-Douglas contest, paid insufficient heed to the intensity of anti-Union feelings in the South.Although neither Breckinridge nor Bell threatened secess ion, they often challenged each other in the South as to who was the more loyal to southern rights and interests. The air was filled with frequent warnings that Lincoln's election would justify secession.

Examining the Skills of Marin Luther King Jr. and Oprah Winfrey

Martin Luther King Jr. and Oprah Winfrey used power to help others. King helped others by leading people in a time when minorities were fighting for equal rights. Winfrey helps people through recognition and donations in areas of education, healthcare and advocacy for women and children. They have been most successful with referent power in their accomplishments. King’s attitude and personality attracted people to follow him; he created a vision that inspired people. Oprah has created strong interpersonal ties between herself and her audience.She uses her recovery as an abuse survivor to inspire people and she focuses on issues in ordinary people’s lives. Oprah however has been more successful with reward power. She has the funds to reward her employees and guests with material things. Both leaders have influenced many people. Oprah and King used rational persuasion and inspirational appeal; everything they stand for is logical by principal and their values are moral. O prah uses consultation inspiration, ingratiating tactics and personal appeal. She influences others to help by showing her own emotions on certain subjects.Because Oprah can effectively relate to others; people have a tendency to relate to her emotions and follow her. While King has used these tactics he is more known for his coalition, pressure and legitimating tactics. King used his role as minister in legitimating and followers supported his beliefs on civil rights because they believed in the same ideas. Most people during this time were either for or against civil rights. For people against these rights King used pressure tactics through marches and protests. These acts were nonviolent and peaceful but still a demand for equal rights.There are many similarities when comparing King and Oprah’s traits. Both have strong moral values which supports honesty, they inspire people by promoting great expectations for the future, and they both use their competence and intelligence in the things they are advocates for. King was intelligent when it came to human rights because he was a minister, followers found him competent. Oprah’s intelligence in TV shows and public involvement have made her competent in her business. King’s social awareness is what fueled his purpose for everything he did during the civil rights movement.Oprah has proficient self-management skills, her goals are based on her personal beliefs and she uses great relationship management to gain support and accomplish her goals. Oprah and King both behaved as a team leader. According to Dr. Robert Blake and Dr. Jane Mouton, these leaders will contribute and are committed, can motivate and are motivated while holding the belief that trust, respect, commitment and employee empowerment are essential for fostering a team environment where team members are motivated, thus resulting in maximum satisfaction as well as the most efficient productivity (http://www. eadership-central. com, 2013). I cannot come up with a better way to describe both King and Oprah. The Ohio State model identifies two dimensions of leadership behavior, initiating structure and consideration. Oprah supports initiating structure by showing examples of what should be done. Her examples are extreme because she has the funds to support them, but the impacts of her contributions are inspiring to others. King uses consideration effectively. He showed concern for the well being of minorities and guided them to take action.Because King was also a minority his followers understood in his concern. If I had the choice to work for King or Oprah I would choose Oprah. The basis of my decision is her involvement in numerous worthy causes that are relevant to today. If I was alive and faced this decision while King was alive I would choose King because civil rights were a pressing concern during that time. I believe both have been great leaders and are inspiring to many people. ? References Kinicki, A. , & Williams, B. K. (2011).Management: A practical introduction (5th ed. , pp. 438-449). New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin. Leadership-central. (2013). Managerial Grid Model, also known as Leadership Grid. Retrieved March 21, 2013, from http://www. leadership-central. com Free Republic. (2008). Oprah Ranked Most Generous Celebrity. Retrieved March 20, 2013, from http://www. freerepublic. com Center for Consciousness Research and Transformation. (2007). Martin Luther King – Time, Power and Agency. Retrieved March 20, 2013, from http://www. theccrt. com

Shadow of a Vampire, Post Modernism

Vampire Essay The text Dracula was written in a time long before post-modernism, when Victorian values were considered important and issues relating gender were established. Nosferatu was also written in the time of modernism, where there was a sense in that western culture had lost its values. Shadow of a Vampire is a recent, post-modern text that focuses on the filming methods and techniques used to film Nosferatu. Using post-modern techniques that are comparable to satire in some scenes, Shadow of a Vampire combines the two gothic texts into a new text, using a film within a film technique.As previously noted, Dracula, Nosferatu and Shadow of a Vampire all incorporate a gothic sense as in they involve; a castle, shadows, a beam of moonlight in the blackness and the only source of light failing (a candle blown out or an electric failure). All these are used in the three texts to use imagery on black and white as good and evil, for example Christian values are good and promiscuous w oman are bad in Dracula. Shadow of a Vampire contradicts this by making the text set in Berlin during a time of massive drug use (particular morphine which gives you an effect quite like Draculas bite) and promiscuous activity was large.Shadow of a Vampire uses pastiche to imitate the filming of the original Nosferatu text, but normally adds its own twist to the stereotypical vampire story. Such as the scene in the night, after the building of the makeshift ship on the set count Orlak sneaks up on the two film producers, making the audience think that he is about to attack and kill them. He ends up drinking and getting drunk with them, and even eating a vampire bat in front them. A symbolic factor in all vampire stories is the bat but Orlak shows he has no care for the traditional modernist view in this scene.When Orlak is asked about how he feels about the book this triggers a text within a text within a text, being a movie based on Nosferatu making a mention on Dracula. The consta nt attempt by the film industry to portray real life events and make them timeless is completed through Murnau’s quote during the time he is filming a real life vampire killing people, only for a good shot. â€Å"Time will no longer be a dark spot on our lungs. They will no longer say ‘you had to have been there', because the fact is, Albin, we were. An example of this is the scene where Count Orlak asked for make-up before his scene, this is ironic because Orlak wants make-up to increase the illusion that he is a vampire to the audience when he actually is a vampire. The parallel between the film world and the vampire world is portrayed through various quotes which foreshadow and depict how the film industry is similar to a vampire. Greta says, when describing the film industry to the theatre acting life â€Å"the audience gives me life! This thing *pointing at camera* takes it away from me. This foreshadows how in the end scene she is killed by count Orlak as a sacr ifice for a perfect scene, in the film industry. The camera taking the life away from her parallels a vampire sucking the blood from her. The parallel between the film world and the vampire world is practiced when the timelessness of film gives immortality in Shadow of a Vampire and Dracula representing immortality in the book Dracula. The timelessness of film is shown in the scene in which Murnau promises count Orlak â€Å"everlasting life† in exchange for playing the part in the movie.Everlasting life is through filming, it is always shown in Christianity as a reward but this time it is promised through the medium of filming. This scene relates back to the strong religious views found in the time setting in Dracula and is a great example of the transformation techniques used in Shadow of a Vampire. The end scene of the Shadow of a Vampire where Murnau puts morphine into Greta’s system to put her into a dreamy state mirrors the bite of Dracula in the original book.Thi s is another example that the dominant character is in-fact the director and not the vampire. This is another example of the parallel between the characters and situations in the vampire and film world. All these factors have contributed to the transformation nature of Shadow of a Vampire in combining the three texts. The conjunction of themes of the gothic and the use of pastiche to imitate, the parallel between the film and vampire world while still maintaining a post-modern view are easily displayed in the film Shadow of a Vampire.Arguments * Parallel between Film and Vampire world * Pastiche to imitate a film, filming a story based on a book. The constant attempt to portray real life events * Gothic mode used in all three texts, in Dracula to represent Christian values and science as good and evil and in Shadow of a Vampire this is contradicted in the setting of the text where excessive drug use and sex is acted on frequently

History of the Miraculous Apparition of the Virgin of Guadalupe

istory of the Miraculous Apparition of the Virgin of Guadalupe In the year 1531, early in the month of December a miracle happened in Tepeyacac, it was said that the miracle illustrious Virgin, Blessed Mary, Mother of God, Our Lady, appeared to a man named Juan Diego. He was a humble Indian who lived in Quahutitlan but was from Tlatilolco. The way the author narrates the beginning of the story is really good. He uses a really sincere tone that makes the story look real and really respectful attitude. The author has a sincere way of telling the story.He knows how to engage every scene with another one and the setting he describes makes this story so real that the readers get involved really easily on this story. Many readers become part of the story through their imagination and this is a wonderful gift someone can have because being able to feel the story like part of your real life is not easy. He keeps on telling the story and this part is gorgeous. He describes the land and it see ms that it looks like wonderland. It is so marvelous and this place is where Juan is going through.It was a Saturday morning when he was on his way to divine worship based on his custom, when he starts hearing birds singing. The way these birds sing was so beautiful that he thought he was dreaming. He was so amaze about what was happening to him. He makes an exact description of all the setting of this story; imagine every single thing that he was saying. It was stunning. He mentions that she was shining as the sun and that all around her was so bright, all of these are the things that really matters in a story, all the emphasis he puts on it makes it really reliable.I really enjoy this part because I feel like if I was in the story, like if I was looking at the flowers and the sun. All the sounds of the birds and the wind were really fantastic and help to imagine how was the land where he was because he even explains that the sounds were coming from the top of the hill, he was grea tly rejoiced with all these beautiful sounds that make a wonderful song, suddenly he heard a sweet voice saying: â€Å"Juan†, he was so scared and confuse because he was hearing a lot of different noises and even this voice mentions his name so he did not dare to climb to the mountain.He was just standing looking to the top where he was hearing all these things. He finally decided to climb the hill. He wanted to know who was calling him and why or for what. When he reached the hill he saw on the very top of the hill a beautiful lady. All around her was shining like the sun, there were stones, caves everything was so bright and even the rainbow clothed the land so that the cactus and all other plants that grew there seem like precious gold, Juan Diego was really excited about it, but at the same time he was wondering why that lady did was calling him.As it is mentioned before the author does a really good narrative of this story by describing all the scenes with a wonderful se tting. When he finally got to the top of the hill and talked to this wonderful lady. He was surprised about her and the things that she was telling to him because she talked to him like she loved him. This is one of the parts that should recall because in here the author has a tone he is using is like nostalgia but at the same time he tries to describe how the virgin was talking to Juan like when a mother talks to her son or daughter.This entire scene was nice, as the author mention Juan felt that this lady loved him, and sure she did because she even says â€Å"You must know, and be very certain in your heart, my son, that I am truly the eternal Virgin, holy Mother of the True God†. With this quote we can see how the author tries to sensitize the reader to get the idea that she really loves him and that she is a good person. The author wants us to know how the virgin was a really nice lady. Then they finally started talking and the virgin told Juan what she wanted from him, what she expected him to do, and what she wanted was a church on that hill, exactly where she was.She wanted a church in where she could show and may make known and give all her love, her mercy, help and protection. She said she was his and everybody else truth his merciful mother who call upon her. In this scene she is explaining Juan why she wanted a church. He tells him to go to the Episcopal Palace of the Bishop of Mexico and tell them what he just saw and what she just told him. She really desired a church in that place so she command Juan Diego to go and tell them to build her one.He need it to have a lot of confidence on himself in order to convince everybody in the palace of what he was saying, or at least to convince the Bishop. I think that the narrator is really involved in the story but not as a character. The author uses a really good setting because he even portrays real life events and that is what it makes the readers to be involved and interested on the reading. His religion is catholic because of the way he talks about what the virgin want it and what is she going to do with the church.She wants to be built there; he is very reliable and even thought he is just the narrator he is doing a good job on transmitting all what the virgin says along the story. The Virgin of Guadalupe is a very famous character on the catholic religion and this is a really important fact that helps the author because he is not using non-fictional characters instead he is talking about a really known image. She is known as a nice lady, as a sweet lady who helps everyone and who does miraculous and that you can pray her for something and she will conceive almost whatever you want.This is what it makes the story reliable and interesting. Juan Diego went to the palace to talk to the Bishop. He was kind of afraid because he was just a humble Indian and he knew that the Bishop would probably not believe him about what he was going to say, but even though he went there and after so much trouble he went through in order to talk to the Bishop at the end he did and tell him all that he had saw and heard. The Bishop was listening at him carefully and respectfully but at the end the Bishop just tell him to come back other day in where they can talk about it.Juan Diego left sadly and went to see the virgin and explain her everything that had happen on the palace. When the author talks about the way the people in the palace treated Juan he seems to be ironic, because he is saying that Juan was on his way to the palace so that the Bishop could listen to him and do what the virgin wanted to, but we all knew that this would not be able to happen at once, even the author knew that nobody will believe Juan about what he was about tell them. He does not lose his empathy and he tries to keep the story on an interesting point so the readers do not lose track of the story.Juan Diego very sad went back to see the virgin and this time the virgin tell him that he needed to go back to the palace and tell them again what she wanted to. She told him to try to convince him, to try to use the same words that she was telling him so they can believe him. He hope the Bishop to believe him and he said to the virgin not to worry about it that he would find the way to convince him no matter what and he promise her he will come back with good news. In this paragraph the author has a nostalgic tone.He want the readers to be sensitive to what Juan was going through and all the things that he need it to do so they could believe him, but this is also a moral because this is showing us not to give up on whatever we want to do or to obtain if we keep on trying and no matter how many times you try. If you never lose the hope you will obtain what you want, sooner or later but you will have it. Nothing is worthless, if you do it with faith and if you really try hard. This is when god tests you, to see how much you will try to obtain something and if you are really wor king hard on what you want.The author makes a really good writing when the Virgin tells Juan to go back and tell the Bishop what she want it, he tries to makes us feel as part of the story, because what the Virgin said to him was so nice but at the same time nostalgic. Even Juan says that he thinks he is not the appropriate person to do this. He says that still he will try convinced the Bishop no matter what. This part is kind of repetitive, but I guess is the way the story happened and also to make emphasis on the fact that it was not easy for the Juan to accomplish what the virgin wanted him to do.We probably all wonder why the virgin select him to do that, but well we will find out later on the reading. The next day he went there again and the same thing happened, he took forever to get to talk to the Bishop and when he finally did, he told him the same thing. This time one thing change, now he was interested on: when did he saw the Virgin, where and how does she looks like. All of these questions Juan Diego were able to answer him, so he did and with no trouble told him everything that he was seen and heard. The Bishop could not believe what was happening and did not know if he should believe or not.As it was mentioned before all these part of the reading was becoming kind of repetitive. The Bishop was really amazed of what he had heard. He command three of his servants to follow Juan on his way back. He said he was going to talk to the Virgin again, so he need it to be sure that he was not lying. The setting of this part of the story is really good because the author describes how Juan went back home and how those servants were following him but suddenly they lost him. They went back to the palace and said to the Bishop that he was a liar that they did not saw anything wrong.That was not the truth they just wanted to cover themselves because they lost him. As the story keeps on going, the author tries to keeps us engage on the reading. He does an amazing description of each scene that is just becoming more interesting and interesting each time. Sometimes you are reading a story but something happens that you lose the path of the story, and this can become boring and tedious. After that he went back home and found an uncle who was staying there very sick he was burning in fever. He did not know what to do, he call a doctor and the Dr. ame to look at him. He gave him medicine, but he was so sick that noting help him. Bernardino who was his uncle name told Juan to go to Tlatilolco and bring a priest. He wanted to confess; he said that He WAS About to pass away. Juan was so sad and went to look for the priest, on his way to Tlatilolco he did not know which way to go. If he goes straight he would saw the Virgin and she wanted him to go and see the Bishop. Since he was on a hurry to get the priest, he went through a different path, but what he did not know was that the Virgin could see him wherever he went.When he was walking the virgin a sk him: Where are you going this is not the path you follow always, he was so embarrassed that he tell her what was going on about his uncle and everything. The Virgin told him not to worry about it that he was cure already and that now he need it to go and talk to the Bishop. This scene was a moral because it shows us that whatever you do you, god will always know it and in this case the virgin knew everything what Juan Diego did. This teaches us that no matter where we are god will always take care of us. Always try to follow the right path of your life.Sometimes you think that doing other stuff will make you popular or whatever but this is not truth, all bad things will always come up. Finally he went again to see the Bishop. This time he had an evidence of what he was saying and that was what the Bishop wanted. There were these beautiful flowers on his mantle and as soon he shows it to the Bishop they fall on the floor and a suddenly appeared the most pure image of the Virgin. I t was so real that everybody in there knelt down and gazed with wonder. This setting seems real and he always portrays a lot of real life events.