How successful was the New Deal in the short- and long-term at achieving Roosevelt’s goals?

In order to stabilize the economy, reform the financial system, and provide relief, jobs, and new employment opportunities for the American people during the Great Depression, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his administration issued a series of experimental programs, projects, and regulations that provided help for those in need, mainly the elderly, the unemployed, and the youth.
These programs were known as the New Deal, and they were instituted between 1933 and 1936. The most famous projects and programs were the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), the Civil Works Administration (CWA), the Farm Security Administration (FSA), the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 (NIRA), and the Social Security Administration (SSA).
To determine whether or not the New Deal was successful, we need to look at its short-term and long-term effects and answer two basic questions: Did it totally eliminate poverty and unemployment? No. Did it have a lasting impact on the economic climate of the US? Yes.
In his first hundred days of office, Roosevelt ended the Prohibition and won passage of fifteen other major laws, such as the National Industrial Recovery Act, which allowed the workers to form unions and bargain for better wages and working conditions. Despite his efforts to fulfill his mission, however, the Great Depression was still affecting the American people. Because of this, Roosevelt enacted the Second New Deal in 1935, which included much more aggressive reforms and programs. Thus, the positive short-term effects of the New Deal and the Second New Deal included:
The rapid creation of manual-labor jobs for the unemployed (with the help of the CWA program)
The establishment of the Farm Credit System, which allowed cooperating organizations to make loans for the production and marketing of agricultural products (with the help of the Farm Credit Act)
The establishment of the Social Security Administration, which enabled people to retire with pension
The government's attempts to regulate fair wages and prices, in order to stimulate the economic growth of the country (with the help of the NIRA program)
The individuals that didn’t support the New Deal argued that all the acts and programs that were enacted by Roosevelt were, in fact, short-term policies and that his administration didn’t include significant plans or changes that could improve America’s economy in the long-term. However, as history shows, there are several positive long-term effects of the New Deal and the Second New Deal as well. These include:
The enactment of the Social Security program, administered by the Social Security administration, which guarantees the social welfare of millions of Americans to this very day (with the help of the Social Security Act)
The protection of the rights of all employees and employers (with the help of the National Labor Relations Act)
The creation of the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation), which is a corporation created to insure bank deposits (with the help of the Banking Act, a.k.a. the Glass-Steagall Act)
The creation of the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission), which is an agency that oversees and regulates the US stock market (with the help of the Securities Exchange Act)

Why does Achebe use juxtaposition with the details about the buried bicycle and the buried son?

Jonathan's buried bicycle is symbolic of his Igbo identity. Like his bicycle, he's had to bury that identity during the vicious civil war that's torn Nigeria apart for three long years. But with the war now over at long last he's able to dig up his bicycle—and with it, retrieve his buried identity—and move on with his life.
The bicycle's inevitably a bit rusty and has seen better days. But it's still in working order. And although Jonathan's son is no longer alive, what he represents—the Iwegbu family name—still lives on. For despite his sad loss, Jonathan has been able to keep his family together in the midst of all this chaos, bloodshed, and suffering. That explains his remarkable optimism in spite of everything that's happened. Just as Jonathan can use the bicycle once more as a way of providing for his family, he can point to the fact that most of his family are still alive as proof that he has much to be thankful for.

What are some instances where each character experiences danger in Lord of the Flies?

All the boys were in danger, of course, when they accidentally set the trees on fire. For this reason, Ralph makes a rule that fire must stay on the mountain, and if people want to cook then they can go up there to do it. Too many little fires, even for cooking, are too dangerous.
Henry, one of the little ones, experiences some danger when Roger follows him, alone, down the beach. Henry is enraptured by the tide moving in and the effects of his footprints and little stick runnels that he makes in the sand; they seem to trap bits of ocean life, and Henry enjoys seeing them and manipulating their positions with his superior size and power.
At the same time, Roger begins to pick up stones and throw them—throw them "to miss" the younger boy—near Henry. "Here, invisible yet strong, was the taboo of the old life." Roger does not throw the stones to hit Henry, but it is clear that he is testing and manipulating the child as the child manipulates the water. Henry turns "obediently" each time a stone falls, looking for its source, but Roger hides behind a palm so as not to be seen. Roger tests boundaries, and a "darker shadow" now creeps "beneath the swarthiness of his skin." There are some malicious impulses within him that have, heretofore, been checked by society, but as the boys' society breaks down further and further, Roger will present even more of a danger to others.
The boys encounter danger when order truly begins to break down. Jack and his hunters no longer seem to respect the authority once associated with Ralph and the conch. When Piggy tells Ralph to blow it again and "make'em do what [Ralph] want[s]," Ralph knows he shouldn't. He says,

If I blow the conch and they don't come back; then we've had it. We shan't keep the fire going. We'll be like animals. We'll never be rescued.

However, Piggy feels that they'll "soon be animals anyway." As order breaks down, as the boys grow more and more resistant to the authority represented by the conch, they all become endangered.

All of the characters are in danger through the entire novel; if the boys are not rescued, they will die on the island. This sense of peril is sharply sensed by the more astute boys, Ralph, Piggy, and Simon. Those who follow Jack try to live in the moment and pretend that they can hunt enough food to survive. Their refusal or inability to face reality increases the danger that the more sensible boys face, to the point of constituting a threat to their safety and even causing Simon’s and Piggy’s death. Jack sends his hunters to raid their camp and steal Piggy’s glasses so he can control the fire making. Although Simon apparently falls accidentally to his death, it is also implied that the savage boys chased him to the edge. Near the end, when the savage boys pursue him, Ralph narrowly escapes being killed by the rock they push onto him. After they try to burn him out, although he is able to flee, it is actually the arrival of the adults that saves him.

Who saved Kenny from the whirlpool?

Chapter 13 is about Kenny’s reckless decision to swim at Collier’s Landing despite not understanding what a “whirlpool” was; he was annoyed by his brother Byron’s teasingly telling him it was a “Wool Pooh,” or Winnie the Pooh’s evil twin. Kenny goes for a swim there, and he gets pulled under. Not knowing how to extricate himself, he flails around, gets sucked further down, and then has an ominous vision of the hideous Wool Pooh and an angelic girl. Byron jumps in and saves him, which Kenny envisions as Byron fighting the evil Pooh creature. By pulling Kenny from under his chin, Byron manages to drag him to shore. There, his brother shakes the water out of him and first yells at him, then hugs and kisses him, and even cries.

What is the main point of the arguments in Embodied Literature: A Cognitive-Poststructuralist Approach to Genre by F. Elizabeth Hart?

F. Elizabeth Hart analyzes genre by first explaining how we have come to "taxonomize" literature into genres. She links the categorization of literature to the work of natural scientists in the late 1700s and 1800s, when Western civilization was avid to categorize nature and society and develop a taxonomy across all elements of culture. However, Hart dismantles this drive in literature by using poststructuralism, which seeks to devalue genre and focus on communication, intent, and varied discourse. Hart states that literature is a dialectical exchange. Dialectical, in this sense, means seeing a piece of writing from many different perspectives. For instance, if you were to analyze the book A Game of Thrones by George R. R. Martin, you would not just classify it as fantasy fiction. Martin claims he was inspired by the War of the Roses, an actual historical event, in England. Thus, A Game of Thrones is not merely fantasy but a fictional reflection of actual, vivid history. According to Hart and her poststructuralist interpretation, you could also view A Game of Thrones through many other genres. Hart sees most literature as belonging to multiple genres.

Compare and contrast the characterization of the two fathers in Ivanhoe: Cedric and Isaac. Analyze how each is characterized, how they try to protect their children, and how they maintain their heritage.

Cedric is Ivanhoe's father, while Isaac is Rebecca's father. Both are men who are highly conscious of their respective heritages (Saxon and Jewish) and also highly flawed as individuals. Cedric is harder towards his son than Isaac is towards his daughter.
Cedric does not want to see Ivanhoe married to Lady Rowena, mainly because of his pride in his Saxon heritage. He cares more about the advancement of the Saxon people than he does about his son's own personal happiness. He would rather see Rowena in a more politically advantageous marriage that could help the Saxons. He also disinherits Ivanhoe when he goes off to fight for the Norman king, viewing this move as a betrayal of their Saxon heritage. This, more than anything else, shows how Cedric puts patriotism above his own son.
Isaac is presented as a stereotypical Jewish character, interested in profit more than much else. Unlike Cedric, he is presented as a timid man, since he lacks the same amount of social power as a member of an ethnic minority. However, he cares deeply about his daughter and would be willing to pay any price for her safety—even if he does struggle to give the money up. He is aware of how his heritage makes him an object of scorn in his society, but he tries to do the best he can to make a good living off people that despise him (yet still run to him to borrow money).

Cedric is characterized as an arrogant, violent person. He is angry at his son Ivanhoe for backing Richard (a Norman) as king. Cedric is also opposed to Ivanhoe's wish to marry Cedric's ward, Lady Rowena, who Cedric wants to marry to Lord Athelstane, a Saxon contender (or pretender, depending on your point of view) to the English throne. Cedric is not very protective of Ivanhoe. When Ivanhoe is wounded at the tournament, Cedric allows strangers to care for him. He also disinherits Ivanhoe for learning about Norman customs and ways.
Cedric wants very much to protect his threatened Saxon heritage and see a Saxon king on the English throne. He feels that his power has been diminished by the Normans, who he hates. Cedric puts his faith in his Saxon heritage, not realizing that the Saxons and Normans are too blended for England to go back to an idealized vision of Saxon purity. Cedric rejects Ivanhoe for accepting and adapting to that reality, and arguably cares for more for his fantasy of recapturing the past than for his living child.
In many ways, Isaac (Rebecca's Jewish father) is more of a father to Ivanhoe than his real father. He is the person who makes sure Ivanhoe has armor and a horse for the tournament. Isaac is a cautious man due to the prejudice against Jews, who are despised by both Normans and Saxons. As the narrator says:

there was no race existing on the earth, in the air, or the waters, who were the object of such an unremitting, general and relentless persecution as the Jews of this period.

Isaac nevertheless arranges for Ivanhoe to get medical care after he is wounded. This is provided by his daughter Rebecca, a skilled healer. Isaac, a kind hearted man, cares deeply about Rebecca and sends Ivanhoe to rescue her after she has been abducted. Thus, as a Jew, Isaac is a foil to Cedric. Hated by everyone, he doesn't participate in the hatred of a rival group, which is what drives Cedric as a character. This makes Isaac a more compassionate man.

In The History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides, what light do the speeches like the one titled "The Athenian Case" shed on Athenian political practices and policies, Athenian democracy, and the effects of war on the Athenian population?

I'm not quite sure which passage you are referring to when you ask about the "Athenian Case." In my copy of Thucydides, I've never exactly seen that term used specifically (there are at least two candidates that immediately spring to mind), and even a Google search with the words "Athenian Case Thucydides" returns very little to clarify this question. Regardless, Thucydides, when writing about the nature of war and political policy, has a very pragmatic analysis, by which moral and ethical considerations are ultimately powerless when juxtaposed against military and political might. This analysis is invoked by the Athenians, who are ultimately motivated by their own political self-interest, and a very pragmatic approach which could be labeled a form of realpolitik. For all that the Athenians are often celebrated as a bastion of democracy and Greek culture, when it came to their political calculus, they were self-serving, brutal, and deeply amoral.
There are at least two encounters in History of the Peloponnesian War that advance this thesis. The first, found between 1.66 and 1.87, details a conference held in Sparta on the subject of Athenian aggression. Athens sent their own representatives to defend the city-state against the charges being laid against it. In this speech they invoke the memory of Marathon and the Persian War, and the Athenian role in throwing back the invasion. After this, they defend their acquisition of empire on three grounds: "security, honour, and self-interest." From here, they note, that "it has always been a rule that the weak should be subject to the strong" and that Sparta is just as much subject to this rule as Athens itself and is little different in this respect. For Athens, it is natural that the strong dominate those weaker than themselves and that Athens deserves praise for being more magnanimous a master over its subjects than it needs to be. Finally, the Athenians warn Sparta that, should it destroy the Athenian Empire and take its status as dominant Greek hegemon, it would soon see itself become a target of hatred as well.
The second encounter I'm thinking of is the Melian Dialogue (one of the most famous scenes in Thucydides), a conversation between the Athenians and the Melians (whose colony the Athenians had under siege), on the subject of surrender. Here we see many of the same themes and ideas expressed earlier by the Athenians at Sparta. Famously, the Athenians repeat their same underlying political thesis: "the standard of justice depends on the equality of power to compel and that in fact the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept." This is an encounter between the stronger (Athens) and the weaker (Melos) and opposes a political calculus focused on a kind of realpolitik against one grounded in moral virtue. The Melians appeal to notions such as justice, friendship, perhaps even piety, while the Athenians continuously reject their appeals, holding fast to their threats of Melian destruction. The Melians refuse to surrender and the war continues. In the end, Thucydides tells us, the Melians were conquered by force, with the adult males being killed while the rest of the population was sold into slavery.
Citation note: this answer was written with reference to: Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War (Penguin Classics). Translated by Rex Warner. New York: Penguin Books, 1972. Athens' speech to the Spartans could be found in the chapter labeled "The Debate at Sparta and Declaration of War" which runs from pp. 72-87. The Athenian speech itself is found on pages 78-82 (1.73-1.78). The Melian Dialogue, on the other hand, was found between pages 400 and 408 (5.84-5.116).

What is the tone in "I started Early – Took my Dog –"?

Tone is described as the author’s attitude toward the subject. To determine the tone of this Dickinson poem, we must first identify the subject.
The subject is the speaker’s encounter with the ocean as she goes for a walk with her dog. To precisely identify how she feels about this subject, it is best to examine the diction and its connotation throughout the poem.
In the first two stanzas, the speaker uses words like “Mermaids,” “Frigates,” and “Sands” to establish a mystical image of the sea, which she perceives as extending “Hempen Hands” to her.
The tone in the third stanza changes, as indicated by the word “But.” Words like “Shoe,” “Apron,” “Belt,” and “Boddice” are used to describe how the incoming tide soaks the speaker from toe to chest. Rather than stepping out of the way to avoid being splashed, she remains transfixed, thinking about how no man has “moved” her. Paired with the discussion of her body as represented in her attire, this suggests that the speaker could be thinking about her sexuality.
As she turns to leave, the speaker imagines the sea trying to follow her, filling up her shoe with “Pearl,” a word which suggests that the sea treasures his encounter with the speaker. This indicates her desire to be sexually desired while establishing a tone of wonder.
In the final stanza, however, the speaker realizes that her fantasy is nothing but. When she returns to the man-made world of “the Solid Town,” the personified sea leaves her, “bowing.” While the tone is awestruck throughout most of the poem, the ending of the speaker’s encounter with the sea underscores her desire for contact and immersion.

Who waves to the engineer from the back porch?

Each day, as he passes by a little white cottage, the train engineer is greeted by a woman and her daughter, who wave at him from the porch. Over the years, the engineer has come to see these friendly faces as providing certainty in an uncertain world. Everything else may have changed, but the warmth and friendliness of the woman and her daughter certainly haven't.
The trouble is that the engineer has constructed an ideal of what he thinks the woman and her daughter are really like. He's naturally, but wrongly, assumed that, because they always wave at him when he goes past on the train and because they always seem so happy to see him, they're friendly, good-natured people. But when he gets off the train one day and goes to visit them, he gets more than he bargained for. For it seems that during all those years spent driving that train, the old engineer's perspective was horribly skewed, to say the least.

Explain whether Jonas's assignment could be considered an honor or a punishment.

Jonas's assignment as the next Receiver of Memory is considered a special honor because it is a prestigious position that is very important to the community. Jonas's community is founded on the concepts of Sameness, and it is his job, as the Receiver of Memory, to contain and preserve humanity's past memories. Jonas is essentially responsible for his community's stability, comfort, and safety. If something were to happen to Jonas, his difficult memories would return to the community, and chaos would ensue. Jonas's assignment also gives him wisdom, and he has the unique opportunity to consult the ruling Committee of Elders on certain policy issues. It also takes a special person, with the Capacity to See Beyond, to be assigned to such a prominent position in the community.
Despite the honorable nature of Jonas's significant assignment, it could also be considered a punishment, because he suffers from the weight and trauma of past memories. Jonas's assignment is extremely painful, and he is required to experience humanity's most disturbing memories without the use of medication. In addition to Jonas's painful experiences, he is also prohibited from speaking about his assignment, which makes him feel extremely lonely and depressed.

why is Madame Loisel unhappy with her life at the beginning of the story?

Madame Loisel

was as unhappy as though she had married beneath her; for women have no caste or class, their beauty, grace, and charm serving them for birth or family, their natural delicacy, their instinctive elegance, their nimbleness of wit, are their only mark of rank, and put the slum girl on a level with the highest lady in the land.

Although her birth was relatively humble—she is the daughter of artisans—Mathilde feels as though she is destined for a more exceptional life. Though she possesses no money and no real connections, as a young woman she dreamed of marrying an important man, a "man of wealth and distinction," because she is beautiful and charming and feels as though this ought to be qualification enough. In short, she dreamed big but was eventually "married off to a little clerk" who works for the government's department of education: hardly a glamorous match. Her simple life is not the exciting one for which she'd hoped, and she laments the "poorness of her house," worn furniture, and her one young servant girl. She dreams of "delicate meals, gleaming silver, tapestries peopling the walls," and she is dissatisfied with a life that provides none of these. Even when her husband procures an invitation to a fancy party, Mathilde is unhappy because she has nothing nice enough to wear.

For analyzing a persuasive contrast essay for two different stories, what are the themes for both stories—"Native Aliens" by Greg van Eekhout and "Martian Odyssey" by Stanley G. Weinbaum—and the shared subject and attitude of the authors? Are they the same or opposite?

"A Martian Odyssey" and "Native Aliens" both deal with the same theme—the troubled interactions between natives and colonizers and their attempt to understand each other. "A Martian Odyssey" by Weinbaum, written in 1934, was a seminal science fiction story. In this tale, Dick Jarvis, the American chemist on an international crew sent to Mars on the Ares, recalls his interactions with the alien Tweel. The alien is more intelligent than Jarvis in many ways, and while Jarvis cannot make head or tails of the alien's language, Tweel figures out Jarvis's language in short order. Jarvis says,

But Tweel hung on to some of my words. He remembered a couple of them, which I suppose is a great achievement if you're used to a language you have to make up as you go along. But I couldn't get the hang of his talk; either I missed some subtle point or we just didn't think alike—and I rather believe the latter view.

While Tweel is able to quickly intuit English, Jarvis cannot fathom Tweel's language and makes the decision that he and Tweel don't think alike. However, Tweel quickly understands addition, and Jarvis also concludes that Tweel's civilization uses telescopes and is "civilized," though the other earthlings disagree and can't stomach the idea that an alien could be superior to an earthling. This story is about the cooperation between colonizers (in this case, earthlings) and natives (though we consider Tweel an alien, he is native to Mars).
"Native Aliens" by Greg van Eekhout is also about the interaction between colonizers and natives. In this story, there are two alternating tales. The first is the tale of a Dutch family in Indonesia in the aftermath of the Indonesian revolution of the 1940s, when the Dutch are forced from their home. Though the Dutch consider Indonesia their home, and the father's skin "is as dark as the Indonesians" (151), the Indonesians do not consider the Dutch natives. The second tale is that of earthlings who settle on the planet of Breva and who are expelled, though they look like Brevans.
Weinbaum's story is about the power and intelligence of aliens, those who are foreign to us, and the humility of colonizers. The story by van Eekhout is a companion piece about the power of the natives. Both stories are commentaries on the ways in which natives and colonizers do not always understand each other, though they are quite similar in many ways.

How is the Treasury of Atreus different and similar to other forms?

The Treasury of Atreus is an ancient tomb in Mycenae, Greece. The tomb is in the architectural style of a beehive, or "tholos." The tomb resembles a large version of a brick oven. The Treasury of Atreus was discovered by German archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann, and it was Schliemann who gave the tomb its name.
The enormous Treasury of Atreus is situated on the side of Panagitsa Hill in Mycenae. The tomb's architectural design and the engineering method used for the structural support is similar to other tombs made during the Bronze Age in the Mycenaean World. However, the extravagant detailing and size make the Treasury of Atreus stand out among the other tombs discovered in the area. The shape of the Treasury of Atreus is also in the style of a monument, which leads archaeologists to believe that it is the tomb of a sovereign from an unknown era.
Another unique feature of the Treasury of Atreus is its luxurious detailing compared to other Bronze Age structures. For instance, porphyry and alabaster are incorporated into the tomb's interior spaces.
https://www.arct.cam.ac.uk/Downloads/ichs/vol-1-777-790-como.pdf

https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Joukowsky_Institute/courses/mediterraneanbronzeage/files/3888303.pdf

What is the writing style of this book? How would you describe Perowne's character as a Neurosurgeon?

Saturday is a 2005 critically-acclaimed novel written by English novelist and screenwriter Ian McEwan. It covers several socially and politically relevant themes, as it talks about the Western society after the tragic events that took place on 9/11. The main story focuses on a day (Saturday) in the life of a successful and wealthy neurosurgeon Henry Perowne from London, who gets in a car accident with a criminal and thus gets his life turned upside down.
Typical of his style, McEwan presents a very descriptive prose, vivid landscapes, and thorough character analysis and development. His writing style is unique; he analyzes his characters intimately and realistically and manages to incorporate enough tension in the narrative to keep the readers on edge. The novel is written in the third person, mainly from the perspective of the main protagonist. It has a somewhat historical narrative, as McEwan writes about the protests against the British involvement in the 2003 US invasion of Iraq; however, the majority of analysts consider the novel a thriller. I find it noteworthy to mention that the book is also written in free indirect style, which allows the reader to further explore Perowne’s thought process.
On the surface, Henry Perowne seems like a normal, middle-aged man who lives a privileged lifestyle and has a wonderful family. However, he is constantly looking for meaning in his life, trying to determine what’s right and wrong in a modern society filled with unpredictability and chaos. Thus, through Perowne, McEwan encourages the readers to cherish the small and seemingly insignificant details and moments in life and to think on the complexity of human nature.

In chapter 20 of Player Piano, the Shah gets a haircut. The barber tells a story about another barber who invents a machine to give haircuts, thus putting himself out of a job. This is a theme in the novel: note that in chapter 8, engineer Bud Calhoun also invents a machine that can do his job and is fired. We might also relate this to the broader science-fiction theme of the ″irresponsibility of science and technology.″ By building this theme into his novel, what do you think Vonnegut is saying about technological invention and engineering?

Player Piano is centered around themes of industrialization and automation. Vonnegut depicts a world in which nearly all jobs have been automated, and there is an increasing class divide between the small elite class that mostly manages the machines and everyone else, no longer needed as workers.
The protagonist, Paul Proteus, is an especially interesting character. It is largely in him that Vonnegut draws out the tensions of attitudes towards work and progress. Paul Proteus is near the center of the push for automation, while also holding onto an appreciation for hard work that automation is increasingly rendering obsolete.
The two anecdotes you give (of the engineer and the barber) both reveal contradictions in the logic capitalist society has towards workers. In theory, such inventions make it far easier to complete the jobs assigned to these workers, and it would seem appropriate that they be rewards for making such inventions. A logical reward might be higher pay, or the ability for them and their fellow workers to continue to be paid while doing less work, or having more ability to choose what kind of worth they do, since machines could handle the bulk of it. However, this is not the case. The advancement of technology fails to make their lives easier and simply pushes them into a position of lesser social power.
This suggests that the society is not organized around doing the work that is necessary to be done or around rewarding people for their contributions to society. Rather, Vonnegut suggests that workers only receive what little they do because they are needed, and that when they become unnecessary, they will be pushed into a position of even lesser social power. This and the depiction of the insurgents in Play Piano suggest that the answer lies not in working harder or in technological inventions, but in finding ways to directly wield social power. This is a picture of an antagonistic society existing under the veneer of a value system that claims hard work and ingenuity will be rewarded.
A separate theme worth noting is the appreciation for creativity, art, and work that is not simply about producing a product, but about the process. We can think about Proteus's appreciation for gardening with basic tools, or of barber shops not simply as a place to accomplish a task (cutting people's hair), but as a social space and a place for customers and barbers to work together to create hairstyles in a way that has room for artistic approaches.

Did the Radical Republicans in Congress repeatedly try to impeach President Andrew Johnson?

The Radical Republicans did try to impeach President Johnson. The Radical Republicans believed that President Johnson was blocking attempts to help former slaves as they adjusted to being freed. They were upset that President Johnson had vetoed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 that gave full citizenship to African Americans. They also were unhappy that he vetoed the law that gave the Freedmen’s Bureau more power to set up courts to deal with individuals who violated the rights of African Americans. While Congress overrode both vetoes, the Radical Republicans now believed that President Johnson couldn’t be trusted. They also believed his proposed reconstruction plan was too lenient with the South.
The Radical Republicans were concerned that President Johnson might use his military powers to control the military governments that had been established in the South as a result of the Reconstruction Act of 1867. They were also upset that President Johnson had campaigned against Republicans in the election of 1866 and had urged the states not to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment. They wanted to limit the president’s powers, so they passed the Tenure of Office Act, which prevented him from removing some government officials without consulting the Senate. President Johnson objected to the law, and he removed his Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, without Senate approval. As a result, he was impeached and put on trial. Congress failed to remove President Johnson from office when it fell one vote short of the required two-thirds vote that was needed to remove him.

What was the secret society?

The Secret Agent: A Simple Tale is a novel by Joseph Conrad set in 1886. The protagonist, Mr. Adolf Verloc, is the titular secret agent who works in London for an undisclosed foreign power. Verloc and his employer at the embassy could be viewed as a secret society. They seek to manipulate the United Kingdom through acts of terror. Verloc's handler tasks him with bombing the Greenwich Observatory with the hope that it will spur the London government into cracking down on the local anarchists.
In addition to using the anarchists as scapegoats, Verloc also takes advantage of his mentally challenged brother-in-law. This decision blows up in Verloc's face as Stevie accidentally kills himself in the bombing. Verloc's grief-stricken wife kills him in revenge, is betrayed, and then finally takes her own life. The secret society failed in their plot and harms everyone involved.

Which two characters express sorrow about the killing of deer in the Forest of Arden?

Jacques expresses sorrow over the death of a deer he once witnessed. He claims that the poor wounded creature shed tears just before it passed away. Jacques then goes on to say that hunters are "usurpers" and "tyrants." What he means by this is that, by hunting deer, humans are taking over the natural habitat of other creatures.
Yet at the same time, one must recognize that, in Shakespeare's day, all the forests and the animals that lived in them belonged to the reigning monarch. Hunting deer was, therefore, strictly forbidden—a capital crime, no less—but as many poor peasants had no alternative food supply, they risked their lives to prevent themselves from starving to death. So, hunting deer could be seen as a symbol of defiance of royal authority, which is appropriate here because the Forest of Arden is a place of exile for those banished from court.
One of those exiles is Duke Senior, whose hunting in the forest is most definitely the behavior one would expect of an outlaw. Yet even this Robin Hood figure expresses sorrow at the killing of deer, these "poor dappled fools," as they are the "native burghers" of the forest—they are its original habitants.

What makes the Supreme Court justices so powerful? Identify and explain at least two factors that lead to the great influence of the Court. What are the limitations of the Supreme Court? Identify and explain at least two limits on the power of the Court.

The U.S. Constitution enumerates many powers in our representative system of government. For example, Article III of the U.S. Constitution grants the Supreme Court of the United States its judicial power. Article III, §1 states, “the judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Without this provision, the Supreme Court justices would not exist.
Nonetheless, the justices are very powerful. One reason is because they can serve for life. They have no term limits on their length of service on the Court. Unlike members of Congress and state government officials, the justices can influence the interpretation of the laws of the United States for decades before finally retiring.
A second reason is because those interpretations shape rulings that form the bedrock of our principles for generations, long after the justices retire. Justices are usually reluctant to overturn established law due to respect for precedents. Precedential cases provide consistency and predictability in the legal system. So the justices’ opinions can leave behind a legacy of jurisprudence.
Another reason the justices are very powerful is because of their own ruling in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). Chief Justice John Marshall issued the majority opinion for this case, which established the power of judicial review. Although it is not an enumerated power in the Constitution, Chief Justice Marshall used the case as an opportunity to declare that “a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law” and that “it is emphatically the province and the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” The opinion greatly expanded the powers of the Supreme Court.
A fourth reason the justices are so powerful is because their decisions are the supreme law of the land. Their rulings cannot be overturned in a lower court of appeal or district court. Also, the justices’ opinions apply to state governmental decision-making, too, on issues of federal matters. So the reach of their rulings is far and wide.
However, in our system of checks and balances, no branch of government has unlimited power, and that applies to the judicial branch. One limit on the justices’ power is the threat of impeachment and removal. Although it rarely occurs, it is a possibility. Another more common limit is Congress’s power to legislative overrule a decision of the Supreme Court. Additionally, Congress may alter the number of members who serve on the Court, but this has remained unchanged at nine seats for over a century. The main concern is judicial tyranny, the danger of which is significantly reduced by these limits on judicial power.

The Constitution’s separation of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government is based largely upon John Adams’s essay "Thoughts on Government," published in 1776. Rather than centralizing power in a single branch, which could become tyrannical, each branch uses a system of checks and balances to limit the extent of the others. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the judicial branch, and its power rests on its ability to influence the executive and legislative branches through judicial review of constitutionality. Laws and executive orders can be invalidated by the Supreme Court if they are deemed unconstitutional.
Supreme Court justices hold their offices during good behavior, which means they retain their position for life unless they are impeached. Impeachment has has only happened once, in 1804. While this is meant to protect the justices’ decisions from the partisan influence of the election cycle, it cannot entirely remove the role of politics from the judicial branch. Justices are seated following a partisan process, meaning a nomination by the president and appointment by the Senate. Their prior opinions, usually as federal court judges, are taken into consideration in order to choose a potential Supreme Court justice who is likely to side with the political party in power Supreme Court justices serve lifetime appointments, which means that their own political sympathies, as indicated through their record of liberal or conservative interpretation, can influence the laws of the United States for generations.
The executive branch chooses Supreme Court nominees, which are then appointed or rejected by the legislative branch. Legislative checks upon the judiciary are not limited to approving or disapproving nominees; Congress is also able to decide how many justices serve on the Supreme Court. The number of justices has changed multiple times: the Judiciary Act of 1789 established a Supreme Court with six justices; the Judiciary Act of 1801 limited the court to five; FDR tried to expand the number to fifteen in 1937, but failed to do so; and the number has remained nine since the Judiciary Act of 1869, leaving the number of justices odd to prevent ties. Additionally, the legislative branch can amend the Constitution to overturn judicial branch rulings of unconstitutionality, and it can impeach Supreme Court justices if they are convicted of treason, bribery, or other high crimes.

Which are the main differences between Fahrenheit 451 novel and its graphic novel?

Bradbury was involved in Tim Hamilton's adaptation of Fahrenheit 451, so in plot and the "feel" of the drawings the graphic novel is faithful to the original work. The main differences are the necessary condensation—as critics have noted, graphic novels tend to take books and turn them into "scripts" that rely on dialogue. Hamilton does this, removing much of the interiority of the novel. Second, we lose most of Bradbury's lyrical, imagistic prose. The graphic novel is much more spare in its language: it is a rewrite. For this reason, although Hamilton's images are compelling, I believe the "translation" across genres loses something important. Clarisse, for example, turns from an ethereal amethyst and milk-white teenaged waif who represents poetry and nature into a somewhat sexy woman who questions Montag, but doesn't necessarily stir him to think about society and his role in it.
Likewise, we lose such details as Montag's introspective examination of his alienation from Mildred and his yearning to overcome it, and his introspective epiphany at the end that fire can warm (be put to good use) and not just burn (destroy). In general, the graphic novel is a good rendition of the plot (action) elements of the novel but loses some of the crucial interiority and lyricism of the original. This is not meant to slam the graphic version, but to point out how genres change emphases and sometimes lose crucial pieces of an original.

Describe the poet's use of postcards as the central image of the poem "Postcards from Kashmir."

The poem uses the image of a postcard as a metaphor for fond and idealistic memories. The poem begins with the speaker receiving a postcard from Kashmir, a geographical region in northern India. The speaker is from Kashmir, so he states, "my home a neat four by six inches," which is the size of a postcard. Without telling us exactly what the picture on the postcard shows, the poet says, "Now I hold the half-inch Himalayas in my hand," so we at least know that it pictures a mountain range. The poet describes this as an example of "neatness," which he views favorably. Yet this seems like an unemotional understatement. We feel a poignancy in the thought that "home" can be reduced to a "neat" two-dimensional format small enough to fit in a mailbox. Surely the poet considers "home" to be much greater than that.
The poet clarifies this point in the third stanza, but ironically, he now presents the postcard as an exaggeration of home. The speaker knows that when he has a chance to return to Kashmir, the water won't be as deep a blue as on the card and the other colors of the landscape won't be as brilliant. But by stating "my love so overexposed," we understand that the speaker has idealized memories of his homeland that he knows are better than the realities that exist there.
Thus the image of the postcard is both an understatement and an exaggeration of "home" to the speaker. The card can't possibly contain all the strong feelings and memories he has, but it also depicts a representation of home that is more beautiful than his actual experiences were. The speaker obviously loves his home and cherishes its beauty while acknowledging that his memories are enhanced by homesickness.
https://literarydevices.net/understatement/

https://www.britannica.com/place/Kashmir-region-Indian-subcontinent

Where in the book does Darry change?

Darry's manner towards Ponyboy changes when he sees Ponyboy at the hospital in Chapter 6, after Ponyboy, Dally and Johnny have saved the children from the burning church. At this point in the novel, Darry expresses his worry that he had lost Ponyboy to the fire in an uncharacteristic and unexpected emotional moment. He also acknowledges to Ponyboy his fear of losing someone else that he loves. After this point in The Outsiders, Darry becomes more gentle with Ponyboy in a general way. He is more affectionate and softer with Ponyboy, and he shows more patience and understanding. At the same time, Ponyboy begins to appreciate Darry more and understand why Darry is so strict and hard on him. He shows Darry more affection in turn, behaving in a friendly and familiar way modeled by Sodapop, which strengthens their bond even more, making the three brothers a family in the truest sense.

Why was Proust searching for "lost time?"

“Lost time” has a double meaning in In Search of Lost Time. On the one hand, as already mentioned above, it refers to time lost in the sense that time is constantly passing us by, and it is difficult to regain, or recapture these moments from our past in full. For Proust, to truly recapture a moment means not only intellectually remembering it, but remembering what it felt like, as is the case in the famous “petite madeleine” scene.
The other sense of “lost time” pertains not to moments the narrator wishes to recapture, but to the “quest” of the novel, which is the narrator’s quest to find his true vocation. After hearing Vinteuil’s Sonata, the narrator has the epiphany that art may contain more truth than life: whereas in life, social convention may prevent people from getting to know the innermost selves of others, in art, the viewer or listener sees or hears through the perspective of another - the artist. Art may capture the inner soul, or “essence,” of the artist. The themes and motifs in Vinteuil’s famous Sonata are, for instance, characterized as “fairies” which are the manifestation of Vinteuil’s inner world. The narrator is not as interested in factual truths as he was in psychological truths, and was particularly fascinated with the possibility of coming to know the innermost soul of another person. Art thus carries more “truth” than life for him, a realization which brings the narrator to understand that his time as a socialite has been time lost in the sense that it has been time wasted: his true vocation is to write. In the costume-ball scene which comes at the very end, the narrator, seeing his aged friends, understands that he does not have any more time to lose and must begin to write.
“Lost time” thus refers both to the fleeting nature of time, and also to the time the narrator has lost leading up to his epiphany that his life’s purpose is to write. By writing, the narrator will both be able to capture and convey time past to his readers, as well as live the rest of his life with purpose.

Marcel Proust was such a gifted writer that he was able to make millions of readers believe in a false premise. The whole of his enormous multi-volume novel, beginning with Swann's Way, is motivated by the narrator's supposed urgent desire to recapture lost time before he dies. He is under time pressure because he is sick and growing old. This would be a thrilling experience--if anyone were able to do it. It would be like time travel. But it was invented to give the protagonist/narrator a motivation with which the reader could identify, and it was simply not true. Proust was writing a memoir. He did not "capture" anything he wrote in all of the volumes. He either relied on his conscious memory or on pure fiction. The petite madeleine dipped in camomile tea was--essentially--a gimmick. Proust's ability to resurrect the past was probably no better than our own. His book is essentially a memoir tailored to appear to be the story of a quest. In the last volume, Le Temps Retrouve (Time Regained) he claims to have succeeded in his quest, but the conclusion is somewhat disappointing because the characters have all grown old. The story about Swann's love for Odette could not be something the narrator remembered. How could he be remembering such tiny subjective details about what happened to somebody else? It is pretty obviously the narrator's own experience attributed to Charles Swann and the narrator's own feelings he is describing. Proust was involved in many love affairs with young boys, not young girls (in flower). Edmund White explains this in a short, interesting book called Marcel Proust. Proust changed the boys to girls in his story because it was illegal and dangerous to write about homosexual activities in the first person. A French author could write that somebody else had a homosexual liaison, writing in the third person, but not that he had one himself, writing in the first person--which could be construed as a confession. This explains why so many of the "girls" the narrator knew, including Albertine, had so many homosexual relationships with other girls. These were really boys with boys. Proust could not hold on to his boyfriends in spite of his money, culture, and social status. He was always losing them to other boys or to older men. Swann's love for Odette may have been a disguised tale of Proust's love for an unknown young lad. We cannot take anything at face value. Remembrance of Things Past is a work of fiction, a brilliant, subtle and sensitive work.

What are the musical devices, rhythm, and meter in "The Hollow Men" by T. S. Eliot

As in much of his poetry, in "The Hollow Men" Eliot uses a basically free-verse format with modifications in which the lines take on a quasi-metrical quality at times. For instance:

The supplication of a dead man's hand
Under the twinkling of a fading star.

These two lines stand out from their context as being more or less in iambic pentameter. Elsewhere there are occasional rhymes:

There, is a tree swinging
And voices are in the wind's singing.

That the poem does not achieve any sort of formal regularity in meter or rhyme is perhaps symbolic of incompleteness: of the broken, stunted character of the hollow men themselves. As in "The Waste-Land" Eliot creates a poem that is self-consciously fragmentary. There are the usual quotations—from the Lord's Prayer and from nursery rhymes—interspersed with Eliot's own words. As usual, also, an epigraph is given without identifying the source: "Mistah Kurtz—he dead" is from Joseph Conrad. The lack of identification enhances the air of mystery and remoteness as well as the dream-world quality of the whole poem. One gets the impression of the speaker stumbling about in the dark:

The eyes are not here,
There are no eyes here
In this valley of dying stars.

Is the poem "musical"? Yes, in the sense that the combination of free verse with meter gives us a sing-song effect, but one which is ironically used to convey the grim and even horrific tone of the poem. The musical approach is explicit as Eliot is paraphrasing the jingle "Here we go round the mulberry bush [or prickly pear]" and then transforms the rhythm of it into "This is the way the world ends." It is deeply ironic and typical of the resigned tone of much of the poetry of Eliot's age.

Would you call the character of Doctor Faustus heroic? Give reasons for your answer.

Doctor Faustus isn't a hero. He performs no heroic deeds and, in fact, bargains away his soul for an eternity for a short time with more power. He is the protagonist of the story and perhaps the hero of his own story, but ultimately, Doctor Faustus is a tragic character and a serves as a moral warning to the audience.
Faustus's actual goal is to have godlike powers. He doesn't pursue necromancy to bring back a lost love or to right some wrong; he does it for his own pleasure and for the power he believes he will get. For the same ends, he bargains his own soul for 24 years of power.
He rejects the advice of a good angel and instead listens to demons like Lucifer and Mephistophilis. He doesn't use his powers for any good: he uses them to create mischief. At the end of his life, he receives a warning to repent and rejects it. Faustus is decidedly unheroic and serves as more of a cautionary tale to those who might seek power and pleasure over more holy pursuits.

What happened to the Roanoke colony?

Since 1587, the Roanoke Colony (Lost Colony) of 115 English settler has been an unsolved mystery. The leader of the colony, John White, had to return to England mid-expedition for more supplies. He left his daughter, wife, granddaughter, and the rest of the settlers on Roanoke Island. The war between England and Spain kept John White in England until he was able to return about three years after in 1590. The colony had since been abandoned and John White was not able to find any other clues except the word "Croatoan" which was carved onto a post. Croatoan was the name of both an island and the Native American inhabitants of it. Several conclusions have been drawn with no definitive answer. Some theorized that the colonists had been abducted or killed by the tribe. Others speculated that the colonists had attempted to sail back to England and died in the process. In recent years, DNA testing began on local families to test relations between Roanoke settlers and Native American tribes. No conclusions have been drawn. Archaeologists have continually revisited the past by re-evaluating objects that were excavated in the area in an attempt to draw a conclusion. Ivor Noël Hume led an archaeological dig uncovering a layout similar to a German alchemist workshop from the 16th century. This workshop layout excavation is still being revisited with the application of new dating techniques. New debates have also suggested that the site has vanished altogether. Geologist J.P. Walsh has suggested that "shifting currents and rising waters [would have] inundated the site in the past couple of centuries". Much debate surrounds the geographical area as coastal erosion is quickly erasing the possibility of studying the landscape.

The simple answer is that no one knows for sure. The true fate of the Roanoke colony is of the great mysteries of American history. Founded in 1587 on Roanoke Island, off the coast of modern-day North Carolina, the colony consisted of 115 English settlers, led by John White, who became Roanoke's governor. Later that year, White set sail for England to stock up on much-needed supplies. Unfortunately, his return to the colony was delayed by an outbreak of war between England and Spain and he was unable to reach Roanoke for another three years.
When he eventually arrived back in America, White could find no trace of the colony or its inhabitants. All that was left behind was the mysterious word "Croatoan" carved into a wooden post. This was the name of an island to the south of Roanoke which was home to a Native American tribe of the same name. A number of historians have speculated that the English settlers were abducted and killed by the Roanoke, or perhaps slaughtered by marauding Spaniards. Whatever the truth of the matter, future colonists such as the founders of Jamestown learned valuable lessons from the failure of the mysterious "Lost Colony" of Roanoke.

How did Mormons influence the settlement of west?

Mormon pioneers were instrumental in settling the vast Utah Territory for the first time. Between 1847 and 1869, about 70,000 Mormons journeyed by wagon train from the Midwest to the newly established Salt Lake City beside the Great Salt Lake.
The founder of the Mormon religion, Joseph Smith, originally established communities in Illinois, Ohio, and Missouri. However, persecution due to polygamy and other controversial practices caused a mob to murder Joseph Smith. His successor, Brigham Young, led the Mormons westward, fleeing the persecution and looking for a land in which to settle. While most of the congregation remained behind in Iowa, in 1847 Young and a vanguard arrived in the Salt Lake Valley, and Young proclaimed it the new Mormon homeland.
Almost immediately, the Mormons began the construction of homes, schools, churches, farms, and irrigation systems. From Salt Lake City, Young sent out scouting parties to other sites, and the Mormons established Ogden, Fillmore, Provo, and other towns. Eventually from their base in Utah the Mormons spread out to create settlements in California, Idaho, Nevada, and Canada.
Due to his status as the original settler of Utah and founder of Salt Lake City, President Millard Fillmore appointed Brigham Young the first governor of the Utah Territory in 1850. Young responded by building roads, establishing businesses, organizing a militia, and planning other activities to make Utah stronger and more self-sufficient. However, the Federal government began to receive reports that only Mormons were allowed to hold public office and that Mormons continued to practice polygamy despite a legal ban on the practice. A small army of federal troops was sent out to depose Young and install a non-Mormon governor. Young relinquished his position as governor on April 12, 1858, and the Mormons were pardoned for their insurrection.
We can see, then, that despite persecutions, severe hardships, and even opposition from the federal government, the Mormons played a vital role in the settlement of the Utah Territory in the West.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/mormons-settle-salt-lake-valley

Who or what is "the devil" in The Midwife's Apprentice? What do the devil's visits reveal about the villagers?

At the time when the story is set—the Middle Ages—belief in the literal existence of the devil was widespread. It's no exaggeration to say that medieval folk believed that Satan was everywhere, actively engaged in a constant battle to corrupt humankind and lead men and women from the path of righteousness.
Belief in the devil hardened into a dangerous superstition, which encouraged people to ascribe Satanic qualities to people they didn't like. Women who didn't fit in, for example, or who appeared strange to their neighbors in the village, were often demonized as witches.
In The Midwife's Apprentice, Alyce uses this superstition to her own advantage, getting back at the villagers for all the hatred, scorn, and suspicion that they subjected her to. She comes up with the novel idea of carving hoof prints into planks of wood, which she then stomps into the ground leading up to the houses and meeting places of the people who've wronged her.
She knows that the superstitious villagers will take one look at the hoof prints and conclude that the devil's been sniffing around the village, looking to take the souls of sinners. The hoof prints are too small to be a horse or a cow, they figure (there are also only two of them). So they conclude that the prints must've been left by the devil.
Alyce's mischief leads to some pretty embarrassing situations for the village's resident sinners. The devil's footprints lead the priest and some of the villagers to the forest, where they find the baker preparing for an illicit rendezvous with Jane the midwife. The baker's wife is accompanying the priest on his late night devil-searching expedition, and it's fair to say she's not pleased with what her husband's been up to. Contrary to what she might believe, however, her husband's sins have not been revealed by the devil but by Alyce.

Santiago explains to the sun why alchemy exists and what alchemists do. What does he say? What does it mean?

Earlier in the story, the Englishman tells Santiago that one is closest to the Soul of the World when one yearns exclusively for a specific purpose. The Englishman also contends that the Soul of the World is always a positive force.
Santiago discovers that there is only one way to find the Soul of the World, and it is through alchemy. Alchemists believe that a metal can be purified through fire. Once purified, the metal will be free of its individual properties and become the Soul of the World. The Soul of the World is supposedly filled with all wisdom and has knowledge of all earthly things. The alchemists call the discovery of the Soul of the World the Master Work. They believe that turning lead into gold will give them the Soul of the World.
By extension, once humans have the Soul of the World, they can acquire the wisdom to become their best selves.
Later in the story, Santiago meets the sun and has a conversation with it. He explains why alchemy exists and what alchemists do.
Santiago says that alchemy exists to inspire people to become their best selves. He likens the journey of transforming into one's best self to a search for treasure. Once our treasure or purpose is found, we will be inspired to grow mentally and spiritually. We will be inspired to become better than we were before.
Santiago contends that alchemists have a special purpose in life. They labor to turn lead into gold. It is an arduous process, but they are undaunted by the challenges they face. The process of turning lead into gold is a mission, a constant push to improve and innovate. When alchemists strive against all odds to turn lead into gold, they are setting the rest of us an example.
According to Santiago, the alchemists are showing us that, when we strive to become our best selves, we also inspire others to change. In turn, the world becomes a better place.

The narrative voice changes in the last stanza of the poem "Translation" by Eilean Ni Chuilleanain. What is the voice saying, and what is the effect of this change?

The narrative voice changes in the last stanza of Eilean Ni Chuilleanain's poem “Translation” because she is referring to one of the nuns who ran the laundries and held the keys to such a facility where the "fallen" women were incarcerated at this time.
In addition to the women working in these facilities, the nun has her say, and her voice can be heard releasing her duties as a prison guard. Like the women she ruled over, it is remarkable that the nun says that she, too, had a temporary name. The parasite and "spell" that grew within the nun has expired, so she no longer has the desire to rule over her charge. The effect of this change is that the nun can now also rest in peace.
In this last stanza, the author shows compassion for the incarcerated women, along with the nuns, as her opinion is that the Church is the scapegoat for society's wish to be rid of these women. Those who supported the laundries have escaped the rightful blame for the captive women's demise, as a result of the nuns who took charge over these unwanted women.

How would you describe Atticus and Miss Maudie's Friendship?

Atticus and Miss Maudie are good friends who hold each other in high esteem. As their characters develop in the novel, it isn’t hard to understand why they value and respect each other. Their friendship and mutual respect is the result of having similar traits in their characters and believing in the same moral principles.
Atticus and Maudie both have a strong sense of justice, and they stand up to injustice. Maudie is one of the few citizens in Maycomb who understand why Atticus must take Tom Robinson’s case and who support him when he defends Tom vigorously in court. She has enormous respect for Atticus and won’t tolerate hearing others criticize him in regard to helping Tom Robinson, as it becomes obvious when she chastises Mrs. Merriweather at the Missionary Circle meeting.
When presented with daunting circumstances and personal loss, neither Atticus nor Maudie shrinks from what must be done, nor does their courage fail. After the death of his wife, Atticus raises Jem and Scout by himself and works hard to do it right. He sometimes wonders if he is up to the task, but he continues to meet every parenting challenge that presents itself. After taking Tom Robinson’s case, Atticus tries to shield Jem and Scout from the ugliness it fosters in Maycomb. When his children do encounter racism and hatred, he helps them understand it so as not to be harmed by it. Like Atticus, Maudie confronts personal loss and difficult circumstances with courage and resolve. After her home burns to the ground during a rare snow storm in Maycomb, Maudie moves in with Stephanie Crawford, refuses to mourn the loss of her house and possessions, and makes plans to build a smaller home and plant even more flowers in her yard. Despite disaster, Maudie moves forward in life, as Atticus does, instead of choosing to live in the past and dwell on what has been lost.
In regard to their relationships with Jem and Scout, the similarities between Atticus and Maudie are numerous. As intelligent, sensitive, and perceptive people, both Atticus and Maudie understand Jem and Scout, love them, and enjoy their company. They don’t underestimate the children’s intelligence, talk down to them, evade their questions, or ignore their concerns. They treat Jem and Scout with affection and respect, never with condescension. Atticus and Maudie both expect Jem and Scout to behave, but their expectations are reasonable, and the children always know where they stand with Atticus and Maudie. Consequently, Jem and Scout love and trust both Atticus and Maudie.
Atticus and Miss Maudie share some other traits that are not necessarily common among the citizens of Maycomb. They mind their own business and don’t contribute to the town’s gossip. They both believe in God and have respect for religion, but are not religious zealots. They also are not religious hypocrites. Maudie and Atticus judge people by their character, not their race or Southern heritage, and both of them are excellent judges of character. Atticus and Maudie are good friends because they find in each other the moral principles and way of life they value.

Why would Fern want to save Wilbur's life in Charlotte's Web?

When Wilbur is born, he is the runt of the pig litter. Fern's father, Mr. Arable, wants to kill Wilbur, thinking he will probably not survive and, in the meantime, will simply use up food and energy. Eight-year-old Fern, in contrast, believes that justice demands that any creature born be given a chance at a full life. When her father relents, Fern feeds Wilbur from a bottle and helps him to survive and thrive.
When Wilbur is sold to the nearby Zuckerman farm, Fern can still go visit him. She is an especially intuitive and sensitive little girl who is capable of bridging the animal and human worlds. She can listen to and understand the conversations between the animals. She reports these to her parents, who worry she is delusion. Nevertheless, she remains a friend to Wilbur and the animals.

Explain how the Parson children reflect the brainwashing occurring in the society.

The Parson children are eager to sniff out enemy spies, a civic duty they approach with the same gusto normal kids would put into playing cops and robbers. The children are encouraged by the state to be overcautious. A specific instance of this is described by Parsons himself in Chapter 4: his daughter and her friends stalked a strange man for two hours before having the patrols arrest him. Her evidence that he was a spy was that his shoes were unusual; she deduced that because she had never seen shoes like that before, he must be a foreigner. Parson also relays an incident where his children set a woman's skirt on fire when she wrapped meat with a picture of Big Brother. They felt this disrespect proved she was a spy or at least a dissenter.

In "The Interlopers," when the men first spot each other, why don't they immediately kill one another?

The feud between the Gradwitz and Znaeym families stretches back three generations and is inherited by the two main characters, Ulrich and Georg, who continue to quarrel over a narrow strip of precipitous land that the Gradwitz family possesses.
On a wintry night, Ulrich von Gradwitz patrols the disputed territory with his men in hopes of discovering Georg Znaeym poaching on his land. Ulrich von Gradwitz plans on killing Georg the instant he runs into him. However, when Ulrich and Georg cross paths alone in the forest, both men hesitate and do not immediately shoot their rifles.
The narrator mentions that both men uphold a moral code, which prevents them from murdering an enemy in cold blood. Both Ulrich and Georg view themselves as civil men who adhere to the moral code and will not kill each other unless they are immediately threatened or formally challenged, which is why both men refrain from firing their weapons. A massive tree falls on both of them during their moment of hesitation, which further prevents them from killing each other.

Georg and Ulrich's families have been involved in a long, bitter feud that stretches back for generations. So, when they confront each other one cold winter's night in the forest, it seems that bloodshed is very much in the cards. Both men are armed with hunting rifles, which merely adds to the tension and sense of foreboding in the air.
Yet to our surprise, neither man tries to kill the other. For despite their mutual loathing, Georg and Ulrich still consider themselves civilized, and the moral code to which they both adhere strongly prohibits the killing of another human being in cold blood. To be sure, lethal force can indeed be used, but only under certain circumstances. The moral code dictates that it is acceptable to shoot and kill one's neighbor, but only to defend one's property or as a means of restoring injured honor, as in a duel.

Discuss Candida as a problem play with references from the play.

Candida is the main character as well as the title of a play by George Bernard Shaw. In the late 19th century, realism gained a dominant place in literature. The genre of the problem play, which fits squarely within realism, is most often associated with Norway’s Henrik Ibsen. Shaw himself actually compared Candida to Ibsen’s famous A Doll’s House. The problem play is a drama of ideas, presenting themes about contemporary social issues, usually expressed through passionate polemics in the character’s dialogue. Women’s rights and labor issues, which are among their typical themes, both figure prominently in Candida. Notably, near the end, she is said to “belong to herself” after two men fight over her and she remarks that they seem to think it “quite settled that I must belong to one or the other.”
Ostensibly a conventional, self-sacrificing wife and mother, Candida feels trapped in her marriage to Reverend Morell. Her longing for more takes the form of an attachment to the young poet Marchbanks. This fondness on her part is more maternal than romantic, while the poet’s view of her is imbued with romantic idealism. He wants to rescue her essential free spirit from being stifled by her husband’s preaching, calling his sermons “mere rhetoric.” Candida believes, however, and tells her husband that in future the right woman’s love will instead rescue the poet. She chooses to remain with her husband because he is weaker and needs her more.
The worker versus owner issues are presented in several arguments that express the conflict between her father, Burgess, a factory owner, and Rev. Morell, a socialist committed to solving worker’s problems. A less-than-ideal solution occurs when Burgess fires the female workers instead of giving them the raise that Morell recommended. Shaw adds irony to the mix as Morell pays low wages to his own secretary.

Which part of the flower performs a similiar role to the testes in the male reproductive system?

The part of a flower that imitates the human male reproductive system is called the stamen, and the part that imitates the testes are the microspores on the anther.
The stamen has two main parts. First, the stamen has a long, slim stalk called the filament. Second, at the end of the filament is the anther. The anther is full of little yellow pollen sacs called microsporangia, which would be similar to the human male testes. These microspores germinate into a male gametophyte, which produces sperm.
Conversely, the female organs are called the pistil (or carpel), which has three main parts: the stigma (sticky part where pollen from the male parts land), the style (narrow stalk), and ovary (innermost part that contains ovules).
Fertilization occurs when pollen lands on the stigma and grows down into the ovary, where a zygote can grow.
For more botany definitions, see the UC Berkeley glossary (below).
http://www2.estrellamountain.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/BioBookflowers.html

https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/glossary/gloss8botany.html

Is it true that negative values of the standard deviation indicates that the set of values is even less dispersed than would be expected by chance alone?

It is not true that negative values indicate the set of values is less dispersed as the standard deviation must be nonnegative.
By definition, the standard deviation is the square root of the variance. The variance for a population is the mean of the squared differences of the data values and the mean of the data values.
sigma=sqrt(sigma^2)=sqrt((sum(x_i-bar(x))^2/n))
A set of data that consists of only value (e.g. {5} or {5,5,5,5,5}) will have a standard deviation of 0. No set of data could be less spread out than that.
A related value is the z-score. A negative z-score indicates a value is below the mean (or the mean of a sample is below the population mean.) But a z-score, while taking into account the spread of the data, does not in itself indicate how spread out the data are.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/StandardDeviation.html

If you add 97 molecules of H2SO4 into a beaker and add 55 molecules of NaOH to same beaker, how many total molecules of water after the reaction?

CONCEPT INVOLVED
Sulfuric acid(H₂SO₄) is a strong acid and Sodium Hydroxide(NaOH) is a strong base.When they are mixed,they react with each other.It is an acid -base neutralization reaction between a strong acid and a strong base.
The products will be salt and water.The salt formed here is sodium sulphate(Na₂SO₄).
We can write the balanced chemical reaction as
H₂SO₄ + 2NaOH ---> Na₂SO₄ + 2H₂O + Heat
The reaction is highly exothermic as enormous amount of heat is liberated.
STEP 1
As we can see that 1 mole of H₂SO₄ is combining with 2 moles of NaOH to give 2 moles of water.
By using mole concept we can say that 1 mole of any entity = 6.022 x 10 23 entities (this big number is also called the Avogadro constant).
Thus we can say that 1 molecule of H₂SO₄ is combining with 2 molecules of NaOH to give 2 molecules of water.
STEP 2
In other words 1 molecule of H₂SO₄ need 2 molecules of NaOH to give 2 molecules of water.
Now we have 97 molecules of H₂SO₄ which will require 194(=97x2) molecules of NaOH.But we have only 55 molecules of NaOH.
Thus we can say that H₂SO₄ is in excess and it is NaOH which will be completely consumed and will act as a limiting reagent.
STEP 3
2 molecules of NaOH need 1 molecule of H₂SO₄ ( half the number of molecules) to give 2 molecules of water.
So 55 molecules of NaOH need 27.5 (=55 x 1/2) molecules of H₂SO₄.
2 molecules of NaOH need 1 molecule of H₂SO₄ to give 2 molecules of water.
Therefore,
55 molecules of NaOH need 27.5 molecules of H₂SO₄ to give 55 molecules of water.
(here number of molecules of water formed is equal to the number of molecules of NaOH reacted)
Remaining molecules of H₂SO₄ =(97 - 27.5) =69.5 molecules will remain unreacted as there is no more molecules of NaOH to react with.
Hence if you add 97 molecules of H₂SO₄ into a beaker and add 55 molecules of NaOH to the same beaker you will get 55 molecules of water after the reaction is complete.

The balanced chemical equation for the reaction between sulfuric acid (H₂SO₄) and sodium hydroxide (NaOH) can be written as follows:
H₂SO₄ + 2NaOH -> Na₂SO₄ + 2H₂O
Using stoichiometry, we can say that 1 mole of sulfuric acid reacts with 2 moles of sodium hydroxide to generate 1 mole of sodium sulfate (Na₂SO₄) and 2 moles of water.
Also, remember that 1 mole of any substance contains 6.023 x 10^23 molecules of that substance.
This means that we can also state that 1 molecule of sulfuric acid reacts with 2 molecules of sodium hydroxide to generate 1 molecule of sodium sulfate and 2 molecules of water.
Here, we are given with 97 molecules of sulfuric acid, but only 55 molecules of sodium hydroxide. 97 molecules of sulfuric acid will need 194 (= 2 x 97) molecules of sodium hydroxide for complete reaction. This means that the sodium hydroxide amount will control the reaction, since it is in a limited amount.
This means that 55 molecules of sodium hydroxide will react with 27.5 (= 55 x 1/2) molecules of sulfuric acid, leaving 69.5 (= 97-27.5) molecules of sulfuric acid as unused.
From the balanced chemical reaction, we can see that 2 molecules of sodium hydroxide, upon complete reaction with sulfuric acid, generate 2 molecules of water. In other words, 1 molecule of sodium hydroxide will result in 1 molecule of water, and hence, 55 molecules of sodium hydroxide will result in the formation of 55 molecules of water.
Hope this helps.

What was the relationship between Chaucer and John of Gaunt?

John of Gaunt, the first Duke of Lancaster, was a 14th century English prince, one of the sons of King Edward III. Though he never ascended to the throne, he became of the most powerful men in England, as well as one of the richest. He also developed a close friendship with the poet Geoffrey Chaucer and became his patron. At that time, patronage was essential for writers as with all artists. In a hierarchical society in which the vast majority were illiterate, it was necessary for writers such as Chaucer to obtain support from VIPs such as John of Gaunt if they were to be able to find an audience for their works.
But the relationship of John of Gaunt and Chaucer went beyond that of patronage. As well as being close friends, they also became related through marriage. John married his mistress Katherine Swynford de Roet, making her his third wife. Katherine's sister Philippa was already married to Chaucer, so he and John became brothers-in-law. Long before this, Chaucer had written his early poem "The Book of the Duchess" in commemoration of the recently deceased Blanche of Lancaster, John of Gaunt's first wife. He would go on to praise John in a later work, a short poem entitled "Fortune," in which he makes numerous references to his "beste frend."

How is Holden Caulfield an ugly duckling?

Holden Caulfield has an inferiority complex. In Chapter 10, he reveals his poor opinion of his intelligence:
You should see her [Phoebe]. You never saw a little kid so pretty and smart in your whole life. She’s really smart. I mean she’s had all A’s ever since she started school. As a matter of fact, I’m the only dumb one in the family. My brother D.B.’s a writer and all, and my brother Allie, the one that died, that I told you about, was a wizard. I’m the only really dumb one.
Holden thinks he is dumb because he has been expelled from three schools for poor grades and nonconformity. He has been criticized by the teachers and administrators at these school, by some of his fellow students, and by his parents.
For nonconformity the world whips you with its displeasure (Emerson, “Self-Reliance”).
For example, Stradlater, who did not like the descriptive essay Holden wrote for him, says,
“God damn it.” He was sore as hell. He was really furious. “You always do everything backasswards.” He looked at me. “No wonder you’re flunking the hell out of here,” he said. “You don’t do one damn thing the way you’re supposed to. I mean it. Not one damn thing.”
It is rather ironic that Stradlater asks Holden to cheat for him and then says Holden does not do anything the way he is supposed to. That seems to reveal the other boy’s value system, which may represent the majority view.
In the opening chapter, Holden reveals that he was “ostracized” by the entire fencing team because he left all the foils and equipment on the subway. Holden antagonizes others because he is lost in his own thoughts. He thinks his problem is that he is dumb, and he is just as hard on himself as his critics. Yet he is actually at least as intelligent as his brother D.B. and his sister, Phoebe. Holden’s keen intelligence is shown in many ways, including the fact that he is writing an entire novel without even realizing he is a “writer,” as well as the fact that his narrative is filled with precocious insights.
His curiosity about the ducks and where they go in winter shows he is curious about everything, which is a sign of intelligence. Intelligence is hard to conceal. You can see it in small children’s eyes—the way they look around and take in everything with obvious wonder.
In Hans Christian Andersen’s story:
The poor duckling was driven about by every one; even his brothers and sisters were unkind to him, and would say, “Ah, you ugly creature, I wish the cat would get you,” and his mother said she wished he had never been born. The ducks pecked him, the children beat him, and the girl who fed the poultry kicked him with her feet. So at last he ran away, frightening the little birds in the hedge as he flew over the palings.
It is interesting that one of the things in which Holden shows curiosity is the welfare of the ducks in Central Park. Salinger may be hinting at the ugly duckling motif in his story of an unhappy boy who is lost and confused and does not realize he is only trying to find himself.
Hans Christian Andersen was something of an ugly duckling, too. Andersen survived and persisted, and in time he became world-famous. Denmark recognized him as a “national treasure.” His work brought him the love he never received as a child.
Both Holden and the Ugly Duckling have adopted the opinions of themselves that have been expressed by others. Both Holden and the Ugly Duckling criticize themselves and want to die because they are so lonely and unhappy, and also because they have been conditioned to dislike themselves. There is a strong tendency in human nature to dislike and fear others who are different, and those who are hated and feared the most are sometimes those who are in some way gifted.
Did Salinger intentionally pattern his story after Hans Christian Andersen's? More likely, both stories dramatize a truth about life and human nature. Gifted people are often made to suffer rejection and abuse in childhood and adolescence because they are different.

In Behind the Beautiful Forevers, why do the Annawadians seek Asha's counsel? How does she decide whom she will assist?

The Annawadians seeks Asha's counsel because she's considered one of the "higher" people in the micro world of the under city. People instinctively look up to her because she has greater authority than anyone else in the slums. She is fast in the process of becoming Annawadi's undisputed "slumlord" with access to the kind of power, money, and respect that few others in this area could ever dream of.
The downside of being a slumlord, however, is that one becomes caught up in the corruption that blights the city, especially slums like Annawadia. Asha carefully picks and chooses which people to give loans to depending on the size of the bribe she can expect to receive from them. If the bribe isn't big enough, she tells people to go away and pray to the gods. This is her way of telling them to come back with a better offer.

Choose two characters in Twelfth Night and identify what their masks are and what those masks are hiding. Are the masks helpful or harmful? Do people today use similar techniques to hide their true feelings or identities?

Disguise, deception, and false appearances are central to the plot of Twelfth Night. William Shakespeare fills the plot with multiple layers of these themes, as characters literally wear disguises—especially those of other genders—or metaphorically "mask" their true feelings or intentions. The importance of being true to oneself is one of Shakespeare's most often-used themes; failure to do so generally has negative consequences. Two contrasting examples of characters that mask themselves in different ways are Viola and Malvolio.
Viola is an elite young woman who understands that her gender places her in a precarious position when she is shipwrecked and alone. Her decision to dress as a man is primarily practical; by assuming a male identity, she can travel safely and find out necessary information will relative ease. Her situation is complicated, however, when romance gets in the way: Olivia falls in love with "Cesario" (Viola's male alias) and Viola herself falls in love with the Duke—who knows Viola only through her male persona—and Viola must use her wits to extricate herself from the situation.
Malvolio is a servant who wishes to be upper-class. A serious but self-important person, he rarely speaks his true emotions but is also easily swayed. When he is tricked into thinking that Olivia cares for him and wants him to dress a certain way, he decides to do so. Because Malvolio does not actually care about fashion or the latest trends, his appearance in the garters and stockings makes him seem ridiculous.
The themes of self-deception and its outward correspondence are as relevant today as they were four centuries ago. Both personal safety and emotional vulnerability are still reasons that people put up false fronts.

Did Arnold succeed in making his pain go away and what universal lessons about pain can you draw from his example?

I would argue that through the course of The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian, Arnold, also known as Junior, doesn't make his pain go away, but rather transforms his life into something better.
There are many sources of pain for Arnold throughout this novel, such as being rejected by his best friend Rowdy, when he decides to go to a different school, as well as the death of his sister. I think the universal lesson about pain we learn from this book is that although pain is inevitable, life goes on. Despite the fact that Rowdy rejects him, Arnold goes ahead with his plan to go to a new school, and he carves out a new life for himself there. Even though he is forced to face his former classmates as rivals on the basketball court and is knocked unconscious, Arnold continues to play ball. So, while pain is inevitable, it is also inevitable that life goes on.

In paragraph 96, the blind man observes that the men who began work on a cathedral never lived to see it completed. In this way, he says, “they’re no different from the rest of us.” What does the cathedral symbolize to the blind man? What does it come to symbolize to the narrator?

An interesting question. Certainly, this story is full of symbolism and dual meaning—what is seeing, really? How is it that the sighted man believes himself superior to the blind man throughout the story, but then, at the end, finds out that he doesn't know any more than the blind man does about what a cathedral really is?
We could argue that the cathedral represents purpose, or the truth of what we are really doing with our lives. To the people who built it, pious people in the Middle Ages, they knew that the cathedral represented a monument to the God they believed in, but did they really understand what that God represented? They were listening to masses performed in Latin and which were not explained to them; they spent generations working towards the goal of this cathedral which would memorialize that God, but they would never see the sum of their works, or ever really understand the truth of what their God really was. The cathedral to them, then, is a symbol of an immortal truth into which they put their faith without really knowing much about it.
In the same way, it seems that the cathedral to the blind man, as well as to the narrator, symbolizes what they do not know; what are they really working towards? The sighted man thinks he knows more than the blind man, but earlier in the story he has admitted that he doesn't like his job and doesn't know what else he could do. He doesn't know what his purpose is in life. Meanwhile, the blind man has been unable to see his own wife, which the narrator thought was "pathetic," but at the end of the story, he acquires a new realization of what true sight really is.
Together, the narrator and the blind man draw the cathedral, both of them without the use of their eyes, and with the blind man's encouragement, the narrator finds that he does know, really, what a cathedral is; he knows more about it in greater detail than he realized. What is represented on the page, then, is the truth of what the narrator knows about life and his purpose; he is able to discover more about himself without his sight than he was able to through the use of his eyes.

What are three adjectives that would fittingly describe Ms. Eubanks?

The first adjective that springs to mind in relation to Vandalia Eubanks is thin. There's a permanently half-starved look about her, which is not surprising, given the truly appalling way that she's treated by her wicked mother. It's bad enough trying to make ends meet at a menial job during the Depression. But having an abusive parent makes it even worse.
Another adjective that applies to Vandalia, at least initially, is passive. This makes it all too easy for her to be dominated and controlled by Mrs. Eubanks, who even demands that Vandalia hand over all her hard-earned wages from her job at the cafe.
However, in due course, Vandalia will shows that she's brave by breaking free from her mother's tyranny and eloping with Junior. In taking off with him, Vandalia is showing immense courage, as well as an overwhelming desire to change her life for the better.

What are the main topics that need to be covered for a period 4 test? (Ap World History Only)

AP World History's Period 4 includes (roughly) the years 1450–1750. This includes the Colombian Exchange, in which things like flora and fauna as well as diseases and pathogens were exchanged between the Old and New World.
The Byzantine Empire (the successor of the Eastern Roman Empire) was ended when the Ottomans conquered its capitol in Constantinople (modern Istanbul, Turkey). This conquest allowed Muslims to control trade in this region.
In Europe, the Renaissance and Reformation confronted the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church regarding many things from salvation to creationism.
This period also saw the rise of joint-stock companies, a financial arrangement in a business wherein individuals have partial ownership in a company by means of shares. The British East India Company was one of these.

Are the victims in Poe's stories really deserving of empathy? Do we know them well?

Poe delves deep into the consciousness of his characters, by portraying their irregularity and even insanity. Montresor unlike the narrators in Poe’s other stories such as “The Tell-Tale Heart” and “The Pit and the Pendulum” becomes obsessed with the memory of his victim. The line “The thousand injuries of Fortunato I had borne as I best could, but when he ventured upon insult, I vowed revenge.”, makes the readers speculate about Montresor’s motivations and desires for revenge. Everything is told solely from the perspective of Montresor and this restricted point of view may cause the readers to imagine a distorted reality.
Fortunato's character is revealed and described to the readers through the perspective of Montresor—as a pompous and arrogant man. Poe’s literary style of juxtaposing Fortunato’s flat character with Montresor’s round complex character creates a disillusioned reality. On the one hand, the readers want to empathize with Fortunato for his ghastly fate while on the other hand, his lack of inquiry and being blinded by his conceit makes the readers detached from him. Thus, Poe allows the readers a window to the “deepest vault” of psychological aspects of his enigmatic characters.

In "The Cask of Amontillado," as with most of Poe's stories, the victim is presented through the eyes of an unreliable narrator. The only information we have about the unfortunate Fortunato is provided by the man who kills him, Montresor, and we can't be sure that he's telling us the unvarnished truth. Montresor tells us that he is motivated to carry out his terrible revenge in response to " a thousand" unspecified injuries that Fortunato is alleged to have inflicted upon him. As he never tells us the precise nature of such injuries, it's difficult to sympathize with Montresor, especially given the gruesome nature of his revenge.
By the same token, we develop empathy for Fortunato because we don't know what, if anything, he's done to deserve such a hideous fate. If Montresor's description of what happened on that fateful day is in any way accurate, then at worst Fortunato comes across as a bit of a fool, appropriately dressed in the motley garb of a jester. He certainly doesn't come across as someone who deserves to be buried alive.

Montag says there are too many of us. In what ways is he wrong? In what ways is he right?

In this part of Fahrenheit 451, Montag is reflecting on the world's population and the disconnection and alienation the large population causes. He is in the midst of a crisis because his wife, Millie, has overdosed on pills and a medical team came to their home and saved her. The distance between their family drama and the doctors' detachment is shaking him up.
In the following sentence of the passage he comments, "Nobody knows anyone." The doctors don't know him or Millie. In these specific observations, he is right.
The depth of his alienation is pointed out in the next three lines as he becomes increasingly upset:

Strangers come and violate you. Strangers come and cut your heart out. Strangers come and take your blood.

Those particular strangers actually saved her, so he is obviously thinking more broadly about the way his society destroys people.
As the story progresses and we see Montag change, it becomes clear that he was wrong as well. He goes through painful experiences and ends up "taking blood" by killing another man, although not a stranger. Nonetheless, among the billions, he finds the people he needs to know, people who were once strangers: the book learners who become his true community.

In The House on Mango Street, when describing her house or where she lives, what does Esperanza convey about her self-identity?

I believe that this question is asking about Esperanza's description in chapter one. The general description of her family's house on Mango Street is honest with a heavy dose of pessimism. Esperanza tells readers that she knew that her family would one day have a "real house." She then describes an imaginary house that resembles the houses that she sees on TV. Esperanza desires a house that she can proudly point to as her family's house, and the chapter ends with her saying that the house on Mango Street is not that house.
This notion of being able to point to a house with pride lets readers know that a part of her self-identity is tied to the quality of a house. It's a materialistic worldview. She believes that a higher quality house will somehow make her a better, more desirable person. By living in an embarrassing house, Esperanza incorrectly believes that she needs to be embarrassed about herself too.

You live there? The way she said it made me feel like nothing. There. I lived there. I nodded.

How does The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde show implications of exploring one’s curiosity?

The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is about a scientist, Dr. Jekyll, who is curious to find out if he can separate his evil side from his good side. The consequence of this curiosity is a potion which does just that, and the consequences of the potion are violence, misery and death. The bad side of Dr. Jekyll manifests as Mr. Hyde, and Mr. Hyde has an insatiable appetite for evil. Eventually, Mr. Hyde becomes so strong that he destroys Dr. Jekyll. The moral of this story is a familiar one. It is the same moral that can be inferred from the biblical story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, from the Greek myth of Icarus, or from Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. The moral shared by all of these stories is that too much knowledge or curiosity, specifically knowledge or curiosity which transgresses moral boundaries, ultimately leads to misery.
In chapter 9 of The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, entitled "Dr. Lanyon's Narrative," Mr. Hyde asks Dr. Lanyon if he wants to see what happens when he drinks the potion. He says:

Will you be wise? Will you be guided? Will you suffer me to take this [potion] in my hand and to go forth from your house without further parley? Or has the greed of curiosity too much command of you?

Mr. Hyde warns Dr. Lanyon that if he chooses to see what happens when he drinks the potion, he, Dr. Lanyon, will be "blasted by a prodigy to stagger the unbelief of Satan." Dr. Lanyon's curiosity is too much for him, however, and he insists that he will not "pause before [he] see[s] the end."
The result is catastrophic: Dr. Lanyon witnesses Mr. Hyde, the murderer, transform into Dr. Jekyll, his colleague of old. He suffers such a shock that his hair turns white, and he dies just a few months later. The moral here is much the same as the moral of the whole story: Dr. Lanyon's curiosity leads to his death. As humans, it seems, there is only so much we are supposed to know. Beyond that point lies misery, anguish, and even death.

Why did Poole and the servants wait 8 days before telling Utterson about Jekyll’s weird behaviour?

Poole comes to see Mr. Utterson and tells him he that thinks his master, Dr. Jekyll, has suffered from "foul play." He says to Utterson:

"I’ve been afraid for about a week," returned Poole, doggedly disregarding the question, "and I can bear it no more."

Poole and the other servants have not contacted Mr. Utterson because they have been confused about what is going on. They know their master often likes to be left by himself, and they haven't wanted to betray him or overstep their boundaries by going to see a third party about him. Now, however, they are all sufficiently worried and upset that they feel they have no choice but to contact someone.
Rather than try to describe what is happening, Poole urges Mr. Utterson to come and see for himself what is going on. When Mr. Utterson arrives, Poole calls out to his master, who answers in a voice that does not sound like himself. The fear that someone else is impersonating their master has frightened the servants.

What impression do you get about Antonio and Bassanio's relationship based on Salerio's description of their parting?

Salerino, not Salerio, tells of the Bassanio and Antonio's departure. Salerino refers to Antonio as a kind man. He describes how Bassanio says he will hurry back. Antonio tells him not to rush his courtship but to take all the time he needs for the relationship to ripen. He says not to worry about the loan from Shylock that he has taken out, but simply to concentrate on having a good time and on wooing his beloved. After Antonio says these brave words to Bassanio, he tears up, overcome with emotion. As Salerino describes it:

And even there, his eye being big with tears,
Turning his face, he put his hand behind him,
And with affection wondrous sensible
He wrung Bassanio’s hand. And so they parted.

Solania, his companion, says:

I think he [Antonio] only loves the world [life] for him [because of Bassanio].

As some scholars have pointed out, Antonio's affection for the younger man seems to surpass the bounds of friendship. Antonio's two friends describe him as having very strong feelings toward Bassanio. Some have argued that Antonio goes to such risks to get money for Bassanio because he is in love with the younger man.

The speech gives a clear impression of mutual affection, since Bassanio eagerly tells Antonio that he will try to return quickly. However, it's clear that Antonio's feelings about Bassanio are more noticeable to Salerio, since he mentions seeing him cry and shake Bassanio's hand "with affection wondrous sensible"—"sensible," in Renaissance English, meant "capable of being perceived," so, in other words, it was easy to tell that Antonio was having a lot of feelings. The strength of Antonio's feelings for Bassanio is not surprising, given that "Antonio" was an Elizabethan slang word for a gay man; for another Shakespearean "Antonio," take a look at Twelfth Night! But Antonio is clearly a self-sacrificing person when it comes to love; he encourages Bassanio in his courtship, telling him not to think about Antonio's peril: "let it not enter in your mind of love." He knows that having a rich wife will be advantageous for his beloved, and he is not going to stand in the way of Bassanio's making that happen.

What is Chester Arthur's legacy?

Chester Arthur was the Twenty-First President of the United States. His term began when president Garfield was assassinated in 1881. Many in the Republican Party believed that when Arthur assumed the office, he was not well-prepared for or capable of serving as President. Arthur had long been associated with the political machine of Roscoe Conkling, a Senator who controlled what was known as the Stalwart Republican Machine. It was assumed with Chester Arthur as President the politics characterized by political patronage and favoritism would continue unabated.
In the election of 1880, the machine supported the renomination of President Grant. When Grant's nomination faltered, Conkling and his supporters put their efforts behind Arthur to be nominated for Vice President of the United States. Conkling's group wanted to continue the machine politics which relied heavily on political patronage. Believing Chester Arthur was one of their own, Conkling's group was confident Arthur would not do anything to disrupt machine politics and political patronage. The untimely assassination of Garfield elevated Arther to the presidency and to the dismay of Conkling, the once reliable Arthur turned against them.
To the shock of Conkling and the Stalwart Republican Machine, Chester Arthur as President pursued civil service reforms which undercut the power of the political machine. Congress with Arthur's support passed the Pendleton Act in 1883. The Pendleton Act created a Civil Service Commission to oversee federal government employment assuring applicants fair treatment in obtaining civil service jobs and more importantly, prohibiting certain government employees from being fired for political reasons. The act reduced the influence of machine politics by taking their primary source of patronage from them, employment in a government job.
Reform of government employment practices and openly rejecting the machine patronage system of the day may be Arthur's most significant legacy. In the short time he held office Chester Arthur supported the first attempt at general immigration law and reform. He supported lower tariffs and signed the Tariff Act of 1883. It is fair to characterize Chester Arthur's presidency as mundane in most areas except civil service reform which was a bold reform at the time.
https://millercenter.org/president/arthur

https://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/chester-a-arthur

https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/presidents/chester-a-arthur/

What is Gatsby's "incorruptible dream"?

The phrase is from an observation that Nick makes near the end, when people are leaving yet another extravagant Gatsby party:

The lawn and drive had been crowded with the faces of those who guessed at his corruption—and he had stood on those steps, concealing his incorruptible dream, as he waved them good-by.

Nobody knows what Gatsby does for a living. Most of it is probably illegal (bootlegging, for starters). The partygoers might guess at Gatsby's occupation, but they don't really care, as long as he keeps throwing the parties.
Gatsby is a true romantic. His dream must be incorruptible, because it can't actually be tainted by reality. Jay is obsessed by the idea of his true, undying love for Daisy. He deludes himself into being sure that his money will impress her. He wants to believe that he is looking toward the future, that Daisy loves him and always will. Jay cannot see that his whole scheme is about the past, his doubt that she ever loved him, and his personal and class rivalry with her elite world (and with Tom in particular).
Nick assesses much of this accurately: Jay

wanted nothing less of Daisy than that she should go to Tom and say: ‘I never loved you.’

Nick has an inkling of Daisy's shallowness, but he never suspects that it will be a factor in Gatsby's downfall, or that the "incorruptible dream" will stay with Jay until his premature, tragic death.