In "London, 1802," what literary devices does Wordsworth use?

Shifting towards a more conservative outlook, Wordsworth appears patriotic and moralistic in this poem. He addresses Milton, pleading for the deceased poet to return and be an example of virtue for England (London). The literary device Wordsworth uses is called "apostrophe." This is when the poet or narrator addresses an absent person, object, or abstract notion. In this case, Wordsworth addresses the deceased poet John Milton.
Wordsworth uses the metaphor of a "fen" or swamp to describe England in 1802. He then uses synecdoche multiple times to describe how this swamp-ish state applies to many aspects of English life. Synecdoche is a figure of speech in which a part of something is used to represent the whole thing. The "altar" represents church and religion. The "sword" represents the military. The "pen" represents literature. And the "fireside" represents life in the home.
Describing Milton, Wordsworth says Milton was "like a Star." This is a simile: a comparison between two things, typically using "like" or "as." Using this comparison, Wordsworth is saying that Milton was a shining example and one that was apart from the world, therefore not one to conform to social trends and conventions. Wordsworth uses a few more similes in describing Milton. His voice was like the sea and was "pure as the naked heavens." Wordsworth means to say that Milton's voice was powerful and constant and that his moral character was pure.

Why does the story end on such a sad note?

There's an appalling sense of inevitability about Paul's tragic demise. He's spent most of his short life on this earth chasing a dream, pursuing a fantasy that's eventually come to destroy him. His collision with a locomotive at the end of the story in an act of suicide is a metaphor for the last, brief intrusion of reality into a life mired for so long in a dream world.
Paul has come to New York with over $1,000 of stolen money in his pocket, determined to live out his fantasy as a wealthy young man about town. But when the money runs out, his dream dies with it, and so he has nothing left to live for. His death, though tragic, does at least have a certain rationale to it from both a moral and a literary perspective. In writing her story, Cather is warning us of the dangers of fantasizing, instead of living, and making our way, in the real world.

Why was Herbert Hoover a superb economist but his presidency led to the Great Depression?

Economics, like most academic disciplines, is in part theoretical. One can, therefore, be a superb economist, but find one's theories don't play out perfectly in actual experience.
Hoover actually had many good ideas about how to battle the Depression, but he didn't think big enough: major change didn't happen until Franklin Roosevelt swept into office in 1933. Hoover, however, did initiate some government spending programs, and in late 1931, he proposed the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, which Congress supported starting in early 1932 and FDR later greatly expanded. However, all of this was too little too late.
Hoover was hampered by his belief in laissez-faire economics and his tendency to want to balance standing back and letting Adam Smith's "invisible hand" right the collapsed economic system and allowing the federal government to intervene. In an ordinary recession, ordinary methods might have worked, but the Great Depression was an extraordinary collapse in which normal mechanisms to right the system were inadequate.
Hoover did not have the faith in Keynesian economics—which advocated for governments spending their way out of recessions—that was needed to restart the economy. He was more old-fashioned in his thinking and wedded to the idea that business leaders and state governments, not the federal government, should be the main drivers of social welfare and economic rebooting. It would take a more progressive president to implement the sweeping economic changes that were needed to revitalize and safeguard the U.S. economy.

What does it mean when Charles Wallace says that Meg is not like him and Calvin?

Charles Wallace and Meg run into Calvin in the woods near Mrs. Whatsit's house as they are on the way to visit her. Charles Wallace is highly suspicious of what Calvin is doing there. He doesn't know Calvin, and he questions him about why he is walking in this particular spot.
Calvin finally explains that he came because he had a "compulsion" to be there. It was gut feeling, an intuitive knowing. Charles Wallace had, just before they saw Calvin, been describing to Meg his own intuitive sensibility. Charles Wallace tells Meg he just knows things about her without her having to say anything.
Calvin speaks about his own intuitive sense:

When I get this feeling, this compulsion, I always do what it tells me. I can’t explain where it comes from or how I get it, and it doesn’t happen very often. But I obey it.

Charles Wallace recognizes that Calvin is a kindred spirit. He realizes, too, that their intuitive sensibilities set them apart from Meg. She doesn't have "compulsions" or "knowings" in the same way they do. As Charles Wallace says:

Meg has it tough. . . . She’s not really one thing or the other.

In other words, Meg isn't simply an ordinary person like their twin brothers, but she also isn't intuitive like Charles Wallace or Calvin.

Please give me a detailed answer to the question below: Why is it important to organizationally separate the accounting function from other functions of the organization?

The accounting function needs to be kept separate from everything else to ensure that its integrity is maintained at all times. Keeping the control of a company's monetary resources separate from its other departments, such as marketing, human resources, and operations, prevents the waters from getting muddied.
Having a completely separate person or department handling the finances means that there is no financial bias toward one department and no untoward favors being done. For example, if the accounts department and the marketing department were intrinsically linked, then the marketing manager may find it too easy to gain access to funds for an unscheduled project. This, in turn, would create complications in company audits and could affect the bottom line or the company's profitability.

What is the allegorical significance of the poem "Crossing the Bar" by Alfred, Lord Tennyson?

Allegory is defined as any work of literature that, upon interpretation, reveals a deeper—and often moral or political—meaning. In order to answer your question, it’s important to understand that some scholars also use the term "allegory" when referring to a complex metaphor.
Alfred, Lord Tennyson’s famous poem is one such metaphor. In the text, the speaker compares sailing out into an unknown sea with the journey into the afterlife.
The speaker embarks on his trip at sunset, which is used to indicate it is the end of the speaker’s life—in other words, he has reached old age. He hopes that no one will be sad over his gradual drift toward death, which he describes as “darkness.” The bar represents the luminal space between the earthly realm and a spiritual one, and once the speaker transverses this boundary, he will have left life behind him.
The pilot that the speaker mentions at the end of the poem could suggest a guide who leads the speaker to his final destination, or it could be an angel or other spiritual being.

In "The Harvest Gypsies: Article II," what effect does Steinbeck's straightforward expository style have on the level of empathy readers feel for the people he describes?

In "The Harvest Gypsies: Article II," Steinbeck zooms in on three families living in a migrant worker camp. In the first article, he provided facts and figures about the number of migrant workers driven by Dust Bowl drought to central California. This created a logical framework that oriented the reader to what was going on. In this article, however, he moves from fact to personal stories.
Stories have an emotional impact because they are up close and personal. Emotion builds empathy in a way that facts can't because we can relate to stories.
Steinbeck tells us about these three families in a flat, deadpan, journalistic style, which seems, at first glance, to work against building empathy. Contrary to what one might expect, however, Steinbeck's style of writing is especially effective for raising emotion and creating empathy. This is because Steinbeck does not tell us what to feel, nor does he feel our emotions for us by expressing outrage and saying how horrible it all is. The emotional impact is all the stronger because Steinbeck simply shows us what is going on: he gives us the facts and then backs out of the way. From the details he provides, we can draw our own conclusions, feel our own feelings, and decide for ourselves that the situation is terrible.
Steinbeck follows several rules of thumb for building empathy: first, he offers details that build an image in the reader's mind. Further, he focuses on specific families, which builds empathy with them, and he emphasizes the dignity and innocence of these people. He provides background about these families that show they were once middle- or working-class people and are destitute through no fault of their own. For example, he tells of us the second family:

The father of this family once had a little grocery store and his family lived in back of it so that even the children could wait on the counter. When the drought set in there was no trade for the store any more.

Because we can visualize how these people lived and because they did not deserve poverty, they are relatable. We can picture working hard ourselves to own a store and then losing it to an environmental disaster that leads to economic collapse. These simple, unembroidered facts build our empathy.
In the camp we can empathize too. For example, we can relate to the attempts of the first family to keep clean because Steinbeck shows us in stark language their attempts to do so:

The dirt floor is swept clean, and along the irrigation ditch or in the muddy river the wife of the family scrubs clothes without soap....

Because we know that how hard they are trying, we feel all the worse when Steinbeck tells us that

With the first rain the carefully built house will slop down into a brown, pulpy mush.

The words "brown, pulpy mush," straightforward and unemotional, build a picture in our minds which makes us feel how awful this will be for this family. Such descriptive details evoke emotion.
Steinbeck also depicts young children suffering, which has an especially strong emotional impact, because we know the children are innocent victims. We are hardwired to want to protect children.
For example, in the case of the second family, we learn of the four-year-old:

One night he went into convulsions and died, and the next morning the coroner’s wagon took him away.

By stating it so plainly, Steinbeck leaves us room to feel emotional pain.
In the case of the third, most desperate family, we learn that the hungry, listless three-year-old with the distended belly quite simply

will die in a very short time.

Steinbeck's expository prose doesn't sugarcoat what will happen, and so we feel the impact.
In sum, a straightforward, stark, "just the facts" style get the writer out of the way and allows the reader to build a relationship with the people described. We can picture their situation and feel how they must be feeling.

Provide a short description of the following meeting options: face-to-face, teleconferencing, and web-conferencing with the use of web-cams.

A face-to-face meeting is an in-person meeting where all people are physically present. This could be the most difficult meeting to arrange based on the scope of the company and the employees involved, but it also will convey the most information, because body language can be read during the meeting.
Teleconferencing and web-conferencing are slowly becoming more and more similar to each other. A teleconference provides real-time two-way audio/video communication between two or more locations. It generally requires specialized equipment on both ends to be successful. That requirement is also true of a web conference. It requires a computer, internet connection, and web-cam. Something like Skype or Google Hangouts are good examples of this type of meeting and/or conference. The advantages to a video conference, regardless of format, is that people can meet that normally wouldn't be able to because of distances. The disadvantage is that non-verbal communications are more difficult to deliver and read.

In 1984, how is the theme of language used to enhance readers's understanding of the world. Please include a quote from the beginning, middle, and end of the text as well as analysis.

In 1984, the theme of language is used to enhance our understanding of the world of Oceania by showing us the extent of the Party's desire for total control. We see clearly, for example, that language is one of the ways that the Party keeps the people in its tight grip. By enforcing the use of Newspeak, the Party eliminates freedom and expression of individual thought. Syme explains this to Winston in part one, chapter five:

It's a beautiful thing, the Destruction of words. Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well.

In other words, by removing so many words from the language, the Party makes it increasingly difficult for people to actually experience those feelings, thereby eradicating “Thoughtcrime.”
Similarly, language is used to show the reader how the Party controls the past and the future. To see this in action, just think about Winston’s job. He spends all day rewriting reports that show the Party in an unfavorable light. (There is a great example of this in part one, chapter two when Winston rewrites the story about the chocolate ration.) Language, therefore, is a tool in helping the Party to create its own version of reality. By changing the words, the Party changes popular perceptions and understandings of the past. If people believe that the Party has only ever done good things for the people, then they are far more likely to stay loyal to it.

Why is the atmosphere experiencing the biggest effect of climate change, and what is the evidence for this?

Scientists believe that climate change is occurring because of an atmospheric condition called the "greenhouse effect." The greenhouse effect means that gases in the atmosphere are trapping heat that is radiating from earth, and overheating the planet. Scientists agree that this is caused by human behavior (NASA, 2019). NASA compiles evidence of the greenhouse effect, and this includes the following.
The rising temperature of the planet. Earth's surface temperature has risen over 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit. In the past thirty-five years, there has been an increase of carbon dioxide, a gas that is released into the atmosphere through human-related activity such as the burning of fossil fuel. Scientists believe this gas as well as an increase of other gasses caused by human activity are the reason that the planet's temperature is rising (NASA).
The National Snow and Ice Data Center released information that shows that the ice caps are melting and glaciers are retreating due to the warming of Earth's atmosphere (NSIDS).
In the last fifty years, the oceans have warmed by .4 degrees Fahrenheit (NASA).
Other studies have shown that ocean acidification, rising sea levels, and decreased snow cover is additional evidence of the overheating atmosphere, the biggest effect (and the cause) of climate change.
https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/glacier_balance.html

How does the vagabond eat his bread?

The vagabond claims to love his life, with only heaven above him and the road below. He says that he likes to sleep out under the stars and "dip" his bread "in the river" (line 6). I think it is unlikely that he actually dips his bread in the river; it's more likely that he eats his bread while he sits next to the river, enjoying its beauty. He obviously loves nature, as he prefers it to wealth, companionship, and even warmth and comfort, so it makes sense to me that he would forego taking his meals near other people or in cafes, for example (and he probably doesn't have the money for that). Dipping his bread in the actual river would probably not improve its flavor, but eating what he comes by in the company of nature, sitting by the riverside, sounds idyllic and in line with his priorities.

I need to write an argument essay on how the ideas Thoreau presents in "Where I lived, and what I lived for" can, or cannot help people understand and manage their lives. I'm not exactly sure what the question is.

The writing prompt isn't actually asking you a question. It is telling you to write a response that explains why you think that Thoreau's piece is helpful to modern-day readers or not helpful anymore. You are welcome to write a response that goes either way; however, I would recommend writing an essay of support. More than likely, your reader/teacher is a fan of Thoreau, and you might not want to antagonize a reader who will be giving you a grade afterward.
For your essay, I would use the following quote as the foundation of your response.

I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived.

This quote can work for your argument in a lot of ways. Thoreau went into the woods because he wanted to simplify his life. He wanted to pare things down to only the essentials and see if he could learn from that. There's a lot to be said for that. It is very anti-materialism, a tenet that is the basis for modern-day movements like the tiny house trend and minimalism. Thoreau is arguing that living and doing is more valuable than living and owning. Thoreau's quote also shows that living out in nature is a key component. I believe that you could argue that people currently believe this, with or without having read Thoreau, and that is why RV sales continue to climb and why National Park visitor numbers have increased in recent years.

What causes Buck to leave his home to become a sled dog?

Buck leads a very happy and fulfilling life on Judge Miller's ranch in California. He has the run of the judge's extensive estate, free to roam as much as he likes. He may be a domesticated animal, but Buck has the kind of freedom that most house pets could only dream of.
Sadly, Buck's happiness isn't set to last. A sneaky gardener on Judge Miller's estate, Manuel, sees an opportunity to make a quick buck (no pun intended). He knows that big, powerful dogs like Buck are much in demand on the Klondike trail. There's serious money to be made out of selling dogs to sled-drivers. So the gardener takes Buck for a walk while the judge is away. But this is no ordinary walk; this is a dognapping. Manuel hands Buck over to a stranger, before tying a rope tightly around Buck's neck. Buck realizes what's happening and attacks the stranger. But he's overpowered, and he soon blacks out. When he comes to, Buck finds himself on a baggage car, heading north on the long, arduous journey to the Klondike trail. His epic adventure has just begun.

According to the chapters for this unit, what factors contributed to European economic growth between 950 and 1100? What is the relationship between economic growth and political power (e.g., technology, improved agriculture, rise of medieval towns)? According to the textbook, how did Feudalism contribute to the rise of "national monarchies" in England and France? Finally, what role does the Crusading movement play in the reforming Church of the eleventh century?

You are asking a lot of questions here, so I will try and summarize/synthesize all of these topics as best I can.
As the fourteenth century began, several things happened that contributed to Europe becoming stronger. The Roman Empire had fallen, but Europe managed to recoup from the impacts of its decay. Furthermore, dangers from invading peoples (e.g., the Vikings, the Magyars, and the Muslims) were ebbing. All of these events helped lead to Europe's rise in terms of its military and monetary power as well as its statesmanship.
Struggles had most certainly been present along the path to this major change concerning Europe's ascendancy, but, as a whole, the region prevailed. However, without the agricultural revolution and technological/mechanical leaps, the rise of Europe may not have been possible. As it were, the generation yield of crops was revolutionized and modernized across (at least parts) of England, France, and some of Germany. This allowed peasants and lords to acquire a more prominent crop yield from the land, resulting in greater feasibility of city and town prosperity and allowed for the support of larger populations. The system of serfdom was the common organizing principle for land ownership at the time, although the serf's life was often unforgiving.
Concerning the First Crusade, Pope Urban II's announcement at Clermont in 1095 worked to initiate the military drive to dispel Muslims (considered "infidels") from the Holy Lands in the Middle East. Europeans approached the Crusades with high hopes; however, they were not an absolute example of military or religious achievement. In hindsight, the Crusades are considered more of a catalyst for continued animosity and the outright "holy war" between Christians and Muslims.
Finally, feudalism was the system gradually instituted to bring a certain level of order to what had been a divided and fragmented region of Europe. Feudalism was a social system that at once included military, political, and financial systems. New monarchies began to be established in England, France, Germany, and Spain, largely due to the citizens' acceptance of and participation in the feudal system. People in Europe were expected to pledge fealty to their respective lords, ladies, and higher ranking members of the aristocracy; living up to that pledge was important, and in most cases, ultimately required by custom.
Works Cited
Coffin, Judith et al. Western Civilizations: Their History & Their Culture. 17th ed., W. W. Norton & Company, 2011, pp. 241-274.
https://www.britannica.com/event/Middle-Ages

Why were English and Scottish Protestants being persecuted during the reign of Queen Mary I?

Mary I wanted to crush the English and Scottish Protestants both to fully legitimize her rule and for personal reasons.
Mary grew up in one of the most tumultuous periods of English history and suffered as "collateral damage" as a result. Her father, King Henry VIII, decided that he had never been married to her mother, Katherine of Aragon, in the eyes of God. Henry VIII felt this way because Katherine had not borne him a male heir. He believed the lack of a male heir was God's way of punishing him for his marrying his brother's widow, a sin according to Old Testament law. (Katherine of Aragon had for a short time been married to Henry's older brother Arthur, who died young.)
Henry also, incidentally, fell deeply in love with another woman, Anne Boleyn. He shattered England's relationship with the Roman Catholic Church when he took England out of it in order to facilitate marrying Anne. He declared himself the head of the English church, got his divorce without papal approval, and married his beloved. As a result of all of this, England became a Protestant country, and Mary was declared illegitimate.
When she became queen on the death of her brother Edward, Mary moved to bring England back into the Catholic fold. This was important politically, because as long as England remained Protestant, she could be accused of being illegitimate and therefore without a strong claim on the throne. Beyond that, she understandably had many bitter feelings about the way she and her mother had been treated and a strong belief in Roman Catholicism.
As a result of both political necessity and personal conviction, Mary vigorously persecuted Protestants, wanting to stamp out this, to her, upstart branch of Christianity and reinstate Catholicism as the religion of the land.

In "Of Plantations," what are Bacon's suggestions regarding victuals, beasts, birds, crops, wood, salt, and mines in the country of plantations?

For the protean Francis Bacon, the question of how to operate a plantation effectively was more than an academic exercise; along with Captain John Smith and his cousin the Earl of Salisbury, he was among the first to explore the newly chartered Virginia Colony in the early seventeenth century. And in the context of the essay "Of Plantations," it's worth noting that for Bacon, the word "plantation" is a synonym for colony.
Regarding victuals, or what we would call food, he suggests that settlers first seek out what might be growing wild, such as chestnuts, walnuts, plums, cherries, and so on. Next, he recommends crops which can be grown quickly, like carrots, turnips, and onions. Bacon advises against immediately planting wheat, barley, and oats given their labor-intensive nature and instead directs colonists to bring stores of these grains until the plantation is well-established.
Considering wildlife, he instructs the settlers to choose livestock and avian life which is the least susceptible to disease and reproduces most quickly: swine, goats, hens, turkeys, cocks, geese, and so on. He commends the use of salt as a seasoning and suggests that the evaporation of sea water is the optimal technique for the production of bay-salt crystals.
Bacon also advises potential colonists to treat whatever timber the land most plentifully yields as a viable commodity but to forego mining as a risky endeavor with uncertain returns.

Can I have a detailed analyse of the poem "Tissue" by Imtiaz Dharker in terms of language, structure, themes, imagery, and symbols?

This is a very complex poem comprised almost entirely of metaphors and symbols, which make it difficult to pin down any fixed meaning. One interpretation of the poem, however, is that it is all about the power of different kinds of knowledge, and that each different type of paper referred to represents or symbolizes a different type of knowledge.
For example, the paper in the first stanza symbolizes the written word which, metaphorically, "lets the light / shine through." This metaphor implies that knowledge in the form of the written word can help things to become clearer. The line, "Paper thinned by age or touching," also represents how fragile and precious this type of knowledge is.
Later in the poem, Dharker writes about "maps" with "borderlines (and) the marks / that rivers make." Maps in the poem could symbolize the type of knowledge that we use to orientate ourselves in the world. This could literally be geographical knowledge, but it could also be knowledge about who we are and where we want to go in life.
In terms of the structure of the poem, every stanza has four lines except for the last stanza, which is just one line. This suggests that Dharker wanted the last line, "turned into your skin," to stand out. One of the possible ideas in this poem, an extension of the theme of knowledge, is that the best type of knowledge is that which exists between ourselves, on an interpersonal level. In other words, the best type of knowledge is the emotional knowledge that exists within and is developed through human relationships. This is the type of knowledge which leads to empathy and sympathy. Towards the end of the poem, the paper that Dharker has been using to symbolize different kinds of knowledge changes to human skin. The isolation of the final line, in a stanza of its own, is perhaps to emphasize how this interpersonal, emotional knowledge is the most important and vital kind of knowledge we have.

Consider the individuals in George Orwell's "Shooting an Elephant" and Doris Lessing's "No Witchcraft for Sale" who are essentially powerless in their respective societies. How do these individuals behave? What do they do to those who have power in their societies? Why do these people act as they do, and what does their behavior demonstrate about imperialism as a political and social ideology?

In both "Shooting an Elephant" and "No Witchcraft for Sale," people who are native to the countries where the pieces are set are powerless compared to the colonizers. In Orwell's essay, it's the people of Burma. In Lessing's story, it's the native people on the veld in Africa.
Both peoples distrust outsiders. In Burma, they mock and belittle the British colonizers, which is why the narrator decides to shoot the elephant even when he doesn't want to. He's told that if he doesn't do it, they will always mock him. In Africa, the natives keep their knowledge to themselves. However, Gideon decides to use a folk remedy on his employer's son when the little boy is struck by snake venom and on the verge of going blind.
This shows that imperialism doesn't respect the culture and heritage of the land that is being colonized. Even Orwell's speaker doesn't think the British should be there; he believes that the Burmese people are right to want them gone. Their mocking of the British shows that they're aware that the colonizers shouldn't be there and that they want them gone. The native people in Lessing's story, in turn, withhold their cures and help because any assistance they give threatens their way of life. If a drug company could make a living from something they offer, they'll come in and take it—that's what they've learned through imperialism.
Both stories paint a bleak picture of life under imperialistic oppressors and show that there are many different ways that colonized peoples resist. However, few of these ways are direct resistance because of the potential consequences.

Please write a short paragraph describing Daniel Defoe's Robinson's character, including his origins, his reasons for travelling, kind of journey, response to situations and the writer's aim.

Robinson Crusoe is the protagonist of Daniel Defoe's novel of the same name, published in 1719. He is an adventurous man, who sets sail to explore despite his father's request that he pursue a career in law. He is also fearless almost to a fault, undertaking a sea voyage that results in being shipwrecked on an island for 28 years. In addition to being adventurous, Crusoe is also religious by the novel's end. Having avoided death in the shipwreck, he thanks God for his circumstances, and he carries with him one book: the Bible. Finally, Crusoe is resourceful. Once on the island, he builds himself a habitation in a cave, hunts, and cultivates his own food.
Despite these exceptional qualities, Crusoe is not perfect. He keeps a quasi-slave, Friday, whom Crusoe saves from cannibalism. Crusoe teaches Friday English, and tells him to call him "master." For this reason, some scholars call Crusoe an exemplar of colonialism.

What are some of the quotes that Kizzy says in the movie?

In the Roots mini-series, based on the novel of the same name, Kizzy is the daughter of Kunta Kenti, the original slave brought from Africa through the slave trade. Kizzy, whose name means “stay put,” is raised under the ownership of Dr. William Reynolds. Kizzy is an essential character in the movie because she is one of the first slaves to learn to read and write, something that is forbidden. She also experiences friendship with a white woman/girl Missy Anne, the one who teaches her to read and write.
Kizzy is an important character because she can operate within the oppression of slavery to learn to read and write and to set up her children to find freedom eventually. Her son, George, the result of Kizzy being raped by a new plantation master, eventually finds land in Tennessee that the rest of the family moves to after the Civil War.
Kizzy starts out as a somewhat naive character. She wants to marry Noah, another slave that lives on the plantation, but doesn’t quite understand the gravity of the moves that Noah is making. She shows her feelings when she says,

Oh, Noah, wouldn't it be fine if things were different? And you could stay here, and we could marry up and, raise young 'uns just to be strong and happy as we'd be? It surely would be fine.

His immediate response is that he doesn’t have time for dreams.
Through her life events, we see Kizzy go from naive to knowledgable. She is a complex character that shows how she understands the system despite others thinking that she doesn’t. One example is when she is having a conversation with Missy Anne, who is explaining that black people are naturally inferior to whites. Kizzy says, “Abolitionists want to change it, Missy Anne,” showing that she isn’t always going to take the knowledge of her master’s daughter at face value. Missy Anne says that God made black people be slaves and that if He didn’t want it that way it would change. The response that Kizzy gives shows that she doesn’t think it's natural but rather man-made.
Her dreams vanish when Noah is caught escaping. She is punished for helping Noah try to escape, her literacy is found out, and she is sold. When being sold, she begs Missy Anne to help her, “Missy Anne, please, please help me!” but she learns that her mistress despises her now that she has been found out and embarrassed her. She is taken away to her new owner, Thomas Moore.
Her new owner rapes her, and she has a son named George as a product of that rape. She is still active and resilient, but she no longer dreams in the same way. The experience of her sale and the rape are enough to harden her as a character.

Winston reads from Goldstein's book that "The invention of print, however, made it easier to manipulate opinion." Explore the history of using print to influence opinion—and not just propaganda.

This seems to be less an essay about "1984" and more about history. With this in mind, there are several questions you'd need to ask. Most notably: does printing impact public opinion. After answering this question, the next question is how, and why? If your answer is a simple and straightforward one, perhaps you could think about ways to complicate it provide nuance? For example, take "1984" itself: the quotation provided here actually forms part of a more complicated thesis. "The invention of print, however, made it easier to manipulate public opinion, and the film and radio carried the process further," and according to Goldstein, television took it even further than that. Orwell couches his analysis as a kind of process, by which the tools and technology the State uses to control and manipulate opinion is something which is built and intensified across time, from one era to the next. Of course, it needs to be stated: yours is actually a different question than the one Orwell's asking, but this example does show how to create a more complex approach to these kinds of answers. It's not always a matter of yes, it does, or no, it does not.
With this in mind, think about the ways that print has been used to influence opinion, but also think about how the answer to this question might have changed over time. Think about the people who have shaped opinion, as well as the people who they are addressing. Furthermore, would you consider the print's power of influence a positive or negative, or does this answer depend solely on the specificities of each case you are discussing? You can discuss the use of pamphlets, of books, and of newspapers. You can discuss government based initiatives as well as private organizations. You can discuss how print is used in wars, in periods of political turmoil, and you can even think in terms of consumerism and advertisements, or in terms of the sciences and academia (think about the conversations and disputes that have been held within the scientific or philosophical communities).
Moreover, in answering these questions, you should aim to think historically: think in terms of how much things have changed over time, in terms of technology and culture, as well as what has remained constant. Indeed, this is perhaps one of the most important themes of all, given how this question specifically asks you to "explore the history of using print to influence public opinion." You need to look at this question from a more long term, big-picture viewpoint, and consider how the relation between print and opinion has evolved over time. What has remained constant, what's changed, and what examples can you find which illustrate the pattern you've observed?
Finally, be aware: the question notes specifically that it is asking for more than just examples of "propaganda." Be aware of this, and plan accordingly.

Why should we feel sorry for Walter Mitty? Why or why not?

Whether or not the reader feels sorry for Walter Mitty depends on whether or not they think he is happy and content. It is possible that Walter chooses this life for himself so that he can disappear into a world of fantasy when and where he wants. Unfortunately, the suggestion is that he dreams up all these adventures, of course making himself the hero, to block out how much he dislikes reality and how everyone seems to be trying to control him. For example, his wife nags and berates him:

“Remember to get those overshoes while I’m having my hair done,” she said. “I don’t need overshoes,” said Mitty. She put her mirror back into her bag. “We’ve been all through that,” she said, getting out of the car. “You’re not a young man any longer.” He raced the engine a little. “Why don’t you wear your gloves? Have you lost your gloves?” Walter Mitty reached in a pocket and brought out the gloves.

A policeman at the traffic lights tells him rudely to hurry up:

“Pick it up, brother!” snapped a cop as the light changed, and Mitty hastily pulled on his gloves and lurched ahead.

And, finally, a woman laughs at him for talking to himself:

“Puppy biscuit,” said Walter Mitty. He stopped walking and the buildings of Waterbury rose up out of the misty courtroom and surrounded him again. A woman who was passing laughed. “He said ‘Puppy biscuit,’ ” she said to her companion. “That man said ‘Puppy biscuit’ to himself.

The reader knows that Walter is not happy with all this, because after the parking lot attendant patronizes him, he says to himself,

They’re so damn cocky . . . they think they know everything.

While the writer doesn't give away too much about his life and character outside this short shopping trip, he does seem to suggest that Walter is your stereotypical henpecked husband with very little going for him outside his marriage. Whether or not a reader empathizes with this type of character depends on their own belief system. Like all great stories, this one is open to interpretation.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1939/03/18/the-secret-life-of-walter-james-thurber

What is wrong with the Lotus Casino in Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief?

The Lotus Casino and Hotel in Las Vegas is a place created by the lotus-eaters so that anyone who darkens its doors will want to stay there forever. Guests are provided with everything they could possibly want, from highly addictive games to good food to luxury accommodation, all paid for by plastic cards with unlimited supplies of credit. Everything has been designed to make sure that no one will ever want to leave.
But this is no ordinary casino. For one thing, those inside never age while time outside accelerates. At first Percy, who's there at the casino with Annabeth and Grover, thinks it's a fun place to hang out. But pretty soon he realizes there's something not quite right. As he looks around the casino, he notices that there are people from many different time periods. As we've seen, this is because people stop aging once they've set foot inside the casino.
Percy snaps out of the trance that looked set to keep him in the casino forever and high tails it out of there, taking Annabeth and Grover with him. Once they've safely put the Lotus Casino behind them, they suddenly realize that they'd been there for five whole days.

How do changes in context lead to changes in the value of the women's voice in Al Pacino's Looking for Richard and Richard III?

The changes in context make the women's voices in Looking for Richard have much more agency than the characters in Richard III.
Richard III doesn't have a lot of female characters who aren't negatively affected by King Richard. Instead, they're tools for him to use and people who are hurt by his actions. Richard even kills his own wife to get a new one; he married the prince's widow, Anne, to help him get his position. He doesn't have much regard for women and mostly uses them.
Looking for Richard is a different story. It's a story about Shakespeare adaptations on stage and in films. The director interviews a lot of actors and actresses about their feelings and thoughts on Shakespeare. The female actresses don't seem any less important than the male actors. Instead, they seem to have an equal voice and agency.
The main difference is that the movie was made by a modern team while the play was written by an author who was a product of his time. Women didn't have as much agency as men—even though Shakespeare wrote many active, important women. Richard III just didn't have that many, and the ones present in the play are relatively unimportant outside of their relationship with Richard. The ones in the movie have opinions and are as important as anyone else. Since the women are just as important, their voices in the movie are more valued than the voices of women in the play.

Why does having lost his mother give Julian inner strength?

The View From Saturday is a children’s novel set in a town called Epiphany. It tells the story of Julian Singh and his three friends Noah, Nadia, and Ethan, who are part of a group called "The Souls." Their sixth-grade teacher, Mrs. Olinski, chooses them to represent her class in the Academic Bowl competition. The Souls face more competitions and win.
Being an Indian boy with a British accent, Julian often gets bullied and teased in school. Julian’s mother died when he was a younger boy. His father is an innkeeper in Epiphany, and it is here that Julian and his friends, The Souls, get together for tea every Saturday at Sillington House.
The Souls try to make Mrs. Olinski's life happier and to encourage her. However, it is Julian's kindness that is notably recognized by Mrs. Olinski. Although other students play pranks on her because she is paraplegic, Julian sticks up for his teacher.
Even though Julian suffers from his own set of insecurities because of his skin color and accent, he gets full support from Ethan, Noah, and Nadia. The Souls often offer support, and this strengthens him, despite the loss of his mother.
The Souls all come from challenging backgrounds, but they succeed where others would expect them to fail. In being asked why Mrs. Olinski chose The Souls for her competition, she declares that these four children always treat each other with respect and kindness.
It is Julian's father, Mr. Singh, who states that "it often takes more courage to be a passenger than a driver." He is referring to Mrs. Olinski’s paraplegic condition and the difficulties that come with giving up control over one’s life to others. Mr. Singh also states that Julian has learned to be a passenger in life and appreciates all that life offers. In support of his son, Mr. Singh says that Julian has a gift of being able "to regard each port of call as part of a journey and not as a destination." Julian doesn’t have the ability to control his surroundings, but he doesn’t let that stop him from being kind to others.

Explain the difference(s) between California's and New York's public policies on non-competitions agreements in the employment arena. Which one is better?

A non-compete law is a law that stipulates where an employee is allowed to work following the termination of their employment with a certain company. Essentially, most companies wish to ensure that you are not giving away industry secrets to competitors and will restrict employ to companies in their same field of work.
The non-compete law in New York is simple: if you sign a non-compete agreement with your employer, that agreement remains in effect for its duration (typically 1–2 years after separation with the company), regardless of the reason that employment was terminated. In California, however, the non-compete is null and void if the employee is terminated from the company involuntarily. So, if someone is fired, they can immediately work for a competitor.
For an employee, the California law is better because it doesn't restrict where an employee can work immediately after being fired from a company. A lot of the time, the employees have a great deal of experience in that particular field, and it would be much easier to get a job at a rival company than elsewhere. However, for a business, the New York law is more beneficial because, if an employee gave away company secrets to a competitor, it could endanger a company. This is especially relevant if said employee is disgruntled over being recently terminated.

Rather than one patient, you are now measuring iron levels from a group of individuals. Assume a specific sample size. This would be the number of individuals in the group. Using that sample size, determine the range within which the group's average iron level would be consider usual. Describe how you arrived at that range using the Central Limit Theorem and the Empirical Rule.

We are given a population with a mean iron level of mu=15.5 gdl, with a population standard deviation of sigma=1.6 gdl. We assume that the iron levels in the population are distributed approximately normally. We are asked to determine the range for which the average of the iron levels of a group of specified size would be considered normal.
Let us use a sample size of 25; that is, we measure the iron levels of 25 randomly chosen individuals from the population. We are asked to determine the range of "normal" values for the average of this sample.
From the central limit theorem, we know that the standard error is sigma/sqrt(n)=1.6/sqrt(25)=.32 (Contrast this with the standard error for an individual which is 1.6 gdl.)
Now apply the empirical normal rule with the mean of 15.5 and the standard error of .32.
Approximately 68% of samples of size 25 will have a mean between 15.18 and 15.82, 95% will be between 14.86 and 16.14, and 99.7% will have a mean between 14.54 and 16.46.
Thus we would expect the mean iron level of the sample of 25 individuals randomly chosen from the population to be between 14.54 and 16.46 gdl.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CentralLimitTheorem.html

What're Shmuel's personal qualities?

Shmuel is a kind and precocious boy. Even though he is living through the horrors of confinement in a concentration camp, he does not speak much of the indignities he is surely living through on a continuing basis. Even though he has suffered so much, Shmuel is an understanding and empathetic child. He listens patiently to all of Bruno's many complaints. What we see in Shmuel is a high level of resilience which is particularly remarkable for a boy his age in the circumstances he is in. He has not given in to despair or cynicism the way many others might in his situation.
Shmuel is also a loyal friend to Bruno. He yearns for the companionship of a friend his age, even if their lives are vastly different. He is even forgiving of Bruno after he betrays Shmuel. Although he confides very little to Bruno, he is also very patient and understanding of his friend's situation, even though it pales in comparison to his own.

Shmuel’s much more worldly than Bruno, and not simply because of the extreme hardship that he and his family have been forced to endure. Despite being the exact same age as Bruno, Shmuel’s more educationally advanced. His mother was a teacher and it was she who taught him German. Shmuel knows a lot more than Bruno about the outside world; this gives him a broader understanding of the war and the true nature of the Nazis’ persecution of the Jews.
Shmuel acts with kindness towards Bruno and considers him a true friend, even though he knows that his father is the camp commandant. His kindness is also shown by his love for animals; he wants to work in a zoo when he grows up. On the whole, one would have to say that Shmuel’s is a very strong, mature personality for someone of his age. It’s truly remarkable that he’s managed to retain a sense of decency and humanity despite the myriad horrors to which he’s subjected on a daily basis.

In the last two chapters, give an example of feminist criticism (not theory). In other words, an example that disputes a hegemony.

In the last section of The Liar’s Club, Mary Karr tells of her return to Texas. Having been away from home, she has gained perspective on her complicated childhood but is uncertain about the emotions this return will stir up. Because both her parents had abused her, as well as ignored others’ abuse, she believes that it is important to learn their reasons for that behavior and hopes that she can forgive them and move forward.
Karr has spoken of self-identifying as a feminist since she was 12, in part because she saw her mother as a working person and how it shaped her self-imposed requirement to write truthfully. Her growth into a strong, self-sufficient person is one theme that permeates the book. A feminist perspective can be applied to her success in learning to stand on her own and create a meaningful life—however imperfect. The compassion she shows for her parents is part of the maturity she gained. Karr’s understanding of the overreaching power of social convention—the hegemony of patriarchy—is one vehicle for her growth.
In the interactions with her mother, Karr finally learns some long-hidden secrets that help her understand her mother’s illnesses and related abusive treatment of her children. Earlier in life, her mother, Charlie, had another family, but the father of those two children had taken them from their home without telling her that they were leaving or where they were going. Mary finally learns that Charlie had actually located them and tried, off and on, to get them back, before admitting defeat. Charlie’s tormented past provides, for Mary, an explanation of her ongoing addictions and dysfunctional behaviors.
Looking at her mother as an individual and locating her mother’s predicament within the structures of patriarchal society are part of what allowed Karr to move past the nightmares of that abusive past. At the same time, Mary is a victim of childhood abuse—including sexual abuse by one of her mother’s boyfriends. In that regard, her personal needs to contextualize her early years and treat her mother with compassion can come across as excusing those behaviors by attributing too much weight to the social conditions.

What was the fight about when Lennie broke Curley's hand?

Curley is initially upset because he cannot find his wife and believes that she has been sleeping with Slim. When Curley enters the bunkhouse, he is agitated because he could not intimidate Slim, who stood up to Curley when he confronted him about his wife. In the bunkhouse, Carlson and Candy begin to ridicule Curley for being afraid of Slim and Lennie happens to laugh as the men make fun of Curley. As soon as Curley sees Lennie smile, he approaches him and begins to take his anger out on Lennie. Curley sees Lennie as someone he can easily intimidate and back down after looking ridiculous in front of the other men. He then attacks Lennie, who initially backs down and does not fight back. After George commands Lennie to fight back, he grabs Curley's fist in mid-air and crushes his hand. Overall, Curley attacks Lennie because his pride has been hurt and he sees Lennie as a defenseless person he can whoop in order to regain his dignity. Unfortunately, things do not go as planned for Curley, who ends up getting his hand crushed by Lennie during the fight.

Curley has a bit of a little man complex. As a result, he is always trying to prove himself physically against bigger guys. On this particular occasion, Curley is fighting mad because he cannot find his wife. He needs someone to take out his frustration on, so he foolishly picks on Lennie, who just happens to be in the vicinity. Lennie is a gentle giant, so Curley figures that he will be an easy target who will not fight back. At first, he is proven right; Lennie does not initially respond to the vicious punches that Curley rains down on him. But George does not like to see Lennie getting whupped; he vowed to Lennie's Aunt Clara that he would protect him, so he urges the big man to fight back. Lennie does as George advises and crushes all the bones in Curley's hand.

To what extent can political cartoons be used to track the changes in Ronald Reagan's foreign policy? I have three cartoons, you can use any two. “Can’t you see I’m trying to fill a hole?” by Bill Sanders, Milwaukee Journal, 1981 “He’s got to eat to have the strength to start reducing” by Jim Mazzotta, Fort Myers News Press, 1982 “Surely they’ll not be so stupid as to keep on coming!” by Bob Artley, Worthington Daily Globe, 1982

I'll provide a critical analysis of the cartoon by Bob Artley for the Worthington Daily Globe to guide your own reflections on the remaining examples. Artley's image is an excellent example of political satire, illustrating the ironic nature of Reagan's policy on the arms race with the Soviet Union. Political cartoons are a means by which illustrators comment and respond to immediate or ongoing conflicts; note that the newspaper Artley's image appears in is a daily source.
It is important to note the political circumstances in the years leading up to the cartoon's publication. Reagan is known to have escalated the Cold War during his presidency by reversing the policy of détente. French for "release from tension," this term refers to the period of improved relations between the United States and the Soviet Union, particularly under Richard Nixon's presidency between 1971 and 1974. Nixon's vision of peaceful negotiation did not continue; Reagan believed that the USSR was using détente and the SALT talks to take advantage of the United States. Reagan initiated START, or the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks, with the Soviet Union in mid-1982. These talks failed quickly because they demanded that the USSR unconditionally reduce its nuclear arsenal but allow the United States to continue amassing weapons. Artley conveys the irony of this tactic, as both the United States and USSR were amassing weapons, believing the other force to be inferior and reckless for approaching retaliation.

What is Rip van Winkle fond of doing?

Rip van Winkle is fond of wandering the countryside and wilderness with his gun or his fishing rod and can disappear for hours and hours at a time following these pursuits. He enjoys helps neighboring women with small chores and is popular with children. He also likes loitering on the bench in front of the village inn, under the picture of King George III. At the inn, he and his friends read old newspapers and discuss political events that have already occurred, drowsing away many an afternoon.
All of the activities Rip enjoys characterize him as a type: the lackadaisical colonial subject who lacks ambition, drive, and purpose. He is happy-go-lucky, and complacent, and he fails to build a future for himself or his family. He is a contrast, as he finds to his surprise after sleeping for twenty years, to the energetic new man unleashed by the American Revolution.

Think of the tremendous impact on culture made by Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey. These two stories have influenced and inspired: · The development of the Greek Pantheon in character and action. This in turn, influenced Roman mythology. Together they influenced works of art (Achilles is the subject of many plates, wall paintings and vases) and plays (Romeo & Juliet). Names from mythology are pervasive in the zodiac, stars, planets, constellations, many of the flying crafts from NASA and a myriad of products. · Biographies of Alexander the Great agree the young king had read the Iliad. Alexander changed the landscape of the Mediterranean and much of the western world on quests he derived from Homer. · Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey have influenced and inspired works of literature such as The Aeneid, The Divine Comedy, The Hobbit, and the Harry Potter series. · Concepts and characters from Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey have influenced and inspired musical lyrics with names and storylines for hundreds of years in classical, rock, punk, pop, country, hip hop and more. · Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey influenced and inspired movies like the obvious Troyand Oh Brother Where Art Thou, but also the Wizard of Oz and Star Wars. For your project you will write a short essay (1-2 pages) that discusses how current Zombie Culture will influence the future of media 100 years from now. In your essay, you will propose how current Zombie Culture will influence the future in three specific ways by creating and including the following: · the title and content of one book or graphic novel from the future influenced by current Zombie Culture · the title and content one movie or television show from the future influenced by current Zombie Culture · one additional pop culture example from the future influenced by current Zombie Culture When the project is complete, you will have a total of three different media forms represented.

This project assignment appears to be asking you to create three different examples of the imagined future impact of zombie culture in the forms of a book, a film or TV program, and one more example of your choice, and describing them in an essay. As you create these examples, you will be elevating the impact of zombie culture to the level of the impact of Homer and his epic poetry. Here are some ideas that might give you an interesting place to start thinking about your project.
First of all, think about zombie culture in terms of the culture you learned about in The Iliad and The Odyssey. For example, what are the zombie equivalents of heroic behaviors like those exhibited by Achilles and Odysseus? What might a zombie hero look like, and how might they respond to challenges like those presented in Homer's depiction of the Trojan War and of Odysseus's travels home? Another angle might involve the zombie version of the gods and goddesses who give Odysseus aid or who hinder him on his way home; what supernatural forces or higher powers interfere with or assist zombies in their pursuit of zombie-satisfaction? Family, happy marriages, and true love are all important notions in both The Iliad and The Odyssey; what are important notions to zombies that are worth fighting for?
Next, consider your three options. You will need to explain the impact of zombie culture through the examples of a book (or graphic novel) of your own invention, a movie or TV show of your own creation, and a third piece of pop culture that you must choose on your own.
First, let's think about the steps you need to take to invent a book: what kind of conflict will your book explore, and who is involved? Take your inspiration from the main plot points of The Iliad and The Odyssey; perhaps one heroic zombie has become separated from his zombie clan and needs to make his way back to the group, or a zombie love interest turns into a zombie love triangle. Just remember, as you begin, that conflict and character define a good story.
Think along similar lines for your television program or movie, but mix it up a little so you don't repeat the themes of your book; perhaps a group of zombie friends are looking to avenge a crime against one of the gang, and they experience a more difficult time than they expected. Describe the problems they encounter and the source of them as well as the solutions and helpers the zombies meet along the way.
The third requirement gives you the most creative freedom, as you can pick any element of pop culture you like that echoes ideas from Homer's poetry. Think about your own interests here: are you fascinated by zombie versions of sporting events like the World Cup or Wimbledon, or would you rather explore a museum of zombie art created by zombie artists that document zombie history and culture? Do modern forms of self-expression, like tattoos or fashion, interest you? All of these mediums could benefit from the zombie treatment; perhaps a magazine just for zombies about zombie life would work. Just remember to give your representation of zombie pop culture a name or title to make it official.

In Shakespearian Sonnet 20, how does each quatrain connect to convey the meaning of the entire poem?

William Shakespeare’s Sonnet 20 is a love poem in which the gender of the subject, who the speaker addresses, is ambiguous. The speaker has been assumed to be male. The sonnet includes numerous comparisons between the speaker’s beloved and a woman or women. This poem has most often been interpreted as indicating that the beloved is a man who has many female characteristics or actually resembles a woman. By extension, the speaker’s love for this person has been interpreted as either platonic or sexual in nature.
The first quatrain (lines 1–4) makes several parallel comparisons between the subject and a woman or women and appears to mix up the gendered qualities of the subject. The speaker addresses the subject as “the master mistress” of his passion. The direct positive comparisons the speaker draws are to the “face” and “gentle heart” of a woman. Another positive attribute is that the subject lacks “false women’s fashion,” or fickleness.
The second quatrain (lines 5–8) includes further comparisons, referring to “An eye more bright.” The speaker then refers to the beloved's effects on others, as their bright gaze gilds the person it falls on, and indicates that the subject is male or masculine: “A man in hue.”
The third quatrain (lines 9–12) emphasizes the femaleness of the subject, whom the speaker says was “first created” to be a woman. The sonnet has a shift in line 10, when the speaker claims that Nature, because she doted on the subject, added “one thing” to the originally female person. While that is “nothing” to him, it did defeat him. One interpretation is that these lines emphasize the speaker’s constancy. A different suggestion, however, is supported by the final couplet (lines 13–14). The word “prick’d” in line 13, along with the reference to “women’s pleasure,” is often believed to indicate that the thing referenced is the subject’s penis. This interpretation emphasizes the sexual nature of the speaker’s love.

According to Walker, how has the creative spirit of black women expressed itself in the past?

This is a 1972 essay by Alice Walker. In it, she draws upon the writings of Jean Toomer who, in the post-Reconstruction South, witnessed a generation of black women who had seemingly gone mad, become "Saints" who sang "lullabies to ghosts" and went through their lives without fulfillment. Walker's interpretation is that this was not, as Toomer saw it, because they were unusually "vacant," having been beaten down by their difficult lives. On the contrary, she sees them as "Creators" and "Artists" whose spirituality was so deep and unwanted that they went insane because of an inability to express themselves. Unable to release their creativity, they went mad.
Walker poses the question to the reader: what happened to geniuses who were black women in the time of slavery? For a long time, as Walker points out, black people were forbidden to read or write and had no capacity to express themselves through physical artistry. Many, such as Bessie Smith, Billie Holiday, and Nina Simone, expressed themselves through singing, a later evidence, Walker says, of the gift which was stifled in black women of earlier generations. For many black women, singing in church was the only expression of their deep creativity permitted to them.

Compare and contrast the sociopolitical organization of North American chiefdoms with those of the Maya city-states?

Both the Maya city-states and the North American chiefdoms defined the boundaries for the civilizations at the time. Maya City was one of the largest city-states in the Maya civilization, while Cahokia was a powerful chiefdom from North America. Another similarity between the two civilizations was the power that the rulers had. The paramount chief of a chiefdom and the king or queen of a city-state exercised total control over the citizens. In other words, their decision was final.
The difference between a chiefdom and a city-state was that the latter was a fair amount bigger than the former. Most chiefdoms had between 5,000 to 20,000 people, while city-states had a population of over 20,000. In addition, chiefdoms were protected by warriors, while city-states were defended by armies. Additionally, most chiefdoms were located along the Mississippi River, while city-states were scattered all over the Maya kingdom.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/news-wires-white-papers-and-books/native-american-government-mississippian-chiefdoms

I am in ninth grade and thinking of doing a research project on how interactive gaming (like Fortnite, NBA, Call of Duty, etc) might affect the adolescent brain. My teacher thinks this is not a great topic because gaming is just negative. But I don't think so. I think I need to really narrow my topic down, and that's what I need help with. Here are some of my ideas: Is Gaming Disorder real? Are these games addictive (producing dopamine)? Where in the brain and how? How do these games affect executive function in the adolescent brain? I like this one because there is a lot of evidence that these games actually improve these skills, and the frontal lobe of teens is not fully developed yet. Why do boys prefer these games? This would involve gender differences in brains. How much gaming per day or week is beneficial, and when and why does it become detrimental? Lastly, I need to provide some sort of solution to a problem that my topic may pose. That is also confusing me because I'm not sure all of my ideas are problematic. If you have any suggestions as to how to narrow this down, I would appreciate it. Thank you.

This is a good topic to cover, especially for someone in high school. There are a lot of debates discussing video games and if they are addictive or dangerous to adolescents. The questions you've proposed are good questions to ask as well. You can have a debate and discussion around these questions. Gaming is not a negative topic, I just think that many people don't play video games in moderation. You can be a healthy individual and play games like Fortnite and Call of Duty. It becomes a problem when adolescents are playing a game too much or if they are playing a video game to escape a personal problem they have.
The question that you proposed that might get you the most content on your research paper is why boys prefer games. There are a lot of different layers to that question. You could discuss how video games are marketed. Commercials, online gamers, and main protagonists in video games are predominantly male. The stories and characters in a game also lean more towards a male audience. Males are also known to use activities such as gaming to cope with sensitive or difficult emotions. Females are more likely to talk things out with their parents, friends, teachers, or family. Playing video games doesn't always involve interacting with others. Boys tend to play video games as an escape from their problems or to connect with their other friends who might also be into gaming. You could also explore gender differences in the brains like you said. There are a lot of layers to this topic. Your teacher may see it as a negative topic, but you could prove to your teacher that gaming isn't a negative or unhealthy habit. It can become an unhealthy habit due to adolescents not knowing when to stop or how to cope with any conflicts in their life.

I think that this is a terrific topic for a research project, and I think narrowing it down is simply a matter of consolidating all of your questions into a single context. I think a great way to narrow down these questions would be to make your research project on the history of video games. This way, you could include all of the topics that you have mentioned, as they are all relevant to the topic. For example, your teacher's inherently negative outlook on games likely has a lot to do with how old they were when video gaming was being pioneered, considering that in its early days, video games were primarily marketed towards children, and male children at that. This could also tie in to your topic of gender. While they are certainly still outnumbered by males, there is a fast growing number of women in the gaming community. This is related to changing societal standards and would also fall under the umbrella of video games in a historical context. Think of examples of how video games have affected society and the way that people interact with each other, and you should be able to fit all of your ideas in a historical context. Best of luck!

What does Gatsby reveal to Nick in the car on the way to the city?

I believe the scene you are referring to is when Gatsby picks Nick up and drives him into the city with him to get lunch. Up to this point, Nick knows very little about Gatsby, and he doesn't have an impression of his life being very interesting.

I had talked with him perhaps half a dozen times in the past month and found, to my disappointment, that he had little to say. So my first impression, that he was a person of some undefined consequence, had gradually faded he had become simply the proprietor of an elaborate roadhouse next door.

So, Nick is very surprised when Gatsby launches into a history of his life. He tells him that he was born in San Francisco, came to age in America, and then received an education at the University of Oxford. Following this, his family died and he received inheritance from them. Then he:

lived like a young rajah in all the capitals of Europe—Paris, Venice, Rome—collecting jewels, chiefly rubies, hunting big game, painting a little, things for [himself] only, and trying to forget something very sad that had happened to [him] long ago.

He ends his story by telling of his time in the war, saying he was promoted to Major by the end of his service.
Nick initially does not believe any aspect of the story, and is only able to hold back his "incredulous laughter" "with an effort." However, Gatsby produces proof for him, leading him to conclude that "it was all true." Of course, it was not all true: Gatsby was born in North Dakota, only attended Oxford for a short period of time, and likely made all his money from bootlegging rather than from inheritance and gaudy jewel collecting. This scene exposes some parts of Gatsby's history, but it also exposes him as a liar and unable to open up to Nick truthfully.

What comes from the fourth dimension in "The Killers"?

The kind of writing that can be done. How far prose can be carried if anyone is serious enough and has luck. There is a fourth and fifth dimension that can be gotten. —Ernest Hemingway, Green Hills of Africa

If a writer of prose knows enough of what he is writing about he may omit things that he knows and the reader, if the writer is writing truly enough, will have a feeling of those things as strongly as though the writer had stated them. The dignity of movement of an ice-berg is due to only one-eighth of it being above water. A writer who omits things because he does not know them only makes hollow places in his writing. —Ernest Hemingway, Death in the Afternoon

The first three dimensions are height, width, and depth. These are found in any story or novel. The fourth dimension must have something to do with time. And perhaps if we could understand the fourth dimension we could understand the fifth. But the fourth is a sufficient challenge. In stories like “The Killers,” Hemingway seems to be “omitting” quite a few “things.” For example, he does not explain why someone wants Ole Andreson dead. Presumably the writer has omitted “things that he knows.” According to Hemingway the intelligent reader will “have a feeling of those things as though the writer had stated them.” So what unstated things do we have feelings about in “The Killers”? I believe these “things” constitute the fourth dimension Hemingway was talking about in Death in the Afternoon.
Ole Andreson was a boxer who did something to infuriate a powerful mobster. There was not much Ole could have done except lose a fight he should have won or win a fight he had been told to lose. It seems likely he accepted money to go into the tank and caused another mobster to lose a lot paying off bets. The mobster who lost, whom we will call “the Friend,” as one of the two hired killers describes him, spread the word he would like to know Ole’s whereabouts. Ole understandably kept on the move until he arrived in Summit, where he hoped to remain invisible until the heat wore off. But word got back to Chicago that Ole was living in that town and the Friend sent an agent, or possibly his consigliere, to check.
The Agent could ask a few questions at the barber shop or even on the main street and quickly learn Ole was staying at Mrs. Hirsch’s rooming house. He would go when Ole would be at work. Ole is a big, strong man with no education. He must do some kind of manual labor, possibly even pick-and-shovel work. Whom should the Agent meet when he rang the bell but the empty-headed, bell-shaped, nosy, gabby Mrs. Bell.
Here is a scene that comes to life out of the fourth dimension. The Agent asks about vacancies. She shows him a couple of rooms and then the bathroom and community kitchen and finally explains the house rules. He asks if there are ever any boxing matches in town. He is quite a boxing fan. This prompts her to tell everything she knows about the roomer named Ole Andreson who was “in the ring.”
The Agent does not show too much interest. She might tell the big Swede someone was asking about him. But the Agent learns Ole eats dinner every night at six o’clock at Henry’s Lunch Room. It must have been this lonely widow who was responsible for that faulty information getting back to Chicago—and passed on to Max and Al. They decided to ambush Ole on a Sunday night because business would be slow at such a one-arm joint that night of the week. But Ole did not go to Henry’s because he had not worked up an appetite.
Mrs. Bell is in love with Ole. In the fourth dimension we can see her making an effort to develop a relationship. She inquires about his health. She offers to bring him plates of things she has cooked with her own little hands. But Ole is not interested in this needy woman—and anyway he is trying to keep a low profile. He has had to move many times because his nemesis discovered where he was holed up. Many people would like to be friends of the Friend in Chicago. Ole tells Nick: “I’m through with all that running around.” He is an exhausted animal brought to bay. Whenever Mrs. Bell asks him if he would like some of her soup or meatloaf or pecan pie, he tells her he just ate at Henry’s. This is why this not overly bright landlady is the only person who believes Ole eats at Henry’s every night at six o’clock when he only eats there most nights after work because six is when the special dinner is served.
The Agent meets Mrs. Bell on a weekday. He stops by Henry’s and sees that, sure enough, Ole Andreson arrives at six o’clock and sits at the counter. The Agent takes this information back to the Friend, who recruits a couple of professional killers to make the visit we read about.
The door of Henry’s Lunch-Room opened and two men came in.
They come from the fourth dimension.
Max and Al have been sharing a quart of booze on the drive. This is why they are so boisterous when they barge in. Hemingway needed them drunk. They have to convey a lot of exposition in dialogue. Even so, the exposition is mainly inferable from their banter. When Max tells George, “We’re killing him for a friend. Just to oblige a friend, bright boy,” Al says, “Shut up. You talk too goddam much.” The other characters—George, Nick, and Sam—say little. Nick and Sam are bound and gagged. George just wants to stay alive.
The fifth dimension would have to be a dimension of the fourth dimension which would make the events in that dimension palpable. The fifth dimension might actually give height and width to the fourth dimension, if not depth. In other words, the reader’s conception of the things omitted would be so strong they would seem to have been included in the narrative. Hemingway’s ice-berg technique creates immediacy. The reader is held in the present from minute to minute; he cannot remember what he has been told and what he has merely surmised.
“The Killers” is an intentionally ambiguous title. Hemingway is suggesting Ole had multiple killers, including especially Mrs. Bell, who is so in love with the big, gentle Swede that she cannot stop pestering him or stop talking about him. Even though he has been in his room all day, she has somehow managed to get inside—no doubt to ask if he would like her to bring something to eat:
“He’s been in his room all day,” the landlady said down-stairs. “I guess he don’t feel well. I said to him: ‘Mr. Andreson, you ought to go out and take a walk on a nice fall day like this,’ but he didn’t feel like it.”
“I’m sorry he don’t feel well,” the woman said. “He’s an awfully nice man. He was in the ring, you know.”
“I know it.”
“You’d never know it except from the way his face is,” the woman said. They stood talking inside the street door. “He’s just as gentle.”
George is one of the killers too, because he has tacitly agreed to identify Ole if and when he arrives. When George asks, “What you going to do with us afterward?” he shows he has already written Ole off. Max and Al have never seen the Swede. Al cannot just blast any diner who is big and might be Swedish. Nick and Sam are also cooperating, hoping to stay alive. Nick goes to warn Ole because he is ashamed of himself for being so easily subdued. Sam said nothing but, “Yes, sir.”
Ernest Hemingway was a great admirer of Stephen Crane. At the end of Crane’s well-known story “The Blue Hotel” the Easterner makes the following statement to the cowboy:
“Every sin is the result of a collaboration. We, five of us, have collaborated in the murder of this Swede. Usually there are from a dozen to forty women really involved in every murder, but in this case it seems to be only five men—you, I, Johnnie, old Scully, and that fool of an unfortunate gambler came merely as a culmination, the apex of a human movement, and gets all the punishment."

How does it feel to Salva to be without a family in A Long Walk to Water? What has he lost?

For Salva, “family” meant far more than the nuclear family of parents and siblings that has become typical in heavily urbanized countries. Living in a small village, many of his fellow Dinka people were also members of his extended family. The overlap between family and community provided a huge support network. Losing this network leaves him feeling not just lonely and frightened but disoriented.
When Salva is forced to flee, his association with his uncle Jewiir becomes paramount on the long trek toward (they hope) safety. Jewiir, tragically, is killed, but Salva must continue. Although he has lost more family, he also says that he has gained strength. The firsthand experiences of loss and witnessing violence, along with the physical deprivations suffered on the long walk, are also combined with the necessity to form new community bonds. Ultimately those will enable him to both take on the role of son in his adoptive family and find his birth father when he returns to Sudan.

Translate Act ll, scene 2, lines 160–171 between Romeo and Juliet (skipping the exchange between Juliet and the Nurse) into modern-day text messages that you send by phone, being able to recognize some of the famous lines from the text.

The following is a line by line translation of lines 160-171. I have included the original text (in bold) along with a modern translation.
Juliet:Hist, Romeo, hist! O, for a falconer’s voicePsst, Romeo, psst! Man, it would be gr8 if I had better vocals
To lure this tassel-gentle back again!So I could call back my bae smh!
Bondage is hoarse, and may not speak aloud;AH, so I gotta be cool;
Else I would tear the cave where Echo lies,Otherwise I’d bust up Echo’s crib,
And make her airy tongue more hoarse than mine,And make her say my boo’s name,
With repetition of “My Romeo!”Till she CT no more!
Romeo:It is my soul that calls upon my name.My bae is calling me.
How silver-sweet sound lovers’ tongues by night,It sounds so nice when I hear her voice at night,
Like softest music to attending ears!Like the best song I’ve ever heard <3
Juliet:Romeo!Hey!
Romeo:My nyas?Sup bae?
Juliet:At what o’clock tomorrowWhat time
Shall I send to thee?Should I shoot you a text?
Romeo:At the hour of nine.9
Juliet:I will not fail; ‘tis twenty years till then.Ok, but that feels like forever.
I have forgot why I did call thee back.CR why I called.
This translation is obviously highly open to interpretation. Also, in these 11 lines (160–171) there is no exchange between Juliet and the Nurse. The only dialogue is Juliet speaking to herself and then her short conversation with Romeo. To make the translation as close to text language as possible, I dropped some of the superfluous details used in the original that would be considered cumbersome to say while texting. However, because the original precedes each translation, line by line, you should be able to see what has been included and what was left out.

You may mean to begin before line 160, as the nurse is not present between lines 161–170.
This is at the very end of the famous balcony scene in which Romeo and Juliet declare their undying love to each other and plan to marry as soon as possible. Shortly before line 161, the nurse has been calling to Juliet to come back in before someone wonders who she is talking to on the balcony. Juliet goes inside and then returns to speak some more to Romeo. If you are going to include text from before line 160, think about the fact that they are agreeing to get married ASAP and that they love each other. Romeo says he can hardly trust this is real—you might want to include famous wording about him fearing it is all a dream, too "sweet" to be "substantial." Then Juliet says, well, if it's for real, marry me—and he agrees.
A summary of what they say to each other from line 160 is as follows: Juliet calls Romeo back to tell him once again how much she loves him. She says she is a captive of her parent's house, so she has to be silent. However, if she could, she would cry the beloved name Romeo over and over until it echoed everywhere. She says that the mythical Echo would grow hoarse by having to repeat the word Romeo so many times. She is emotional and intense.
Romeo is intense too! He means that their souls are one when he says it is "my soul" calling out his name. He also notes that the sweet sound of lovers' voices calling to each other through the night is like a soft music to those who can hear it.
With that in mind, let's convert this to text messages. We will imagine that Romeo has gone home, and Juliet is in her bedroom, feeling a deep desire to say more to him. This is only an idea of what you could say, so you will want to make it your own! I will tag Juliet's messages "Juliet" and Romeo's "Romeo."
Juliet: Romeo, SCNR. Wish I could pull you back here to me on a string. FWIW, I couldn't risk talking anymore cuz my family might have heard. Just want to say ILY ILY ILY. ILY so much I want to shout out your name over and over. Romeo, Romeo. ILY. ILY. I would shout your name so much that Echo's airy tongue would be hoarse. LYSM.
Romeo: OMG! LYSM times infinity. Hey, it's my soul saying my name. We are one, we are together!!!! I love hearing from you at night. It's a silver-sweet sound, like soft music, when you text me. LOTI with all my heart because we found each other. LYSM.
Juliet: R!
Romeo: What?
Juliet: When tmow?
Romeo: 9 :) :) :)

With whom is the man of today compared to by Arnold in the poem "Dover Beach"?

Contemporary Victorian man is left flailing about the shore in darkness, just like the "ignorant armies" who fought each other in Sicily at night according to Thucydides's account of the Peloponnesian War. As the sea of faith recedes, man is plunged into a spiritual darkness, unable to make sense of a world in which the God of orthodox Christian belief no longer enjoys the same kind of veneration.
As such, modern man is forced back on his own resources, which means remaining true to the things that truly matter. In this ever-changing world, he must hold fast to a still point, something that can provide him and his loved-ones with much-needed stability in place of a rapidly disintegrating common faith. And the best place to find such stability—indeed the only place—is in the love we have for the people who matter most in our lives.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43588/dover-beach

Matthew Arnold's "Dover Beach" is an expression of concern and existential disquiet about the state of faith in Victorian England. At that time, ideas were changing quickly, and the speaker is afraid that the "Sea of Faith" is retreating from the island, leaving the people unsure of where to turn or what to believe. It is in this spirit that he compares himself and his readers—expressed collectively as "we"—to "ignorant armies" clashing with each other in a state of confusion.
Arnold famously describes these people, himself included, as being stranded on a "darkling plain." The darkness here is metaphorical as well as literal. The people are no longer able to see by the clear lights of the faith they had once known; instead they find themselves in the dark, "ignorant" of what is the right path and clashing uselessly with each other, both groups effectively blind. Like Sophocles long ago, struggling to find meaning in confusion, the speaker hears a "note of misery" in the sound of the sea because he cannot identify what is true any more.

What is an analysis of Little Bee by Chris Cleave?

Little Bee, originally named Udo, is a young, black Nigerian woman who develops a friendship with Sarah, a white English woman; they original meet in a random encounter on a beach in Nigeria. Both women undergo numerous traumatic events that threaten to destroy their lives. Sarah and her husband save Bee from a terrorist situation that kills her sister; however, Little Bee must spend two years in a detention center (effectively, prison).
Sarah’s life back in England continues with difficulty after Andrew, her husband, dies by suicide. The solace she finds with a lover, Lawrence, is only partial. She finds her career with a fashion magazine unfulfilling and finally makes a career change. Sarah finds hope for the future in her young son.
Bee adopts a pseudonym as part of her effort to reinvent herself. This process includes learning English while in the detention center and hiding her status as a refugee in England. Although she attributes her stay in England to her safety, however precarious, her divided loyalties are shown as she frequently imagines speaking with the Nigerian women who remain in the country, whom she addresses as the “girls back home.”
The growing closeness between Sarah and Bee forms the core of the novel. Despite their different backgrounds and situations, they are able to help each other through difficulties. While the relationship is convincing on some levels, it could be argued that the overall presentation of these transcultural connections often comes across as unrealistic.

Hello, I have to do a small essay on the War of American Independence in my British civilization class with the help of a speech of William Pitt on November 20, 1777 but don't know where nor how to start. Any advice?

William Pitt, Earl of Chatham, was first elected to the British Parliament in 1735. (He is often called “the Elder” to distinguish him from his son with the same name, called “the Younger.”) A former de-facto prime minister and leader of Parliament, Chatham was called the “Great Commoner” but also served in the House of Lords. He is considered the primary architect of British imperialism.
In later years, however, Chatham took an active stance in opposing King George in his policies during the Revolutionary War. The November 20 speech has become famous for a prominent Englishman’s stated opposition. Along with declaring that the war could not be won, he even expressed empathy for the rebels’ attitude.
By the fall of 1777, France was actively supporting the American revolutionaries financially and with troops, led by General Lafayette. Britain seemed on the brink of war with France and Spain, and the English feared that war would lead to invasion. One major turning point in the war came at Saratoga, New York, when the rebel troops defeated the British forces under General Burgoyne, who surrendered on October 17. However, because all the news had to travel by ship, no one in Britain knew that until December 2, 1777.
Chatham made the speech on November 20, 1777—therefore, without up-to-date knowledge of the situation. In some respects, the speech was typical of his position as revealed in early speeches, notably his hatred for the French. Even at the time he delivered it, this particular speech made an impression, and his political rivals seized on it as evidence of his faulty position. Others, however, recognized that the ideas were highly relevant to British governance even beyond their relevance to the specifics of the war. Pitt’s biographer, Basil Williams, says that this speech “enunciates principles which must form the text of the statesman for all time.”
Chatham believed that the king had overstepped his bounds and was violating the constitution by attempting to govern without adequate input from Parliament. He strongly urged the representatives to resist the Crown’s efforts. Rather than wait for the king to ask their advice, Parliament must take a more active role in leading the country out of what he saw as a disastrous course of action.

We must display, in its full danger and true colours, the ruin that is brought to our doors. [I]t is the right of Parliament to give, as it is the duty of the Crown to ask advice. But on this day . . . no reliance is placed in our constitutional counsels.

Chatham famously called for Britain to end the war, which he believed could not be won, and to negotiate peace with the colonies—but not to grant independence.

I know that the conquest of English America is an impossibility. You cannot, I venture to say it, cannot conquer America.

He was very concerned that, while the British used Native American fighters (“to associate our arms the tomahawk and scalping knife”), the colonists were using French troops and negotiating with other European powers to aid them as well—all of which left Britain seriously vulnerable to invasion. Not just the forces deployed in America, but especially the funds expended were needed at home to prepare for that eventuality. He even compared that potential invasion with what was happening in the colonies.

My Lords, if I were an American as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop were landed in my country, I would never lay down my arms—never—never—never!

Although Chatham opposed independence, in spirit he understood the rebels’ feelings.
https://books.google.com/books?id=jLuoAgAAQBAJ&dq=William+Pitt+November+20+1777&source=gbs_navlinks_s

https://www.britannica.com/biography/William-Pitt-the-Elder

Is Bartleby mentally ill?

The simple answer is that we don't know for sure. It would require Bartleby's examination by a trained professional to settle the matter once and for all. However, there seems little doubt that the poor, troubled clerk does seem to be suffering from some kind of mental illness, possibly depression. It's his complete apathy which points toward this—necessarily provisional—conclusion. Many people when they get depressed simply feel that they can't do anything; they remain trapped in a state of torpor, in some cases physically unable to move. That's the state that Bartleby appears to be in. He's not being willfully defiant in staying put; it's simply that he's been taken over by a sudden, deadening bout of lethargy, a common symptom of depression.

Explain how globalization transformed world demography. What patterns emerged in terms of international migration?

Globalization is a process by which organizations begin to function beyond their normal political borders. Global acting organizations view the world in terms of how much influence can be exerted on international entities. Organizations like government or business are entities consisting of human beings with real needs, and satisfying these needs, whether social or commercial, is impacted by how organizations interact with humans on a global scale. Impacts have consequences, both positive and negative.
Population shifts occur for a variety of reasons; for example, civil unrest or war displaces populations. The immediate impact of population displacement has both positive and negative consequences. The movement of people most certainly strains the resources of countries where refugees ultimately relocate. Resources such as healthcare and nutrition are almost always under-supplied, leaving impoverished migrants in countries with little or no support to draw from. From a humanitarian perspective, globalization produces waves of humanitarian crises in numerous parts of the world. While globalization may not be the direct cause of undue suffering, it is globalization that encourages migrants to seek better lives in foreign countries with stable economies. The contradiction is that while globalization may be a root cause for humanitarian crises, globalization is the only useful tool to combat universal human suffering.
Globalization creates relationships between international organizations that can be called upon to alleviate suffering. It is difficult to argue against the role globalization has played (mostly positive) in delivering health resources to areas previously bereft of resources. The globalization of family planning services and disease eradication and control, as well as clean water, have been responsible for improving overall global health and increasing lifespan. Globalization has allowed for partnerships between organizations and governments that focus critical resources on resolving many different social and health issues. Seemingly, these positive attributes would have an opposite impact and discourage migration. However, economic considerations most always are the reason for the movement of people, and concerns such as better healthcare do not trump financial considerations.
Because of globalization, opportunities for employment and creating a better life are enhanced. In a review of world migration patterns, economic opportunity is the critical driver for immigration. The relocation of manufacturing and industrial production to economically stable countries spurs immigration from less financially stable countries. Unsteady economies lead to political unrest and instability. Migrants seeking opportunities to better themselves economically leave to find permanent employment and hope for a better future.
Given these facts, if globalization has made migration a viable alternative to residing in the same less-than-favorable economic condition, it can be inferred that globalization not only encourages migration but facilitates the assimilation of migrants into the culture. Globalization has made it possible for citizens to retain their national heritage and participate as world citizens. Though globalization is often critiqued as the leading cause of global unrest, it is equally valid that a socially just society can only exist in a world that openly accepts global migration as a part of positive social change.
https://unchronicle.un.org/article/globalization-migration-what-modern-world-can-learn-nomadic-cultures

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/heavy-traffic-international-migration-in-an-era-of-globalization/

https://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/prudential-sleeping-giants/mapping-the-shifts-in-global-population/476/

Who was the most responsible for the death of King Duncan?

In act 1, scene 7, Lady Macbeth certainly urges her husband to commit murder, doesn't she?

Was the hope drunkWherein you dressed yourself? Hath it slept since?And wakes it now, to look so green and paleAt what it did so freely? From this timeSuch I account thy love. Art thou afeardTo be the same in thine own act and valorAs thou art in desire? Wouldst thou have thatWhich thou esteem’st the ornament of life,And live a coward in thine own esteem,Letting “I dare not” wait upon “I would."

Worth noting, however, is that Lady Macbeth, for all her urging and pressing, does not want to be the one to murder Duncan herself. She wants the deed finished, and she wants Macbeth to do it for her. So it might be easy to lay blame on her for seemingly pressing Macbeth to commit a murder against his wishes.
However, this assertion neglects one very key fact. Macbeth always has a choice in his actions. To blame the entire murder on Lady Macbeth is to claim that Macbeth is powerless against her. And this isn't true. He could have made different choices. In the end, he wants the prophecies of the witches to come true; perhaps Lady Macbeth is simply a voice for the desires that burn deep within her husband.
Duncan dies because Macbeth kills him. Macbeth longs for greatness and, in the end, is willing to do whatever is necessary to make this dream of his a reality. He is ultimately to blame for Duncan's death.

Legally, both Macbeth and Lady Macbeth are equally responsible for the murder of King Duncan. In legal terms, Macbeth is the direct perpetrator since he stabbed King Duncan until he died. Lady Macbeth is the indirect perpetrator as she coaxed Macbeth into killing King Duncan because she could not carry out the deed. Macbeth is introduced in the play as a brave, ambitious but loyal warrior. From this point of view, the audience is led to believe that he cannot contemplate killing King Duncan. This is justified in the number of times he doubts the merit of the deed with Lady Macbeth manipulating him by bruising his ego. Lady Macbeth, on the other hand, is the brains behind the murder as she plans when and where he must kill King Duncan. She forces Macbeth’s hand by questioning his manhood and belittling him. This shows that, she is the one most responsible for the murder as Macbeth would never had committed such an act had it not been for his wife’s persuasion.

This is an interesting question—and one that requires much thought. Does murder start in the hand, when the act is committed, or does it start in the mind, when the act is first thought of as a necessity? This question needs to be answered before the question of who is most responsible for Duncan's death in Macbeth can be answered.
In the play, we see, of course, that Duncan dies at Macbeth's hand. Macbeth is physically responsible for Duncan's death. But if it hadn't been for the leading of his wife, Lady Macbeth, one can argue that Macbeth never would have killed Duncan. She played a major role in convincing her husband that the deed had to be done. Indeed, the guilt she feels is evident in her compulsive need to "wash" the blood off her hands while she is sleepwalking after the murder has been committed.
However, it is not insignificant that Shakespeare starts this play off with the three witches and their meeting with Macbeth, in which they tell him he will soon be Thane of Cawdor and, eventually, king. They are the ones who first plant the idea in his mind—Duncan must die so he can take over the vacated throne.
Murder usually starts in the mind. Therefore, it can be said that the witches hold the most responsibility for the death of King Duncan.

What type of fiction is "Papa's Parrot"?

"Papa's Parrot" is an example of what's called realistic fiction. This means that it deals with situations that could happen to just about anyone, telling us a story in which recognizably real life events take place.
At some point in their lives, most young people get embarrassed by their parents. It's a perfectly normal part of growing-up. And it's is this particular rite of passage that forms the basis of what happens in "Papa's Parrot." Young Harry doesn't visit his old man's candy store as much as he used to because he's embarrassed at the way his dad's always talking to his parrot, Rocky. Harry's embarrassment has caused him to neglect an important family relationship. Again, this is something to which most of us can relate and further illustrates why "Papa's Parrot" is an example of realistic fiction. Although the unusual way that Harry discovers just how much his father misses him may not be something that most of us will experience, the underlying emotions are instantly recognizable, all the same.

Who were the two white women that Zora met, and why were they at her school?

In Chapter 4, Hurston recalls that "two young ladies just popped in" one afternoon when she was at school. She says that white people would often bring their friends, "who came down from the North," to visit the village school, because "a Negro school was something strange to them." We, therefore, assume that these two white ladies are from the North, visiting friends in Florida, and curious to see "a Negro school." However, these particular ladies are different because they arrive unannounced.
Hurston says that the two ladies both "had shiny hair, mostly brownish" and that one of them was "dressed all over in black and white." However, she was most attracted by and curious about their fingers, which she describes as "long and thin, and very white." Hurston reads for the two ladies, and they are very impressed.
The ladies, Mrs. Johnstone and Miss Hurd, invite Hurston (or Zora, as I'm sure she would have been known to them), to the hotel they are staying at and give her "strange things, like stuffed dates and preserved ginger." The ladies then have their picture taken with Zora, and they give her one more present, a cylinder stuffed with "One hundred goldy-new pennies." The next day, more presents begin to arrive, including "an Episcopal hymn-book bound in white leather," "a copy of The Swiss Family Robinson," and, finally, "a huge box packed with clothes and books."
The two ladies return to Minnesota about a month later, and we hear no more about them. We can only assume that they were two ladies visiting friends in Florida, curious to look around "a Negro school," who became particularly fond of Zora after hearing her read.

The two women that Zora meets are from Minnesota. They turn up at her school one day, and as one of the best students in class, Zora is chosen to read to them. The ladies are so impressed that they invite Zora to have lunch with them at their hotel. After lunch, and after another reading test, this time from a magazine, they give Zora a gift of some books.
This is an important episode in Zora's life, as it kindles in her a life-long love of reading. Not only that, but it broadens her cultural and intellectual horizons, making her realize that there's a much bigger world out there beyond the cramped confines of the small town in which she lives.

What are the main ideas of Becoming Kareem?

In this memoir, basketball legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar’s story is specifically directed to young readers. It follows him from his childhood and youth as Lew Alcindor, through his conversion and related name change, to his early career.
Abdul-Jabbar stresses that his early childhood was no indicator of his future tremendous success. He is straightforward about negative experiences from having an introverted personality, and the tightly disciplined household in which he was raised. While he credits basketball with helping him through the difficult teenage years, he does not promote the idea that playing sports is a panacea for all adolescents. Abdul-Jabbar is also straightforward in discussing the racism he faced on a daily basis.
The book emphasizes the importance of positive role models, especially adults who will mentor children but also older or more experienced adults in later phases. Many of these were his sports coaches, but he uses the term more broadly for people he admired and who set the bar high so that he was inspired to reach upward. The main individuals he discusses, in addition to his parents, are two coaches, Jack Donahue and John Wooden, as well as Muhammad Ali and Bruce Lee.
Beyond his achievements in sports, Abdul-Jabbar credits Ali and other figures with inspiring his ongoing dedication to social justice issues of all kinds, not limited to racially-focused civil rights goals. Even as players cannot excel without other strong team members, social change cannot be effected without broad-based participation to helping the diverse communities of which all people are members.
https://books.google.com/books?id=8nBFDgAAQBAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s

https://kareemabduljabbar.com/

What were the key political and religious differences between France, Russia, Prussia, and England during the period 1450–1750?

Given that this question is very broad as stated, it might be best if we approached it in an inverted form by first focusing on what the similarities were among these states during the period referred to. We can then extrapolate the primary or central differences as negatives and perhaps can grasp them better in that way and arrive at a concise solution to the question at hand.
France, England, and Russia all, during that 300-year span, emerged from periods of internal and external strife to become unified, powerful nation-states. France expelled the English in the Hundred Years' War, then settled its internal religious conflicts in the aftermath of the Protestant Reformation and became a unified Roman Catholic kingdom under an absolute monarchy. The Russians, after expelling the Tatar overlords who had controlled the country for 200 years and then going through a period of internal disorder known as the Time of Troubles, emerged as an absolute monarchy under the Romanovs and secured its position as a European power under Peter the Great.
England, during the same overall period, 1), emerged as a stable state under the Tudors after the conclusion of the Wars of the Roses, 2) seceded, under Henry VIII, from the Roman Catholic church, 3), became a world power with the defeat of the Spanish Armada by Elizabeth I, 4) went through the period of the Civil War, the Commonwealth, the Restoration of the monarchy and the Glorious Revolution to emerge as the beginnings of a constitutional democracy, and 5) through the Union Act in 1707 merged with Scotland to become a united kingdom encompassing the British Isles—a single state containing four countries: England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland.
Prussia did not emerge as a major power until the end of the period under discussion here, and was not a nation-state in the same sense as the others because 1) it was only a part of the German lands (the Holy Roman Empire at that time) as a whole, and 2) it held territory to the east, outside the boundary of the Empire, where non-German-speaking peoples lived.
In each case the similarity is that these four states gained and consolidated power during the centuries in question, settling internal disorders and conflicts with outside powers, and became stronger, essentially creating the model of the modern state as we know it. Yet in every other respect, there were crucial differences among them. In religion, France was Roman Catholic, England had its own independent church that was separate from the Protestant churches on the Continent, Prussia was mostly Protestant, and Russia was Eastern Orthodox. Politically, England was an incipient democracy under a Constitutional monarchy.
France and Prussia were absolutist monarchies but with the vestiges of feudalism supplying a counterweight to the monarch in the form of the nobility and the local regional control it exercised. Russia's monarchical system was more absolute than that of the others because the feudal system, with its de facto division of power between the nobles and the monarch, had not existed to the same degree in Russia as in the West. The Czar's power was thus more total than that of the monarchs of France, Prussia, and especially England, where, as stated, the beginnings of democracy were already in existence.

The complexity of this question allows only a limited response in this venue, however, in general, the key religious differences between the populations of France, Russia, Prussia, and England can be itemized as follows:
The people of England, for the bulk of this time period, were primarily adherents of the Church of England, established in 1535 as the kingdom's official church following a schism with the Roman Catholic Church. During this nascent period in the development of Anglicanism, the practical theological differences between it and its parent church were limited.
The people of Russia, and the Russian royal court, during this time period were adherents of Orthodoxy, one of the two great, pre-Protestant strains of Christianity.
Prussia was the first European state to adopt Protestantism, becoming an official Lutheran nation in 1525.
France was, and continues to be, a majority Roman Catholic country.
In terms of political life, England, Russia, Prussia, and France were all monarchies, however, several unique aspects in their political structures can be identified:
The power of the English kings was limited by parliament; specifically, the Crown was unable to levy taxes without consent of the legislative body. In addition, English jurisprudence was based on common law.
The power of the royal court was less restrained in France. The Estates-General, a legislative-like body, existed off-and-on during the time period 1450-1750, though was a far weaker institution than its counterpart in England and usually filled a role that was more consultative rather than legislative. French jurisprudence was based on civil law.
In Prussia and Russia royal power was almost absolute.

What were the key political and religious differences between France, Russia, Prussia, and England during the period 1450-1750?
This question is of enormous scope and is, therefore, difficult to answer concisely. One could write a multi-volume work on the topic. One might approach the topic by identifying major religious and political developments in each country. You can then identify the major differences.
Overall, the period in question was one of political consolidation and centralization with a heavy element of religious conflict and violence. In general, royal power achieved greater control over religious institutions as time progressed, which led to greater religious uniformity.
The Protestant Reformation gave birth to French Calvinism, which gave rise to political conflict and religious wars between the Huguenots and Catholics in the late 1500s and into the 1600s. The Catholics were ultimately victorious and, while religious toleration was granted in the short-term with the Edict of Nantes (1598), it was revoked in 1685 by King Louis XIV "the Sun King," who took leadership of French Catholicism. Louis also developed the French bureaucracy and centralized the French monarchy to previously unseen levels.
While Russia did not have a Reformation as such, western influence following the integration of the Ukrainian lands led to a cultural shift that precipitated the Old Believer Schism in opposition to the reforms of Patriarch of Moscow Nikon. The Old Believers, who opposed a revision of church ritual, were suppressed by Tsar Alexis. Alexis then consolidated power and asserted authority over the Russian Orthodox Church by defrocking Nikon. This state dominance was formally instituted under Alexis' son, Peter the Great, who made himself the administrative head of the Church in 1720.
Prussia started out as a duchy of the Kingdom of Poland. Frederick William of the Hohenzollerns wrested Prussia from Polish control, creating the small state of Brandenburg-Prussia by 1657. Prussia became a separate kingdom only in 1701, with Frederick III as the king. His son, Frederick William, established Prussia as a major military power in the mid-1700s and administrative apparatus fit for the absolutism of the age. Prussian rulers were Calvinists, but the population was a mix of Lutheran, Calvinist, and Catholic. The kings perhaps had a relatively hands-off approach toward religion, but Protestantism was clearly favored, with Catholics barred from high government positions.
In England, Henry VIII's Act of Supremacy (1534) established the Church of England as an entity independent from the papacy; it also established the king of England as the head of the Church of England. Following Henry's death, Protestantizing reforms under Edward VI gave way to Catholicism under Queen Mary (with the persecution of Protestants), and then to a new Act of Supremacy (1559) under Elizabeth (with the persecution of Catholics). In the end, the Anglicanism and the Church of England became entrenched. English absolutism peaked with Charles I but the so-called Glorious Revolution of 1688 granted more authority to the Parliament, while also ensuring that all subsequent kings of England would be Anglican.