What Would Happen if More Hawks Entered a Community

In a community with five trophic levels: plants, crickets, mice, snakes, and hawks, what would happen if more hawks entered the community through immigration? What is my reasoning for the outcome? 

Because hawks are predators, that will mean that the population of prey will decrease. Also because snakes are predators too, now there will be an increase in competition between predators. Because of the competition between predators the population of snakes may decrease. With less prey, meaning less food for the hawks, the hawks may emigrate or leave that area to a location with more prey. 

The population of crickets on the other hand in my opinion will stay pretty much the same. Of course they will still be preyed upon but I believe that will not affect the population that much. The plant population will most likely remain the same also.

Tropical Rain Forest vs. Tropical Dry Forest

A biome is a collection of plant and animal species that have common characteristics from the environment that they live in. There are many biomes in this world; two of these biomes are: tropical rain forest and a tropical dry forest.

A tropical rain forest is somewhat similar to a dry tropical forest since they are both tropical but they are definitely different. A tropical rain forest is very wet and humid; on average a tropical rain forest has 200-400 centimeters of rain yearly. The tropical dry forest on the other hand is dryer, with 150-200 centimeters of rain yearly, which is still a fair bit of rain.

The tropical rain forest and tropical dry forest are two unique biomes that have different yet similar characteristics.

What Can We Say About the Condition of the Catholic Church on the Eve of the Protestant Reformation?

The Protestant Reformation was one of the most important moments in western history, and probably by far the most changing moments in the history of Christianity. But what can we say about the condition of the Catholic Church right before or on the eve of the Protestant Reformation.

There is not a whole lot to say about the condition or the Catholic Church on the eve of the protestant reformation; things were definitely not looking great. The church was morally in a bad state, with scandalous popes who definitely did not behave as a pope should. Also there was a decline in the attendance of the Mass and in general religious practice. Also superstitious practices were becoming more common for example, astrology. The clergy was a mess, and only wanted money. 

Also some bishops who were elected would leave the area they were assigned and not fulfill their duties as a bishop. This is known as Absenteeism. Also to add to this mess some priests were even told to hold Mass only four times a year which is definitely wrong. 

Overall the situation looked terrible in the moral and Catholic standpoint. The Catholic church was in much need for reform, and many Catholics at the time also believed this. People at the time were rather sick and tired with what was going on, so they gladly welcomed the Protestant Reformation.

How Were the Ideas of Marsilius of Padua Evident in Louis of Bavaria’s Conflict with Pope John XXII

In 1314 during the Holy Roman Empire, something unusual happened. Instead of one king being elected, two kings were elected: Louis of Bavaria and Frederick of Austria. This was a disaster waiting to happen, things usually do not go well in situations like above. Even though these two were identified as emperors by everyone else the pope at the time John XXII did not grant them the official title of emperor. This led to the two emperors fighting each other, ending with Louis defeating Frederick. After Frederick’s defeat John XXII demanded Louis to surrender his titles, but Louis refused to do so. John XXII excommunicated Louis almost immediately. This went on like most conflicts between kings and popes. But someone who was influencing Louis at the time was a man named Marsilius of Padua, who was a philosopher. But how were the ideas of Marsilius of Padua evident in the conflict between Louis and pope John XXII.

To begin with, what were the views of Marsilius of Padua? His view was that the Church should not have political power, and that the pope was not a superior figure. For example the pope should not have as much power as an emperor, and should be below an emperor. But how were these ideas evident in Louis of Bavaria and Pope John XXII conflict? Well Louis went completely against the pope. For example he didn’t listen to what the pope said, basically showing that he thought what the pope said was not important. He also behaved in a way that proved that he thought the pope was below him.

In conclusion, the ways that the ideas of Marsilius of Padua were evident in Louis of Baveria’s conflict with Pope John XXII were: Louis going completely against the pope, showing that he thought the pope was not important, and in many ways showing that the pope was below him.

Has Any Event in My Life Had the Same Impact That Learning How to Read Had on Douglass’s Life?

Frederick Douglass(1817-1895), was a famous abolitionist and writer. During his childhood he lived on plantations as a slave. One of the most impactful moments in his life was learning to read. Most slaves were illiterate due to the fact that slave owners believed that an educated slave would cause trouble. Douglass fortunately at the time he learned to read lived with a kind mistress. Before getting into more of this story, has any event in my life had the same impact that learning how to read had on Douglass’s life?

Like I mentioned above Douglass at one point in his life had a kind mistress who was decent. This mistress actually was the one who began teaching him to read, she taught him until her husband found out. After this she stopped teaching Douglass, but that did not stop him from learning to read on his own. He also got help from white children during that time; he copied letters and other written works which was how he learned to write. Learning to read and write changed his life. Because he was able to read he became discontented, just like how slave owners worried. Now he craved freedom, and to be out of slavery.

As you can probably tell Douglass learning to read was a life changing moment in his life; but has any event in my life had the same impact like the impact of Douglass learning to read? Well there actually have been a few moments in my life that had a pretty big impact on my life; but the one I will be writing about in my opinion is the one that changed my life the most. This event was about learning to read. You must be thinking, why was reading so impactful? A lot of people know how to read. Well I learned to read a little older than other people, I was almost eight years old. When I was learning to read it didn’t make any sense, the letters looked like confusing symbols that were stuck together. I was frustrated, and annoyed, I didn’t see there was any point to it. But one day reading made sense. Instead of words looking like symbols stuck together, they looked like words; words that I spoke every single day. After that I took off, before my parents and myself knew it I was reading large novels in a matter of two days. I couldn’t stop reading, I loved it and it made sense.

But the long term impact of this was the fact that I was able to do most of my school on my own, before being able to read my mother had to read things for me. Life in general became easier, I was far more independent. Also learning to read helped me learn to write which is a very important skill in my life. This is why learning to read was very impactful to me, like it was to Douglass.

Online Education is Bad For Society Because it Puts Classroom Teachers Out of Work

From reading this proposition you may agree with it, I mean it seems that online schooling does put classroom teachers out of work. This proposition shows the negative aspect of online schooling after all. But if you think about it there is always a different side or reality to what you think is the case. 

To begin with, this proposition or statement does seem relatively true but after digging deeper into the statement itself I gathered that this statement is not perfect. Yes online schooling can mean that some classroom teachers may lose their jobs, but also you have to think about the fact that online schooling probably will grow education as a market.

On the note of the fact that online schooling will most likely grow the area of education, which means most likely more jobs for teachers. Also because online schooling is technically a job and a lot of online teachers are paid for doing that job, educators are being paid. Also to note, I personally believe that a classroom teacher can also be an online teacher, it’s pretty similar except for the fact that you are teaching through the internet.

The most important thing though are the students when it comes to the market of education. With online schooling students are able to learn at their own pace which is a more detailed education. Because these students are receiving a better education from online schools, these students in turn will most likely become successful adults, which will benefit others, the job market, the economy, etc. I believe this goes for all forms of homeschooling. 

Not necessarily classroom teachers will be put out of work because of online education. Not every parent wants or can sign their children up to online schooling, so there will still be classroom students. The only way a classroom teacher would be out of work is if all of their students started doing online school. Also because of the demand of online schooling, classroom classes have less students which makes it easier for the teacher to be an effective teacher; which may attract some parents.

In conclusion, the thing that matters when it comes to the education market are the students. With online school students benefit due to the fact that they learn at their own pace, which is why there is demand for online schooling. Even with this demand for online schooling not all parents can or want to sign their children up for it, so there will be classroom students. Also because of the smaller classroom sizes due to less students, this may attract some parents to sign their children up. 

Some of the Significant Aspects of the Reign of Louis XI

Louis XI(1423-1483) of France ruled from 1461 until his death in 1483. He was a pretty committed king, and overall was successful during his reign when it came to obtaining his goals. Like every other king his reign was not perfect, and he had to deal with issues that jeopardized his reign. With that being said, what were some of the most significant aspects of Louis’ reign?

Louis was committed to centralizing France; for a while France had been very decentralized due to war. He believed that centralization would bring forth a stronger France. An aspect of Louis was the fact that he was a pious man. He also lived pretty simply compared to most kings. He wasn’t the most skilled when it came to war, he was far better at bribing, spying, etc.

Due to the fact that he wanted to centralize France, eventually representatives of five hundred noble families formed a league against him. His own brother, who was a duke, was at the head of this revolt against him. In 1465 Louis was forced to make concessions, and had to give up Normandy to his brother. He soon was able to regain it back though. In the end Louis was able to accomplish his goal of centralizing France.

In short, the most significant aspects of Louis XI reign were, being able to regain back his losses after a revolt against him, and being able to achieve his goal of centralizing France.

The Italian War of 1494-1498

The Italian War of 1494-1498 began when the king of France at the time, Charles VIII, had tried to make good of a remote claim that the Italian state of Naples was rightly his. At the time Naples was in control of the Spanish, and it had been under the control of the Spanish since the 1440s.

Charles conquered Naples in 1494 pretty easily, so he continued on to try to conquer Milan, he probably felt pretty invincible at that point. But he was betrayed, and eventually was forced out of Naples by the League of Venice which consisted of other Italian States. His forces began to die out from disease. He himself died in 1498 from an incident that consisted of him hitting his head on a door frame. This in turn was the end of the war.

In short, the Italian war of 1494-1498 did not amount to anything for the French, and actually was a complete loss. This is one of the many examples of how something looks like it is going incredibly well, but ends up being a complete failure.

The Rise and Fall Of Girolamo Savonarola

The Renaissance when you think of it today you think of a glorious time that was full of development. A lot of people during that time also thought similarly about the age they lived. But a man named Girolamo Savonarola thought the complete opposite of the Renaissance. Savonarola saw the Renaissance as sinful and immoral, and that people put the works of the ancient world in too high regard. His preaching was incredibly powerful, and captivated many. Because he had convicted many people to his preaching he rose up quickly, but his rise did not last long.

Savonarola preached against the spirit of the Renaissance, and captivated many individuals like I stated above, but things did not last long for him. He criticized the pope at the time Alexander VI heavily. He also had full support of the French who were Italy’s enemy. Also he attacked one of the most influential families at the time, the Medici family. Overall people had enough of him. But things turned for the worst when his followers used something he had said early on in his career against him. He had said that he would walk through fire to prove that his preaching was from God. After he had refused to do what his followers wanted, soon after he was arrested and then executed.

In conclusion, this is a relatively short summary on the rise and fall of Girolamo Savonarola. From his life it is pretty easy to say that anyone no matter how high up they are can come crashing down when it comes to life.

The Characteristics of the Family Government

From what I have learned this week about government, there are five institutional characteristics of a government. These characteristics are: sovereignty, authority or hierarchy, law, sanctions, and succession. But how do these characteristics apply to the family or family government? Also what is the source of family sovereignty?


Sovereignty deals with the question of “who’s in charge.” In the family the parents can set rules for their children, and have authority over their children. Meaning that the parents are in control over what the children can or cannot do. 


Authority relates to sovereignty. Parents have direct authority over their children which is what I mentioned above. The parents have this authority over their children until their children reach adulthood, which means that the children are now in charge of themselves because they are now independent.


Law deals with the question of “what are the rules.” The parents are in charge of making the rules for the household, and to also enforce these rules. Each family has a different set of rules for the household created by the parents. Of course these laws or rules must not break the law of the civil government or go against the word of God, so there must be a line with these rules.


Sanctions come in two forms, positive and negative. Parents in a family have authority over how they will impose sanctions, for example if their child misbehaved. Also parents have the authority to choose different sanctions for each child, based on the children themselves. Again there should be a line on what kind of sanctions; for example when it comes to abuse I think we can all agree that some forms of negative sanctions are plain wrong.


When it comes to succession and how it applies to the family, think of inheritance. The parents have the right or authority to give an inheritance to their children; and inheritance is a form of succession. Think about it, even though we normally think of succession as something that relates to political leaders stepping down and giving that position to a new person, inheritance is still a form of succession.

The Source of Family Sovereignty 

In my opinion I believe that the source of family sovereignty is from God, not the government or state. For example God created the institution of family, like he created other things. He gave the authority to the parents to be in charge of their children.


The five characteristics of government apply to the family unit in many ways, for example with authority: the parents of the family have direct authority over the children, and they make the decisions in regard to the children. The source of family sovereignty on the other hand in my opinion is from God, not the government.