For this assignment, consider the following illusions: reversible images and impossible objects. What is it about the illusion that makes it an illusion? (Why is it not an accurate perception?)

"Reversible Images" are also known as "ambiguous images", and they are optical illusion images which appear as a single display but can be interpreted as two different and distinct images.An "impossible object" is also an optical illusion, which is a two-dimensional representation of an object which is immediately registered and interpreted by the brain as a projected three-dimensional object. These objects have a component which is registered by the brain as three-dimensionally impossible, and so they can be confusing.Reversible images and impossible objects are illusions and not accurate perceptions. This is because illusions occur when the perceptual processes that normally help us correctly perceive the world are fooled by a particular situation, and so we see something that does not exist or that is incorrect. This is a result of our imperfect brain processing. Illusions demonstrate that our perception of the world around us may be influenced by our prior knowledge. Our emotions, mindsets, expectations, and the contexts in which our sensations occur all have a profound influence on perception.

What was the negative aspect of life during the Middle ages? Explain

There were lots of negative aspects to life in the Middle Ages. For one thing, life was incredibly hard for most people. Life expectancy in those days was much lower than it is today; Most men and women were lucky if they lived beyond the age of thirty-five. Also, there was no government system of welfare at that time and no safety net to keep people from absolute destitution. The Church provided charity through its various institutions, but inevitably it was never enough to prevent many of society's poorest people from starving to death, especially in the wake of a bad harvest. If you were poor and sick, you had to beg in order to survive. If you couldn't make enough money from begging, then you died.
Medical knowledge in the Middle Ages was fairly primitive, to say the least. Without an understanding of germs, people of all walks of life lived in the midst of unimaginable filth. People didn't have toilets so they'd simply throw their waste products out into the street, creating an enormous stench as well as a huge breeding-ground for germs and disease. If anyone caught, say, typhus from the gigantic mounds of doo-doo piled high in the streets, then they were pretty much doomed. With such limited medical knowledge, it was impossible to treat even the most simple of illnesses. In the Middle Ages, it was quite common for people to die from catching cold. In the absence of effective medical treatments for a whole variety of ailments, people resorted to folk remedies and prayers to ward off disease.

In act 2, scene 2 why does Romeo not tell Juliet he's there at the very beginning? What is he doing instead?

In act 2, scene 1 of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, Romeo is walking home after meeting Juliet for the first time at the Capulet's party. He decides that he has to talk with Juliet:

ROMEO: Can I go forward when my heart is here?Turn back, dull earth, and find thy centre out (2.1.1–2)

Romeo impulsively jumps over the Capulet's garden wall and finds himself in the Capulet's orchard, which, unbeknownst to Romeo at the time, is just below Juliet's bedroom.
Mercutio and Benvolio are passing by in the street outside the wall, calling for Romeo and making fun of him. Romeo ignores them, and Mercutio and Benvolio continue on their way, ending the scene.
Scene 2 shifts to the orchard, where Romeo mumbles to himself:

ROMEO: He jests at scars that never felt a wound. (2.2.1)

A light suddenly appears at an upstairs window.
Yikes! We can imagine Romeo ducking behind a tree until he knows who's at the window.

ROMEO: But soft! What light through yonder window breaks? (2.2.2)

Juliet appears at her bedroom window (or on the balcony outside her bedroom, depending on the scene design for the play).
It's her! It's Juliet!

ROMEO: It is the East, and Juliet is the sun! (2.2.3)

Romeo goes on about the sun and the moon for a few lines, then tells us something we've already pretty well figured out:

ROMEO: It is my lady; O, it is my love! (2.2.10)

Romeo is still hiding behind the tree, looking at Juliet.

ROMEO: She speaks, yet she says nothing. What of that? (2.2.12)

Yes, what of that? What's he talking about? Juliet hasn't said anything.

ROMEO: Her eye discourses . . . (2.2.13)

Oh. She's not really saying anything. She's just looking around at the sky.

ROMEO: . . . I will answer it. (2.2.13)

Answer what? She didn't say anything. Nevertheless, Romeo quickly steps out from behind the tree—and just as quickly changes his mind, and ducks behind the tree again.

ROMEO: I am too bold; 'tis not to me she speaks. (2.2.14)

Good excuse.
Romeo talks to himself about Juliet's eyes, and her cheek, and her hand on her cheek, and about being "a glove upon that hand, That I might touch that cheek!" (2.2.24–25)

JULIET: Ay me!
ROMEO: She speaks. (2.2.26–27)

This time, she actually does speak, but Romeo is still hiding behind the tree, talking to himself about how great Juliet is.
Then Juliet speaks the famous lines . . .

JULIET: O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo?Deny thy father and refuse thy name!Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love,And I'll no longer be a Capulet. (2.2.35–38)

Now she's talking about him, which would be a perfect time to speak to her, but he still can't work up the courage.

ROMEO: Shall I hear more, or shall I speak at this? (2.2.39)

While Romeo is deciding what to do, Juliet keeps talking, and says another famous line . . .

JULIET: . . . What's in a name? That which we call a roseBy any other name would smell as sweet. (2.2.45–46)

Romeo is still behind the tree, deciding things.
Finally, Juliet says,

JULIET: Romeo, doff thy name;And for that name, which is no part of thee,Take all myself. (2.2.49–51)

That's Romeo wanted to hear! He gathers his courage, stands up straight, tucks in his shirt, steps out boldly from behind the tree, and talks to her.

ROMEO: I take thee at thy word.Call me but love, and I'll be new baptiz'd;Henceforth I never will be Romeo. (2.2.52–54)

Finally! But after Romeo works up all that courage to talk to her, she doesn't even know who he is!

JULIET: What man art thou that, thus bescreen'd in night,So stumblest on my counsel? (2.2.55–56)

Romeo talks around the answer to her question for a little while, but she eventually recognizes his voice, and they continue with what's considered to be one of the best love scenes ever written.
If we look at a scene in terms of what real people might think and do and say in the same situation, it's not difficult to imagine what's going through Romeo's mind after he climbs over the garden wall and unexpectedly find himself with the woman he loves.

What is a summary of the first thousand years of the Hebrews and their ethical monotheism?

This is a very broad question, and there are many ways to answer it.
You want to examine "the first thousand years," which means you have to be specific about what period you are talking about. The Hebrew Bible dates Judaism to about 1500 BCE. The first mention of Judaism as a religion, as opposed to the nation of Israel, isn't found in non-Jewish sources until more than a thousand years later. There are other meaningful "start of Judaism" dates in between. Scholars disagree on this question, so you will have to decide on a position and explain why. If your course did not explore this topic, you should have a starting date to work from.
Your answer to that question will have a lot to do with the actual substance of your answer.
Monotheism was unique, at first, in a polytheistic world. The Hebrews interacted with a succession of dominant cultures over time. There was a notable connection with Babylon when large numbers of Hebrews were taken there in captivity. Once returned to their homeland, the Hebrews traded with many nations, including ancient India. Later, cultural cross-pollination took place between the Hebrews and the Hellenes; if your starting date is late enough, the Roman Empire could also be mentioned.
Your answer should identify which of these interactions you think were meaningful and why. I can suggest organizing your answer in a timeline form, working your way from the earliest sub-topic to the one nearest the end of your thousand years.

What happens after water comes from the hole?

Without a specific chapter to go on, I am making an educated guess that this question is asking about an event sequence that begins at the end of chapter 40. During this chapter, the men have returned to their raft, and they are sailing again. Unfortunately, their path is blocked by a really big rock. The men decide that blowing it up is a good solution.

Well then, the powder, an explosion! Let’s mine the obstacle and blow it up!

They successfully blow up the obstacle, and they quickly realize that their carelessness with the charges has now allowed the sea to rush through the opening.

The sea, seized with dizziness, had become nothing but one immense wave—on whose back the raft rose straight up.

The next two chapters narrate their voyage on that rushing water up through a series of vents. The water around them gets hotter and hotter, and the men (except Lidenbrock) are generally terrified of what will become of them.

Yes, if nothing stops us and if the shaft has a way out. But if it’s blocked, if the air gets more and more compressed by the pressure from the water column, we are about to be crushed to death!

Eventually the water is boiled away, and the men find themselves riding a column of magma. They are erupted out of a volcano, and they eventually figure out that they have been pushed out of Stromboli and see Etna in the distance.

Stromboli! What an effect this unforeseen name produced on my mind! We were in the middle of the Mediterranean, surrounded by that Aeolian Archipelago of mythological memory, in that ancient Strongyle where Aeolus held the winds and tempests on a chain! And those rounded blue hills to the east were the mountains of Calabria! And that volcano on the southern horizon was Etna, terrible Etna itself!

How did the Civil Rights Era and the Vietnam War redefine and/or influence the United States?

Lyndon B. Johnston signed into law the Civil Rights Act in 1964, while the country was at war with Vietnam. Some historians contend that this two-pronged effort—becoming involved in a costly war without an increase in taxation—pushed the US into debt that eroded and impacted the average American lifestyle well into the '90s.
The immediate effects of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts of the '60s were to outlaw Jim Crow laws in the South and workplace discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, or disability throughout the country. In Mississippi alone, black voter registration increased tenfold during this period.
Meanwhile, a draft was in effect in which low-income whites, African Americans, and Latinos were enlisted to fight in the ongoing Vietnam War. During this time, a counterculture sprang up to protest the war and stand up for civil rights. This shifted the predominant cultural landscape away from the traditional, white, Protestant America, which had been pro-war. Given the racism and inequality back home, activists found the combat to fight communism in Vietnam hypocritical and were discouraged by the monies funneled out of black communities to fund the war efforts.
The Vietnam War was a long, unpopular, and expensive war that America eventually lost. This loss, along with the emergence of a counterculture formed of hippies and activists, produced a public that viewed the government and its institutions with more distrust and suspicion. While the war quashed some inequality in allowing black soldiers to fight with whites in the trenches, neither were welcomed by the majority of the public when they returned home.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/07/opinion/sunday/vietnam-the-war-that-killed-trust.html

The civil rights era of the 1960s led into the Vietnam War, which escalated in August 1964 with the "Gulf of Tonkin Incident." President Johnson had just signed the Civil Rights Act the previous month. Both issues were passionately embraced by students on college campuses, leading to historic protests and clashes with authorities.
Civil rights activist Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. began to speak out against the Vietnam War in the years leading up to his assassination in April 1968. In his "Beyond Vietnam" speech the previous year in New York, Dr. King said that there was a common link between civil rights and peace movements. He explained how money was diverted from domestic programs that aided lower-class minorities to fund the war effort.
Like many Americans, Dr. King viewed the war as an act of imperialism on the part of the United States. He did not see consistency in a country ignoring its poor while fighting to free oppressed people thousands of miles away. The anti-war view was popularized by musical acts such as the Beatles, who addressed civil rights in "Blackbird" and war protests in "Revolution."
Both the civil rights and anti-war movements were driven by accusations of injustice. While the civil rights movement had developed for a century following the Civil War, the Vietnam anti-war protests were partly a reaction to news leaks, such as the Daniel Ellsberg's release of the Pentagon Papers in 1971, which revealed that the Johnson administration had misled the public about the war. Accusations that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was based on a false report were confirmed by Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara in his film Fog of War.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/martin-luther-king-jr-speaks-out-against-the-war

https://www.newsweek.com/what-pentagon-papers-post-759267

What kind of imagery does the poet use, and what effect does it have?

"The Raven" is a critically-acclaimed poem by Edgar Allen Poe. When the poem was published in 1845, it immediately became popular among the public due to its hypnotic cadence and dark but interesting imagery. The publication of "The Raven" boosted Poe's writing career—who was living in dire poverty at the time—and made him a household name.
Poe uses vivid imagery in "The Raven" that was inspired by the Gothic literary tradition, which first became popular in the 1700s. The most persistent image throughout the poem is the titular raven itself. The raven is symbolic of bad omens and the nightmares of his personal past. Much of the poem—like many poems during Poe's time—was filled with symbolism.
Symbolism itself, by its very nature, is dependent on imagery, especially in the poetic medium. The most blatant theme in "The Raven" is the feeling of guilt by the narrator. In Poe's fiction and poetry, a supernatural haunting usually symbolizes persistent psychological trauma.
The image of the narrator alone in a large, dark mansion symbolizes loneliness and, perhaps, alienation. It could also be interpreted as the narrator imprisoned in his own mind, with the mansion symbolizing his psyche or cranium.
The cliche imagery of the stormy night is effective in "The Raven" because it sets up the mood and atmosphere of the poetic narrative. Like the ebony-colored raven, the pitch black night sky and storm clouds all convey a sense of darkness.

Explain how sometimes a poet can use BOTH content and structure (poem organization, rhyme and rhythm) to create irony using the two poems “Incident” and “Richard Cory.”

You may want to look at the conventional rhyme scheme of both of these poems. The Countee Cullen poem has an abcb rhyme scheme in which the second and fourth lines of each stanza rhyme, and the Edward Arlington Robinson poem has an abab rhyme scheme. Both poems also have four-line stanzas. The structures of both poems are traditional.
In both poems, the irony comes from the endings of the poems, in which what the reader expects is upended. In the Countee Cullen poem, the narrator's visit to Baltimore, which starts with the narrator feeling so happy, ends up with his receiving a racist insult that literally colors the rest of his experience in that city. In the Edward Arlington Robinson poem, the person whom everyone admires kills himself in the end. Both poems end in a very different way than what the reader first thinks, and this creates a sense of situational irony.
How do you think the poems' conventional structures enhance this sense of irony? It is perhaps because the reader expects something straightforward but winds up with a poem that, while it has a traditional structure, is truly unsettling in its content.

What happened to the communist nations?

In Europe after World War II and until approximately 1990, the following group of communist countries provided a buffer between West Germany and the Soviet Union: Albania, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Poland, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria. They formed the Warsaw Pact in response to NATO and were heavily influenced and financed by the Soviet Union. Albania was expelled from the Pact in 1962 but remained a communist country under the Chinese sphere of influence.
After the Soviet Union collapsed in 1990, these countries, which had had communism imposed on them, became democratic republics, embraced capitalism, and joined NATO. East Germany reunified with West Germany, while Czechoslovakia split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Yugoslavia broke up into a number of smaller nations.
Vietnam remains a classic one-party Communist country, while North Korea is nominally communist, and Cuba sticks with communism. The People's Republic of China has moderated some of it most rigid communism but is still a classic one-party state in which the Party owns more than 95 percent of the country's land and controls its economy.

In both Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility, do Austen's female characters experience sexual desire?

In both these great novels by Jane Austen, I would argue that the female characters are driven by a desire for love and financial security. Sexual desire is not expressed, nor is it a driving factor. In fact, the expression of sexual desire in a novel would have been considered incredibly scandalous in Austin's time.
In Pride and Prejudice, the Bennet sisters are to be faced with destitution after their father's eventual death if at least one sister does not marry well. In spite of this fact and its urgency, both Jane and Elizabeth Bennet are driven by a desire to find real love. Jane falls in love with Mr. Bingley not for his money but for his character. Similarly, Elizabeth proves that she would turn down a marriage proposal that could provide financial security for the family on the basis of a lack of love.
In Sense and Sensibility, the Dashwood sisters are also faced with financial hardship. While both girls's stories are driven by love and finding their "happily ever afters," sexual desire does not come into the equation—or if it does, we as the readers are certainly not told about it.

In the book Brave New World, how is it shown that freedom is more important than happiness?

Huxley argues that freedom is more important than happiness by presenting John the Savage as a sympathetic, honorable character, who is opposed to the superficial, shallow culture of the World State. In the World State, the entire society is void of discomfort, danger, pain, and inefficiency. Citizens are scientifically manufactured, and the society is divided into five castes. Conformity, happiness, and stability are the cornerstones of the World State. Despite this efficiency, comfort, and convenience, however, citizens' lives are completely controlled by the government, and the technologically advanced society lacks important elements of the human experience, like spontaneity, creativity, art, love, and spirituality. The citizens of the World State are portrayed as superficial, ignorant, and shallow. Many characters, like Lenina Crowne and Linda, rely on soma to suppress their negative feelings and happily conform to the shallow culture of the World State.
In this manufactured world, John the Savage is an outcast, who vehemently opposes everything the World State represents. In a moving debate with Mustapha Mond, John argues for the essential elements of humanity, which make life spontaneous, exhilarating, and stimulating. Huxley purposely creates sympathy for John's character, who desires freedom over comfort and happiness. For John, freedom is the ability to live a daring life, where he can worship as he pleases and form deep emotional bonds with others. John values the opportunity to make independent choices and experience the world without oppressive government interference. John's outlook on life and his desire to live a free, spontaneous life are depicted as noble and worthy. When John is juxtaposed with the shallow citizens of the World State, his convictions and lifestyle seem superior. Through John's character and outlook on life, Huxley suggests that freedom is more important than happiness.

Huxley gives us a picture of a world in which the ordinary problems of life as we know it have seemingly been eliminated through scientific planning and the use of drugs. But selective breeding results in people's characteristics, and thus their activities in life, being predetermined, established in advance for them without freedom of choice. For the most part, however, the population of the dystopia do not see themselves as lacking freedom. There are the occasional "misfits" such as Bernard and Helmholtz, but in general the society functions as it is intended to.
This fact, however, the presence of even a couple of malcontents (which is a typical element of dystopian fiction) shows the system is flawed and that even the kind of freedom its own people believe in is illusory. That some parts of the world (like the "Savage Reservation" where John is born) have survived from the pre-dystopian epoch is probably meant by Huxley to show that ultimately, no system in which human happiness is dependent on science can ever become universal. Because man himself is flawed, any system he devises is also flawed and has within itself the seeds of its own downfall.
Though the dystopia he presents is a kind of hedonistic perfect world in which most people have a lot of fun, to put it simply, from our point of view it leaves out the things we value most, such as love, commitment, and the spiritual component of life. By presenting the character of John as a foil, Huxley drives this point home—that the kind of freedom and happiness we know and desire is absent from this sterile world. But because it is a world from which pain and the ordinary messiness of life are absent, one cannot escape the impression that Huxley, and all of us who are his readers, would have some degree of ambivalence about these issues.

What character traits does Antony demonstrate in Act 3 Scene 1 in the aftermath of Caesar's murder when he tries to make peace with the conspirators?

Mark Antony shows considerable patience and self-control in appearing to make his peace with the conspirators. As a loyal friend of Caesar, he hates what the assassins have just done; he believes that they are traitors and must pay for their crimes. But he's not going to make a move just yet; it's way too dangerous. Having just murdered Caesar, the conspirators wouldn't think twice about meting out a similar fate to Antony if he dared to utter a word of protest.
Mark Antony understands that if he's going to gain revenge for his murdered friend he'll have to bide his time. So he plays along, instructing his servant to send Brutus the message that Antony regards him as "noble, wise, valiant, and honest." He further agrees to follow Brutus as leader from now on. Brutus is overjoyed at what appears to be Mark Antony's acquiescence. Cassius, however, is not so sure; he knows just how close Antony was to Caesar. But for now it seems that Antony's reconciled to the conspirators and the foul deed they have committed. But in actual fact, he's just biding his time, waiting for the right moment to strike back against what he regards as a murderous gang of traitors.

Why does the Duchess want to sell the pearls in "The Duchess and the Jeweller"?

Virginia Woolf's short story "The Duchess and the Jeweller" focuses on a wealthy London jeweler and his purchase of ten false pearls from the Duchess of Lambourne. The Duchess is described as "very fat" and "past her prime." We also know that she has pawned most of her jewels already, because she emphasizes that these are the last items she can sell.
The Jeweller and the Duchess have an odd relationship:

They were friends, yet enemies; he was master, she was mistress; each cheated the other, each needed the other, each feared the other, each felt this and knew this every time they touched hands thus in the little back room.

This proves that the Duchess has been a regular customer of the Jeweller but that their relationship is fraught with mistrust.
The root of this awkwardness is partially revealed when the Duchess shows the pearls to the Jeweller. His first thought is:

Was she lying again? Did she dare?

This is an important detail. It reveals that the Duchess has a history of deception and has presumably sold the Jeweller false gems in the past. When the Duchess reveals that she has been gambling and had a "bit of bad luck," the Jeweller revels in the powerful knowledge he possesses.
However, the Duchess claims that she desperately needs 20,000 pounds for her three girls:

"Araminta, Daphne, Diana," she moaned. "It's for them."

This revelation, genuine or not, proves a quandary for the Jeweller. The Jeweller "loves" Diana. If the Jeweller refuses to purchase the pearls, he might lose a chance at love. But if he does purchase them, he risks spending 20,000 pounds on worthless baubles. At the end of the story, after signing a cheque, the Jeweller learns the pearls are fake.

What happens in Canto XX of Dante's Inferno?

Canto XX
Presumably Pope Nicholas III was still kicking his feet furiously as Dante and Virgil took their leave of him and the other Simonists in the third pouch of Circle Eight. The poets have crossed the bridge (Virgil physically carrying Dante), and have stepped carefully down the sharp incline into pouch four.
A horrific scene unfolds before them. Lines of sinners march quietly. Upon closer inspection, Dante sees that their heads face backwards; the shades must proceed slowly, as they cannot see what is in front of them. Their sorrow is so great that the tears roll down their backsides:

“Wondrously each one seemed to be distorted
From chin to the beginning of the chest;
For tow'rds the reins the countenance was turned,
And backward it behoved them to advance,
As to look forward had been taken from them.”

Unlike the Simonists for whom Dante had no pity, the state of agony of this group of sinners moves the poet to tears:

“As God may let thee, Reader, gather fruit
From this thy reading, think now for thyself
How I could ever keep my face unmoistened,
When our own image near me I beheld
Distorted so, the weeping of the eyes
Along the fissure bathed the hinder parts.
Truly I wept, leaning upon a peak
Of the hard crag…”

Virgil, however, feels no such pity. He chastises Dante for his emotion:

“Art thou, too, of the other fools?
Here pity lives when it is wholly dead;
Who is a greater reprobate than he
Who feels compassion at the doom divine?
Lift up, lift up thy head, and see for whom
Opened the earth before the Thebans' eyes…”

Virgil points out several of their number. There is the cowardly King Amphiaraus, who, learning of his impending defeat, tried to hide. Also among this number is the gender conflicted Tiresias, who changed his sex from male to female and back again; Virgil continues, naming the diviner Aruns, the man who predicted Rome’s civil war and its outcome:

'Whither rushest thou,
Amphiaraus? Why dost leave the war?'
And downward ceased he not to fall amain
As far as Minos, who lays hold on all.
See, he has made a bosom of his shoulders!
Because he wished to see too far before him
Behind he looks, and backward goes his way:
Behold Tiresias, who his semblance changed,
When from a male a female he became,
His members being all of them transformed;
And afterwards was forced to strike once more
The two entangled serpents with his rod,
Ere he could have again his manly plumes.
That Aruns is, who backs the other's belly,
Who in the hills of Luni, there where grubs
The Carrarese who houses underneath,
Among the marbles white a cavern had
For his abode; whence to behold the stars
And sea, the view was not cut off from him."

Lastly, Virgil points out a woman who in life had been the sorceress Manto, whose long, dirty hair now covers her breasts:

“And she there, who is covering up her breasts,
Which thou beholdest not, with loosened tresses,
And on that side has all the hairy skin,
Was Manto, who made quest through many lands…”

The sight of Manto reminds Virgil of his homeland, Mantua (the town named for the witch). He tells Dante about Manto’s history. As a young girl, Manto had to leave Thebes after her father was killed; she finally found a place to live near a lake named Benaco. The chief attraction to this marshy, smelly area was its relative safety from the wars that raged not far away. Other people soon came to the same conclusion, and joined Manto in her safer place, eventually naming the town after her, “Mantua.”
While Dante has not said a word, nor are there any indications that Dante disbelieves his mentor, Virgil nonetheless challenges Dante, daring him, in essence, to call him a liar:

“I caution thee, if e'er thou hearest
Originate my city otherwise,
No falsehood may the verity defraud."

Whether he actually doubts Virgil, Dante replies that he indeed believes the elder poets story:

"My Master, thy discourses are
To me so certain, and so take my faith,
That unto me the rest would be spent coals.
But tell me of the people who are passing,
If any one note-worthy thou beholdest,
For only unto that my mind reverts."

Dante then asks for Virgil’s help in identifying more of the sinners in the fourth pouch. Virgil complies, pointing out Calchas, who oversaw the sacrifice of Iphigenia (in “The Aeneid”) and was an interpreter of entrails of the enemy dead. He identifies two astrologers, Michael Scot and Guido Bonatti, and the soothsayer Asdente.
There is nothing more to be said here. Virgil tells Dante it is time to move on as the hour grows late.

Imagine and write the end of the story.

As the story ends, Roderick and Madeline die and the narrator flees from the house. He watches as it cracks and sinks into the tarn.
Think about how you would like to approach adding to this ending. One possible way would be to consider shifting the point of view. Right now, the narrator is watching from a distance as the house collapses and sinks away into the water. You might write a new ending in which you imagine being still in the house. Maybe Roderick and Madeline are not really dead and awake to find themselves in a disintegrating, sinking mansion. What do they see, feel, think, and do? What sounds do they hear as the house sinks? What do they smell?
Another approach would be to extend the ending of the story out past the point when the narrator watches the house disappear. You might imagine him heading for the nearest town and alerting people about what has happened. What occurs then? Does a group go back to the tarn and try to fish the bodies of the dead out of the water? What else might happen?
These are just two ideas that I hope will get your imagination going so that you can write a great ending to the story.

Why does Maniac paint out the number on the band shell door and decide not to live there any longer?

After an old man named Grayson discovers Maniac living in a buffalo pen, he invites Maniac to live with him on the third floor of the YMCA and in the band shell, which is the baseball equipment room. Together, Grayson and Maniac enjoy their lives and Grayson becomes Maniac's guardian as the two characters develop a close friendship. Grayson tells Maniac old stories about his experiences in the minor league, and Maniac begins to teach him how to read. Maniac enjoys his life in the band shell with Grayson and initially writes 101 on the outside of the door to signify their living quarters. Tragically, Grayson ends up passing away and Maniac is forced to move on once again. Before Maniac hits the road, he erases the number 101 from the door of the band shell. Maniac erases the number 101 to represent the end of an era and feels that he can no longer stay there because of the painful memories attached to the living quarters. Maniac proceeds to live a nomadic life before spending the night in replica army shelter in Valley Forge.

Although Maniac lives in a dorm room at the YMCA, he spends most of his time hanging out with Grayson in the baseball equipment room, or the "band shell" as he calls it. If any place is home to Maniac at this stage in his life, this is it. Having a place to call home is very important to Maniac, as he's spent so much of his life moving around from place to place without ever being able to settle down for long.
It's not surprising that he becomes so attached to the band shell, even if it is just a humble baseball equipment room. As this is Maniac's new home, he wants to make it all nice and homely, so he paints the number 101 outside the door and calls the place "101 Band Shell Boulevard."
But before long, Maniac's on the move again. Sadly, old Grayson has died, so "101 Band Shell Boulevard" just isn't the same place anymore. Before he leaves, Maniac brushes over the number 101 that he'd originally painted outside the band shell.

Learning politics: discuss and think about conversations around politics when you were age ten. What were some of the ways you learned about the political establishment through family members and friends? How were you politically socialized as a child?

This answer will be unique to each individual, but, as a native of the great state of Massachusetts, specifically a town on the south shore known as Braintree (home of John Adams, John Quincy Adams, and John Hancock), I will share an interesting anecdote that I believe is reflective of how politics can shape families.
When I was ten, the election of 1988 was taking place. I was living about ten miles south of Boston (in Braintree). The governor of Massachusetts, Michael Dukakis, was running against the incumbent vice president, George Bush. Bush served as vice president under Ronald Reagan (as Bush proved his ability as a senior official while working as director of the CIA). There were several interesting things about this election, both with respect to my family and concerning the media.
My mother (a public high school social studies teacher) volunteered for Dukakis's campaign and kept dozens of campaign signs in the back of her station wagon. Meanwhile, my father (her husband) supported Bush. My father taught at an independent school and recognized that his job depended on the wealthy not having their incomes taxed to an extent that would dissuade them from sending their children to the private school where he worked. My mother (a public school teacher) supported the democratic interest in raising teacher salaries and taxing the wealthy. My parents remained amicable throughout the election (which Bush won).
Concerning the media coverage of this election, Dukakis's last month of campaigning was victimized by a smear campaign which accused him of having released a convicted felon, Willie Horton, for a furlough.
Finally, Ross Perot ran as the third-party candidate. He sought to address the country's economic problem by means of cutting government spending. This election represented a heyday for Saturday Night Live, which featured Dana Carvey playing Ross Perot. This era inaugurated the tradition of comedy addressing itself to political discussions and, in turn, serving as a major public source of them.

What is Anne Hutchinson most known for?

Anne Hutchinson is best known for her role in advancing feminist and religious ideas in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the early decades of its colonization. Anne was the wife of a prominent merchant and mother of fifteen children. She made a name for herself in challenging the accepted order laid out in her Puritan community.
Anne Hutchinson regularly held meetings in her home with other women in Boston. There, they discussed ideas that challenged the patriarchal elements of her rigid Puritan society. She also challenged several theological tenets of her church and argued that salvation comes from God's grace alone, not through the strict adherence of religious law. Her talks became so popular that soon men were joining her discussions.
This greatly upset the Puritan leadership in Boston. They argued that she was overstepping her bounds as a woman and leading others down this seditious path. Her claims of having directly heard God's message would cause her to be branded as a heretic. As a result, she and her husband were excommunicated and forced to leave the Massachusetts Bay Colony.
Today, Anne Hutchinson is remembered as one of the first feminists in what would become the United States. Through the lens of history, Anne Hutchinson has become known as someone set on disrupting a social order that was oppressive to women. She has come to be viewed as an assertive woman who made herself a public presence in a heavily patriarchal society. Furthermore, since religion and the government were one and the same in New England during the 17th century, she has become known as a champion of religious liberty and the separation of church and state.
https://www.womenshistory.org/education-resources/biographies/anne-hutchinson

In "The Lady or the Tiger?," how can I examine the theme of leadership and the ways in which the author conveys her message about the role and responsibilities of a good leader (through a literary analysis—with assertion, context for quote, quote, and interpretation)?

“The Lady or the Tiger?” is a short story written by American writer and humorist Frank R. Stockton, which was published as the title story of his 1884 collection of short stories. It tells the tale of a "semi-barbaric" king with a unique justice system and his passionate daughter, who falls in love with a young man bellow her status. The story gained a lot of commercial success, mainly because of its captivating narrative and its thought-provoking ending (which doesn’t actually resolve the plot). In fact, the title itself has often been used as an idiom in the English language for referring to a dilemma that cannot be solved.
The main plot revolves around the king’s unique justice system. Instead of sending criminals to court or to prison, the king sends them to a public arena. In it, there are two doors: one leads to a beautiful lady, chosen by the king, and the other leads to a savage tiger. According to the king, if the accused person is innocent, he will choose the door that leads to the lady, and he will marry her, no matter his age, social class, or marital status. If he is guilty of the crime, he will choose the door that leads to the hungry tiger and meet his doom. Thus, justice will be served.

The decisions of this tribunal were not only fair, they were positively determinate: the accused person was instantly punished if he found himself guilty, and, if innocent, he was rewarded on the spot, whether he liked it or not. There was no escape from the judgments of the king's arena.

Essentially, the main themes that Stockton explores are people’s choices and the consequences that follow those choices. The fate of the accused is determined by chance, as the king believes that this is the only way to achieve the ultimate, pure, and impartial justice. However, this is most definitely not the case, as the most evil of men might open the door that leads to the lady, and the most virtuous of men might face the tiger. The king doesn’t seem to realize this and believes that luck will follow only the innocent. This begs the question: Is he a good leader or is he a bad leader?
Thus, another theme that Stockton explores is the meaning of leadership. The king is described as a semi-barbaric ruler with great ideals, whose wishes must be granted, no matter their absurdity. The only thing that doesn’t make him completely barbaric is the fact that his innovations have been influenced by progressive Latin neighbors. The society doesn’t consider the gladiator fights in the Roman Colosseum barbaric, and the king has followed their example to create his public arena of justice.

In the very olden time there lived a semi-barbaric king, whose ideas, though somewhat polished and sharpened by the progressiveness of distant Latin neighbors, were still large, florid, and untrammeled, as became the half of him which was barbaric. He was a man of exuberant fancy, and, withal, of an authority so irresistible that, at his will, he turned his varied fancies into facts.

Many argue that the king is, in fact, a tyrant. He might have figured out a way to achieve impartial justice, but he also did it for his own personal entertainment and, by extension, the entertainment of his kingdom. Stockton indirectly suggests that everyone possesses a part of the king’s barbarism, as we are all prone to give in to our passions. We are held captive by our never-ending need for pleasure and thus always seek ways to entertain our mind, even if that means witnessing or participating in something immoral.
This is why the king’s ethics and morality are often topics for many critical essays and analyses. Stockton implies that the king’s motives are justifiable, but his methods are questionable. A good leader should share the king’s passion for justice and advocate for fairness and equity; however, they must be kind, benevolent, and democratic as well, and they must know that not everything is as black and white as it seems.
The climax of the story happens when the king finds out that his daughter has fallen in love with a young man below her status, and he sends him to the arena. This is very meaningful, because the king takes pride in his unbiased nature and his candid and open-minded personality. However, when his daughter falls in love in a commoner, he is quick to judge the both of them and, basically, sends the man to his death. Thus, his character contains some hypocrisy, which is another trait that a good leader should avoid.
Knowing that she can’t dissuade her father, the princess uses her charm and her nobility to uncover which door leads to the lady and which one leads to the tiger. On the way, she also learns that the lady behind the door is someone who has previously tried to seduce the man she loves. The princess thus feels jealous and conflicted, because if she helps the young man, he will have to marry her rival and maybe even discover happiness with someone other than her. On the day of the trial, she discreetly signals the young man to choose the door to the right. Stockton doesn’t reveal what was behind this door, and readers are left to interpret the ending on themselves.

The question of her decision is one not to be lightly considered, and it is not for me to presume to set myself up as the one person able to answer it. And so I leave it with all of you: Which came out of the opened door—the lady, or the tiger?

Was the battle over slavery primarily a conflict between two different economic systems, or was it more of a moral issue? Which congressional action in this period did the most to push the nation toward civil war (the Wilmot Proviso, the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, or the debate over the Lecompton Constitution)? How did developments that first appeared to be victories for the South end up benefiting the antislavery cause in the long run?

The American Civil War resulted from both economic and moral conflicts over the institution of slavery. Abolitionists had been attacking slavery for a solid century, from slave uprisings to social movements to abolitionist societies and underground railroads. In particular, increased slave rebellions and resistance, led by brilliant fighters such as Harriet Tubman and Nat Turner, made the institution of slavery begin to crumble. Industrialized capitalism of the mid-nineteenth century also began to push back against plantation slavery not for moral reasons, but because capitalism had morphed into a different kind of exploitation through horrific factory wage work and railroad building.
Abraham Lincoln and the Union States in general were certainly not morally motivated to abolish slavery, as the Northern states continued to allow slavery throughout the war. The Emancipation Proclamation was a political move that ensured the destabilization of the Southern plantation states, and the liberation of black folks from the horrors of slavery was merely an outcome for the politicians and armies of the time.
The lead-up to the civil war and the consequent abolition of slavery (except in the case of being convicted of a crime, which has led to mass incarceration as another form of slavery) were a result of hundreds of years of slave and abolitionist rebellions as well as all of the events mentioned in the question above. Particularly, the Kansas-Nebraska Act was a pivotal conjunction in the lead-up to the civil war, as settlers fought fiercely amongst themselves regarding pro and anti-slavery beliefs and whether or not the states of Kansas and Nebraska should allow slavery. The period that followed, known as "Bleeding Kansas," absolutely directly led to the civil war.

In terms of the legislative acts and initiatives you referred to, it is important to note their relevance and how they are connected. The Wilmot Proviso (1846) was a proposal that the United States Congress ban slavery in the territory acquired from Mexico as a result of the Mexican-American War. This proposal ultimately failed, yet it was one of the major initiatives that lead to the Civil War. Four years later, the Compromise of 1850 banned slavery in Washington DC. However, included in this set of legislation was the Fugitive Slave Act, meant to pacify Southern slave-owners by allowing them to track down runaway slaves. Southerners were still not satisfied by the act, believing it would not be effective in the long run and still fearing the threat of slave uprisings.
The subsequent Kansas-Nebraska Act was the most significant influence precluding the Civil War. The Lecompton Constitution of 1857 was also a major influence on the war: the proposed legislation aimed at preserving slavery in the state of Kansas, which resulted in a national controversy that further split the country.
To address your final question as well as the element of morality influencing the war, the Union was not particularly motivated to abolish slavery in the early years of the civil war. Rather, the focus was on keeping the country together. There was a clear anti-slavery sentiment in the Northern States, but wartime conditions influenced the objective of abolition in the war's final years. As the South achieved decisive victories, military necessity furthered support for abolition. By the end of the war, approximately 179,000 black men fought on the Union side, making up 10% of the Union Army. Moreover, anti-slavery views also strengthened as many African Americans fled enslavement through self-emancipation.

The slavery battle was in many ways both an economic and a moral issue. The North was committed to industrialization and believed that free labor, which became the platform of the short-lived Free Soil Party (which was folded into the Republican party), was the future of the nation. The South was more and more committed to an agricultural system based on "King Cotton" and the use of slave labor. Moral issues also played a role in the debate, as the North had become more abolitionist following the Second Great Awakening that occurred around 1800. This spiritual movement focused on good deeds to achieve salvation, and many northerners believed slavery was a moral wrong. The South became more invested in its own ideology that stressed the way whites "took care" of slaves (who, this ideology falsely stated, could not care for themselves).
There are arguments to be made that all of these events helped lead to the Civil War, but perhaps the Kansas-Nebraska Act was the most decisive. It stated that people in the territories could choose whether or not to allow slavery. This act was a threat to both sides, but it seemed to benefit the South initially. The North had believed that slavery was going to die out in the territories, but this act contradicted that idea. This act is an example of a short-lived victory for the South that wound up hurting it in the end, as the Kansas-Nebraska Act made the northern abolitionists even more inflamed.

In stanza 5, what does the word "it" refer to?

There are only four stanzas in this poem by William Blake, so I think you are actually referring to the word "it" in line five, rather than stanza five. The article "it" here refers back to the "wrath" mentioned in the previous line, which the speaker did not express and which, therefore, grew. However, this poem is an extended metaphor, as the title suggests, in which wrath is imagined taking the physical form of a tree—indeed, a "poison tree," as Blake labels it. The speaker "waters" this wrath, in its tree-like form, and, like a tree, it grows, but the water the speaker provides it with is comprised of his fears, tears, and deceit. The metaphorical tree of wrath thrives on, and is nurtured by, the speaker's bad feelings toward his "foe" and his inability to simply confess his feelings and therefore purge them. Instead, the wrath grows until it bears fruit, which kills the speaker's foe.

Rudy's little sisters say there are 2 monsters in the kitchen. Who are they and what is the purpose of their visit?

Rudy is a young boy who, like many others his age, is being considered for education and training at a special school. Set in Germany in the 1930s–1940s, in a fictionalized town, this novel explores how Nazism affected children, who were too young to understand what was happening to their country. These “monsters” are Nazi Gestapo agents who have gone to Rudy’s family home to tell his parents that he should go to the Nazi school. In other places, they are called “coat men” for their appearance in long black coats.
While the children sit and play dominoes, the coat men/monsters intend to convince Rudy’s parents, the Steiners, boasting that the school is one the country’s “finest” for “elite” students to serve the Führer. Rudy has been identified because of his fitness and excellence at sports, but (we learn later) he does not identify with, or want to be part of, any “master race.” His parents are not swayed, and they refuse to let him go.

What are the foremost hardships that Levinsky experiences as an immigrant in America? How do these compare to the hardships he experienced growing up in Russia?

Arriving in America with just pennies in his pocket, Levinsky again begins life in poverty in a new land. Born a poor, Russian Jew, Levinsky experiences countless hardships during his lifetime, both in Russia and America.
In both countries, he struggles with outside acceptance of his faith and heritage. In Russia, Levinsky faces beatings, pogroms, discrimination, and persecution for identifying with his Jewish roots. He lacks true, loyal friends and family members. After the murder of his mother, Levinsky flees to America. While gaining far more opportunities to advance and be free in America, Levinsky again faces the challenge of fully embracing his heritage as a Russian Jew and experiences a lonely life of personal crossroads.
In both lands, Levinsky sacrifices much to survive—most of all, his own identity and integrity. In Russia, Levinsky fights for physical, economic, and spiritual survival. In capitalistic America, Levinsky fights for personal, moral, economic, and spiritual survival as he faces a cut-throat and demanding world of compromise, exploitation, temptation, and manipulation. In both countries, Levinsky struggles with feelings of emptiness and a lack of self-worth.
Although he eventually makes millions in America and is an extremely successful businessman, Levinsky is still alone, as he felt in Russia, with no one to share his accomplishments. Both lands feel cold and empty to him. As Levinsky voraciously attacks his work without apology in America, he compromises his personal, traditional, and spiritual convictions in order to succeed; he treats others with emotional detachment and disregard in order to get ahead. He uses women to try to meet his needs, but he is always emotionally detached.
Additionally, Levinsky feels that he does not fit in either land, as he is suspended between two worlds in each nation. In Russia, Levinsky is torn between his Russian Jewish Orthodox beliefs and Russian Orthodox Church doctrine. In America, Levinsky is torn between his traditional European Jewish community and the greater American gentile community. Just as he was orphaned at a young age in Russia, Levinsky fails to ever truly find a home in America, as well.

How does Keats comment on the flawed nature of the seemingly flawless scenes depicted on the urn?

Contemplation of the urn leads Keats to recognize the flawed nature of the flawless scenes shown in the "marble" figured base relief on the urn. The "bride of quietness" though flawless is flawed because she is the unnatural "foster-child of silence." The flawless melodies of the piper are flawed because they have "no tone," no audible music. The groom, "Bold Lover," forever bold and in love is flawed because he can "never, never" kiss the bride of his passion. Keats offers consolation for the groom's flawed flawlessness by saying that his love for the bride will never die and she always will "be fair."


Flawlessness is seen in the woods that will never shed leaves nor see "Spring" end. Flawlessness is in the "unwearied" musicians whose songs will never grow old. Flawlessness is seen in the "more happy, happy love" that will remain "warm" "panting" and "young." A flaw in these parts of the wedding scene is difficult to see unless it is the implied flaw that, since these elements do not live and breathe and feel, the absence of "breathing human passion" is something to regret and mourn. Perhaps this note of mournfulness is Keats' acknowledgement of the funereal purpose of the urn.


The flawless little town is flawed by being "desolate" because the townspeople will never return to it and will tell no tales. Like the bride, the town's "streets for evermore / Will silent be." Keats concludes his ode by suggesting that the flawless "Cold Pastoral!" of marble base relief (cold to the touch), which "shalt remain, in midst of other woe," is flawed because its frozen, unconsummated flawlessness is the woe that it will carry throughout time.

Can you please give me a passage in the book that talks about, illustrates, or exhibits a postcolonial view or a feminist view? (Or an eco-critical viewpoint or a new materialist viewpoint)

In Sea of Poppies, the author uses a postcolonial perspective overall in his examination of the impact of British imperialism on China and India. The British involvement in China was concentrated in the opium trade, which had a devastating effect on many people’s lives even as it provided a livelihood. In India, a British colony administered through indirect rule, income from the opium trade helped support the apparatus of state and enabled the continued domination of a small, distant European country over a much larger one.
In China, growing opium poppies, in a “sea” of flowers hundreds of miles distant from the ocean, comes to take the place of agriculture for food crops. The demand for opium pushes all other crops aside. Ghosh effectively describes how the trade distorted traditional patterns of poppy growing. People had formerly grown only a small number of poppies because the work was extremely labor-intensive. If there was a bit remaining beyond what each family needed, they would sell that. They did not grow poppies or make opium for the express purpose of sale. It was not seen as a good investment of time and resources.
With the increased trade, farmers shifted to mono-cropping: the poppies were the only thing they cultivated. The corresponding labor requirements were increasingly arduous. The English employed agents who went around contracting people to plant; it was almost impossible to refuse the cash advances they offered. When the crop yields were not as high as expected, however, the farmers could barely repay these advances, or not at all, and thus became indebted to the system. They could not fall back on their own stores because they were not growing food crops.

[T]he English sahibs would allow little else to be planted; their agents would go from home to home, forcing cash advances on the farmers, making them sign /asámi/ contracts. It was impossible to say no to them: if you refused they would leave their silver hidden in your house, or throw it through a window. It was no use telling the white magistrate that you hadn't accepted the money and your thumbprint was forged: he earned commissions on the opium and would never let you off. And, at the end of it, your earnings would come to no more than three-and-a-half sicca rupees, just about enough to pay off your advance.”

In the process Ghosh describes, not only is a harmful addictive substance encouraged, but the entire economic base of the society is undermined. Ghosh’s analysis of the functioning of colonial economy comes from his postcolonial perspective on the social impact of this type of political economy.

Compare and contrast narrative therapy with EMDR.

First, we will briefly overview both therapies and then compare and contrast their perspectives.
Narrative therapy is a form of counseling that approaches a person’s life as a series of stories. Some stories are good, and some stories are bad. The goal of narrative therapy is to uncover strengths in a person’s identity which will allow that person to define who they really are. In turn, the bad stories can be rewritten through this newfound strength.
Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) encourages a person to focus on a past traumatic experience while at the same time being stimulated through a rapid eye movement technique. The goal is to reduce the emotional connection to the memory and change how the memory is stored in the brain.
As we compare the two therapies, we can see right away that both can be used to focus on dealing with traumatic experiences and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The intention of both is to help an individual deal with events in his or her life that may be preventing a healthy emotional future. Both require further academic learning by a mental health professional.
As we contrast the two therapies, we can see that EMDR focuses on the way the memory is stored, while narrative therapy focuses on altering the emotions. EMDR intends to change how a memory is stored in the brain, while narrative therapy attempts to distance a person from their problem through conversation and view it in a different light. Through the rapid eye movement technique, EMDR attempts to reduce the symptoms that may trigger traumatic experiences in the brain. Narrative therapy, on the other hand, focuses on the positive stories in a person’s life to help deal with and rewrite the bad stories in a person’s life.
For more information on trauma treatment, please view the following link.
https://www.ptsdtraumatreatment.org/the-trauma-narrative/

Analyze the conflict between Troy and Cory in the Fences.

The father-son conflict between Troy and Cory forms the dramatic heart of the play. Much of that conflict is generated by Troy, reliving the fraught relationship he had with his own father. Troy has a sense of duty towards Cory, as with the rest of his family, but that's about the only bond he has towards his son. Troy doesn't like Cory and says so frankly, but so long as he's working hard and putting food on the table he thinks that's enough to make him a good father.
And it's in their respective attitudes toward work that the conflict between father and son finds its most notable expression. Having been denied the opportunity to develop his skills as a baseball player in his youth, Troy doesn't see why Cory should be allowed to avail himself of similar opportunities in football. Troy has had to work for everything he's ever had, and as far as he's concerned, Cory should too. Hard work is one of the few things in life that gives Troy a sense of worth and dignity in such a deeply racist society.
Yet Cory, in playing football and later joining the Army, shows a greater willingness to compromise with white society and its values. By ordering Cory to quit the football team, Troy probably thinks he's protecting him from the kind of prejudice and disappointment that he experienced back in his youth. But at the same time, there's a sense of resentment here, that Troy finds it unfair that his son should be able to make a success out there in the big wide world in a way that he was never able to.
Troy and Cory are so much alike, and ironically this proves a real sticking point in their relationship. Both are very proud, stubborn, set in their ways, and unable and unwilling to back down in an argument. Yet there is one crucial difference. Over time, Cory develops a self-confident personality, a personality free from the kind of hang-ups and burning resentments that dogged Troy for the whole of his adult life. This allows him to be the bigger man, to reconcile himself with his father by showing up at his funeral. But it says a lot about this tense relationship that this reconciliation can only occur in death, not life.

Why Syrian people should read "the sniper" short story?

I think people, regardless of what country they are from, should read "The Sniper" because of what it says about war, violence, and the consequences of both.
This question specifically asks about Syria, and "The Sniper" is an especially appropriate story for Syrian people to read, as well. The reason for that is because Syria is in the middle of their own civil war. The violence in Syria has been going on since 2011, and hundreds of thousands of people have died. Because the Syrian war is a civil war, it is certainly possible that brothers have been pitted against each other in combat. That is what "The Sniper" is about. One sniper kills another sniper only to find out that he has shot and killed his brother. The short story does a great job of showing the familial repercussions of such a war, and it could potentially be beneficial for Syrian people to read a story that reminds them that their enemy was once a "brother."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35806229

How did the ideas in National Security Council 68 (1950) shape US foreign policy from 1945 to 1960?

The report of National Security Council 68 (1950) had a huge impact on the foreign policy of the United States from 1945 to 1960. At the time, the US was under threat from the Soviet Union, during the Cold War. The report, from the US Department of State’s Policy Planning Staff, recommended that the best way for the US to counter the threat of the Soviet Union was to build up their own weapons, creating an arms race.
We can see that this impacted US foreign policy in that the United States did test and assemble weapons, both nuclear and otherwise, as well as prepare their military so that they were poised to defend themselves should the Soviet Union attack. Additionally, the US followed the suggestions in the report to avoid isolationism, as the US continued to be involved in trying to negotiate with the Soviet Union. Finally, they followed the suggestions to not attack the Soviet Union themselves, as they felt that this would not be effective and would only create more devastating attacks.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/kennan

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/NSC68

The poem "Ozymandias" explores power and its aftereffects. What is another poem that analyzes the same topics?

“Ozymandias” is a classic poem that addresses the hubris of its title king, who falsely believed the world would remember his empire long after he was gone.
Some other poems that deal with similar themes include W.H. Auden’s “The Fall of Rome,” Emily Dickinson’s “I took my power in my hand,” and William Shakespeare’s “Sonnet 94."
Auden depicts the universal, inevitable end of all human societies due to humanity’s insistence that it build vast empires. This could relate to Shelley’s mention of the “mighty” referred to in the poem.
Dickinson’s poem addresses the question of why the individual fails. Alluding to David and Goliath in the Bible, the speaker wonders if he or she was too weak or if the obstacle too strong. This power struggle relates to Shelley’s poem, if you consider how Ozymandias failed as well.
Finally, Shakespeare’s poem connects to Shelley’s because the speaker describes what happens when power corrupts the powerful. In the final couplet of the sonnet, the speaker asserts that rotten lilies are worse than weeds, suggesting that leaders often begin with promise and good intentions.

Why would Lowis Lowry start the children's book Gathering Blue in such a gruesome way?

Gathering Blue is categorized as Young Adult fiction, which means that its target readers are adolescents. Many children of various ages have had the experience of losing a parent. The idea that a child must take responsibility for burying their parent may be difficult to accept, but in societies going through a war or epidemic, children often must take on that burden. Lois Lowry clearly establishes at the outset that Kira is living in a very challenging society. While we do not learn the exact nature of the catastrophe that has forced people to live in small, rustic communities, we can readily discern that it was an extreme event. Lowry also introduces another fact that is important to the plot: that Kira has a disability. Her mother was successful in saving her although she was born with different length legs in a society where disability is not allowed. This establishes the kind of loving care with which Kira was raised and which will change following her mother’s death.

How would I write a research paper on the black power movement?

The term "Black Power" was first used by African-American author Richard Wright in his 1954 book Black Power. It was also used locally in 1965 by Alabama politicians as part of the Lowndes County Freedom Organization. However, it was in 1966 that black activist Stokely Carmichael brought the expression into widespread use in the US political mainstream.

As a young man, Carmichael was committed to Dr. Martin Luther King's theory of nonviolent resistance. He joined the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and participated in protests in the Deep South. By May 1966, when he became chairman of SNCC, Carmichael had become disillusioned with nonviolent resistance and determined to turn the organization into a more radical direction. After the June 1966 shooting of James Meredith during a peaceful protest walk, Carmichael delivered a speech in which he said:


The only way we gonna stop them white men from whuppin' us is to take over. What we gonna start sayin' now is Black Power.


Carmichael further explained the term in his 1968 book Black Power: The Politics of Liberation.


It is a call for black people in this country to unite, to recognize their heritage, to build a sense of community. It is a call for black people to define their own goals, to lead their own organizations.


The Black Power movement differed sharply from that of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in that King's goal was racial integration, whereas the goal of the Black Power movement was separation. Reactions to the movement were mixed. King felt that the term was "unfortunate because it tends to give the impression of black nationalism." The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, or NAACP, condemned it as a "menace to peace and prosperity." Many white Americans felt threatened by the concept of Black Power.

The Black Panther Party, originally known as the Black Panther Party for Self Defense, a political organization that challenged police brutality and engaged in a number of social outreach programs within the black community, was a part of the larger Black Power movement. Black Power also gave rise to cultural phenomena such as the Black Arts Movement and the Black Is Beautiful movement, which popularized black clothing and hairstyles.
https://www.archives.gov/research/african-americans/black-power

https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/stokely-carmichael

https://www.history.com/topics/civil-rights-movement/black-panthers

Why did the Yelnats apartment smell of food odor and burning rubber?

The Yelnats apartment smells like foot odor and burning sneakers because of Stanley's father's attempts to invent something.
Stanley's father is convinced that he can find a way to recycle old sneakers. This means that he has to find a way to break down shoes that have been worn—from which comes the scent of foot odor. He also has to find a way to break down the rubber soles of the shoes. It's clear that there are probably many shoes in the apartment and that he has tried to use heat to recycle them.
He says that the first person to find something to do with these old sneakers will be a rich man. Of course, this experiment is why Stanley is later arrested for stealing old shoes and sent away.

How does a lack of communication lead to a lack of emotional connection in the Interpreter of Maladies? Can this be used as a theme?

The lack of communication between Mr. Kapasi and the Das family leads to a lack of emotional connection by making it hard for the parties to comprehend the mannerisms and behaviors of each other. First, Mr Kapasi is shocked by the way the Das family treats each other; the father and mother (Raj and Mina) act like older siblings instead of parents to their children (Bobby, Ronny, and Tina). According to Kapasi, Mina seems to hate doing things for her kids since she complains about taking Tina to the loo. Kapasi makes the presumption that the entire Das family is made up of children. Had he bothered to ask them why they behave like that, he would have understood that both Raj and Mina love their children, and constant arguments are their way of showing love. Kapasi's misinterpretation is evident in the final incident, when Bobby gets attacked by monkeys. He takes his time to observe what the parents will do and is almost surprised when they ask him to protect their child. Alternatively, if Mrs. Mina was actually interested in what Kapasi does, she wouldn't have asked him to interpret her emotions after revealing the secret to him. It shows that she was only flattering him so that he could make her feel better.
Yes, the lack of communication leading to a lack of emotional connection can be used as a theme, because it has an effect on the entire plot of this story.
http://jhou.weebly.com/uploads/3/0/8/0/30800919/interpreter_of_maladies.pdf

What are the main themes in Liar's Poker?

Capitalism and masculinity are two major themes in Liar's Poker.
Capitalism. This story thoroughly considers how the culture of Wall Street is both seductive and morally wrong. The story examines how wealth and freedom leads to childlike behavior with short term thinking. Lewis observes as his colleagues play teenage pranks, such as, blowing spitballs at one another. Lewis becomes acutely aware of what is needed to succeed on Wall Street. It is not necessarily knowledge of economics, it is instead an inner desire to exploit and intimidate others. He calls this “The Law of the Jungle.”
Masculinity. In conjunction with Lewis’ critique of capitalism is a consideration of masculinity. In a nearly all male work environment Lewis witnesses his colleagues call a phone sex line and blast the speaker on the intercom. Lewis ties this directly to masculinity when he nicknames a successful trader, “Big Swinging Dick.” He says,

If he could make millions of dollars come out of those phones, he became that most revered of all species: a Big Swinging Dick.

Why didn't the boy go home after he left the temple in "The Boy Who Drew Cats"?

Even though it is never specifically stated as to why the little boy didn't go home after leaving the temple, a close look at the text of this story itself can reveal his reason for choosing not to return home. The boy is originally from a farm, and when he was growing up, he didn't fit in there. At the beginning of the story, he is described as "quite weak and small, and people said he could never grow very big." Because of this he "did not seem to be fit for hard work." On the farm, he would be a much better help if he were big and strong, but instead he is clever and spends his free time drawing. He initially left because he was nothing but a burden on his family.
After the experience in which his cat drawings kill a large, deadly "goblin rat," he vows to never stop drawing cats. He felt compelled to draw them before the experience, which is why farm life didn't suit him. The experience with the goblin rat only validated his artistry, so it makes sense that he would continue through the world until he found a place where he could fit in and draw cats in peace. At the end of the story, the reader is told that he "became a very famous artist," so it is clear that he eventually found his place in the world, and it wasn't the place where he was born.

What did the American Dream represent? How did it help us understand the relationship between George and Lennie?

John Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men is set during the Great Depression and follows the story of two migrant workers, George Milton and Lennie Small. George and Lennie's American dream is different from the original idea which was published by author and historian James Adams. In 1931, when Adams first wrote about the concept of the American dream he was referencing the idea that a richer and fuller life meant that everyone had opportunity according to their ability and achievement. This original concept was not centered around material things, but of the idea that social order would allow every man and every woman opportunity.
By the time the Great Depression hit, the American Dream had changed. During the these years many Americans lived in poverty and struggled just to survive. The American dream became centered around living comfortably and owning a home. For George and Lennie it meant not only owning their own home, but owning their own farm. As migrant workers life for George and Lennie has been hard. Their American dream represents not having to answer to a boss and living comfortably.
As George says in chapter 3,

"We'd just live there. We'd belong there. There wouldn't be no more runnin' around the country and gettin fed by a Jap cook. No, sir, we'd have our own place where we belonged and not sleep in no bunkhouse" (Steinbeck 57).

In his poem "Earth Hour," how does David Malouf explore universal themes? What quotes from his poem demonstrate this, and with what techniques?

The concept of an "earth hour" was conceived to celebrate an annual, worldwide movement that involves switching off all lights for an hour, as a way of minimizing humanity's environmental impact on the planet.
David Malouf, in his poem, "Earth Hour," uses this very concept to touch on universal themes of life and death. He intimates how these lie buried to penetrate us all, even as we live through a distracting maze of man-made modernity. Ironically, that same modernity includes the very concept of having to come up with an "earth hour" to remind ourselves to care for life on earth.
He begins his poem with an immediate call to action. He makes the reader realize, almost admonishingly, that it is not necessary to remind ourselves of this, because all raw life is within us every minute, every hour:

It is on our hands, it is in our mouths at every breath, how notremember?

He then takes us right back to a primal sense of humanity, a time when all that mattered were the basic elements of life. He does this by conjuring images of fire, wildlife, cows, moonlight. These paint a scene of warm, calm freedom—something that the modern-day "earth hour" tries to achieve in switching off all lights.
However, Malouf is quick to depict a rather different scenario. It mirrors the quiet, though not quite. He does this by juxtaposing a cold darkness achieved instead by present-day, urban conditions:

glass in our McMansions, coolmillions at rehearsal . . .

Such a use of the image of "McMansions" makes the contrast even sharper. McMansion is a derogatory term used to describe an immensely showy and spacious house built with substandard materials and designed in rather poor taste. It is a striking metaphor for the growing popularity of overzealous materialism. And Malouf makes use of this to underscore the sham of having to "rendezvous each with his own earth hour."
Malouf, in criticizing the shortcomings of "earth hour," goes on to remind us whom we are and where we all come down to in the end, in the final hour, regardless of the heft of our habitats:

Schatzkammer and midden, our green accommodating tomb.

What common experiences united the African diaspora? What events in Africa inspired Pan-Africanism? What were the goals of the First Pan-African Congress? What did Pan-Africans do to change opinions and to aid Africa?

Pan-Africanism is a movement devoted to the idea that people of African descent need and deserve political, social, and economic independence—not just from colonial rule, but also from (the less obvious) marginalization by external foreign powers (such as European nations). During colonial rule, whites in power easily and routinely had unrestrained access to public funds for personal use, and Africans (including white Afrikaaners) were a second-class citizens.
The Pan-African movement also assumes that the African diaspora (defined as “people of African descent living outside of continental Africa”) includes those born outside of Africa to be intrinsically a part of the movement. Pan-Africanism assumes and maintains a unity and solidarity of social, political, and economic thought and interests among these people. There were a total of five (5) Pan-African Congresses, between the early decades of the 1900s and 1945 (following WWII). In fact, the trajectory of the Pan-African movement’s genesis coincides with the World Wars. Its primary aims (at the first conference of 1900) were the decolonization of Africa and the West Indies, as well as home-rule for Africans. It also stipulated that representatives from the Allied powers be delegated to represent and organize Africans in Africa, as a means to affect their own best interests. The major aims of the movement were achieved after the fifth conference (in the politically liberal Manchester, England), at which point decolonization was effected permanently. This was in large part owing to the assertiveness of Africans in England who themselves had fought in WWII.
The African diaspora to the present day (unsurprisingly) follows the slave trade and has left many members in Europe, the Americas, and West Indies.

The issue of Pan-Africanism is related to, but distinct from, the issue of apartheid (“separateness”) that plagued South Africa for the latter part of the 20th century. Apartheid lasted until the election of S. Africa’s liberator and champion of racial equality, Nelson Mandela, in 1994. While the first five Pan-African Congresses death with economic and political independence for post-colonial Africa, the liberation movement and the African National Congress (ANC) was devoted to racial equality among blacks, colored people, Afrikaaners, and whites within Africa itself.

There were in fact three final Pan-African Congresses (in 1974, 1994, and 2014), and these addressed themselves both to protection of refugees of African descent worldwide, the status (economically, politically, and socially) of members of the diaspora, and (chiefly) the South African independence movement.

What are some implications or effects of autism being an "invisible" disability for the child and his/her family? What are the implications for educators and for other professionals?

Autism today for some parents mingles the ideas and theories of vaccinations, diet, and medicine with unknown risk outcomes. Some parents of autistic kids believe their kids were somehow impacted despite decades of research to the contrary in respect to vaccinations. Given that some autistic kids are non verbal, and/or deaf and blind and incapable of any autonomy of self, it holds that some autistic kids and their families live in the invisible realm of the unknown. Most autistic kids are pretty fun and easy to work with once you can establish a relationship and begin to understand their way of looking at the world; they are kids with the same landmarks of accomplishment as any child in the world could hope for. PARA educators and BCBA’s draw upon a generous yet somewhat limiting palette of ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) and similar techniques to understand and affect positive behavioral changes. But depending on the child and degree of impact as well as socioeconomic factors perhaps involved, PARA educators and BCBA’s along with parents and family members can feel invisible to the subtleties

People have a tendency to expect certain behaviors out of children that vary with age. And they are willing to make allowances for different expectations if they note a difference that they can easily attribute to some mental or physical challenge.
It becomes quite tricky to navigate the world with a child who has an invisible disability. People are visually presented with a child whom they subconsciously classify as "typical," and the behavior or reactions they receive may not be typical at all.
Parents, therefore, must learn to do a couple of things well. First, they need to become fierce advocates for their child's needs. This looks different for every child with an invisible disability, but each day and in each new experience, parents are learning what types of activities evoke unwanted behaviors. They learn which times of day their children work best for tests or therapies. They learn which types of adult personalities don't mix well with their child's own. In doing so, parents become the voice their child needs to navigate the world most successfully. Parents learn to have those conversations with people who interact with their child, explaining why a certain appointment time will be futile, why they can't come to a party in a crowded bounce-house location, or asking for the lights to be lowered in a setting where their child needs to focus.
Parents also learn to be proactive in their child's environment. They may have to ask for specific details of a ride at an amusement park or ask guest services for accommodations in helping their child wait in very long lines. They might inquire ahead of time about programs at a museum for people who experience sensory issues.
Parents become the mediator between their child and those in their environment as well. Some children with invisible disabilities are nonverbal or have limited verbal skills, but parents can interpret their child's needs or wishes. They learn to navigate the world acting as a type of translator many times, allowing their child to make independent efforts (and encouraging those) and then following up with clarification, as needed.
They also have to mediate relationships between their child and their child's peers at times, providing child-friendly explanations about why their child reacted a certain way or didn't answer a question or seems not to follow the rules of a particular game. The way this information is conveyed is often key in helping other children understand ways that they can better form relationships with their peers who have invisible disabilities.
In absence of parents, teachers serve many of these same roles. In the school environment, teachers are proactively serving as the mediator between the child and their peers, and the child and other teachers or professionals. They help those who interact with the child understand what is to be expected and to provide structure for assisting the child in communication, transitions, and other areas of difficulties. Based on the child's past experiences and parents's input, they determine any difficulties a child might have in a school day. Will the assembly be too loud? Is 90 minutes too long to sit for a lesson without some time to decompress? Is the lunch room overly stimulating? Always on the lookout for new situations that could be problematic between a child and his environment, the teacher serves as an advocate to help facilitate the best possible learning environment.
Many of these things would be implicit in working with children with a visible disability. For example, if an adult saw a child approaching an escalator alone with a cast and crutches, she would rush to help. However, if a child with an invisible disability encompassing balance difficulties approached the same escalator, it is quite possible that no one would notice. These children, therefore, rely on the adults who know them best to intervene in the world around them to keep them safe and to provide a nurturing environment.

Who was Grover Cleveland?

Grover Cleveland was the only Democratic president of the Gilded Age. He is the only president to serve two non-consecutive terms. He was president from 1885–1889 and from 1893–1897. Benjamin Harrison served between Cleveland's two terms. Cleveland served in New York as mayor of Buffalo and governor of New York. He was known for his honesty. During his presidential bid, he was accused of having an affair. Instead of denying it, Cleveland admitted to the act. Voters appreciated his honesty, and Cleveland won the election.
As president, Cleveland did not lower tariffs in order to appease American industrialists. He also refused to annex the Hawaiian Islands after plantation owners overthrew the legitimate queen. Hawaii would have to wait until 1898 and the McKinley administration before it would be annexed. Cleveland was not popular during his second term, as he was unfairly blamed for the Panic of 1893, one of the largest economic depressions to hit the United States.

What are the events that occur in chronological order?

Sonny’s Blues in chronological plot order:
Sonny’s dad’s brother is run over by a car of white men long before his sons are born, and it can be inferred that this trauma is at the root of his alcohol addiction.
Sonny’s parents have church people over at their house and they talk about their personal pain and suffering with one another, but they do not talk in too great of detail, because they want to protect their childrens’ innocence as long as possible.
Sonny is 14 years old and tells the narrator he wants to go to India to obtain “wisdom.”
At age 15, while the narrator is away at war, their dad dies while drinking.
Somewhere in Sonny’s teen years, his drug-using friend tell him that dope feels good. It can be inferred from later conversations that this interaction happens after Sonny’s dad dies, as Sonny mentions that drugs are a way to cope with pain.
The narrator returns home while on leave from the Army. His mom tells him about his uncle was murdered by a car load of white men as a youth, and how the narrator’s dad witnessed it. She says, “Your Daddy never did really get right again,” meaning he became psychologically fragile, which was shown in his suspicious fears of all white men. The narrator promises his mom he will be there for Sonny no matter what.
The narrator gets married and is shipped back off to war.
The narrator’s mom dies while the narrator is away at war.
After their mom's funeral, and with a year of high school still remaining for Sonny, Sonny tells his brother he wants to drop out, learn to play Jazz, and join the Navy or Army.
The narrator discourages Sonny from joining the Navy or Army, and they all (Sonny, the narrator, and Isabel) move in with Isabel's parents.
Sonny practices piano all the time, and starts to skip school for his drug habit.
The school sends letters about Sonny’s absences, but Sonny destroys most of them before they can be read. Isabel’s mom receives the last letter, and becomes angry. She makes it clear to Sonny that both he and his music are a burden to her, and that she only tolerates Sonny for his brother’s sake.
Sonny leaves to join the Navy.
The war ends.
Sonny moves in with people in “The Village.” The implication is that they are all heroin addicts.
The narrator hunts Sonny down to find him, and they fight. Sonny treats his addict roommates like they are his new family, and pushes his brother away.
After a long estrangement from his brother, the narrator reads about Sonny’s apartment being raided for heroin.
The narrator teaches his Algebra classes, and while making observations about his students' laughter, he begins to reflect on how Sonny used to be as a kid.
The narrator meets Sonny’s addict friend outside his school. He has come to tell the narrator about Sonny, to see if the narrator can do anything to help Sonny, and to say he feels partly responsible Sonny’s heroin addiction.
The narrator’s daughter, Grace, dies unexpectedly from Polio as a two year old. At the funeral, the narrator writes to Sonny. Sonny writes back, mending the bridges he burned.
After Sonny is released, the narrator meets his brother in New York and they drive around familiar locations on the way to the housing project where the narrator lives.
Sonny lives with the narrator and his family. While he is living there, a revival happens on their block, and Sonny goes to listen to the music. He is interested in one of the women singing, who people there call “Sister.” She seems to be singing to feel "in control." He relates the sound of her voice to the feeling of being high.
Sonny talks to the narrator about his drug addiction, and about how he used drugs as a way to cope with the suffering of his life. He expresses that he cannot understand why people have to suffer, and that heroin is just a way to "stand it." He warns his brother that he could fall into the habit again.
Sonny takes his brother to the nightclub. The narrator sees that Sonny is respected as a great musician: “Here I was in Sonny’s world. Or, rather, his kingdom. Here, it was not even a question his veins were royal blood.”
Sonny plays with Creole on the stage in the nightclub. It is the first time he has played in about a year. The music helps the narrator to understand what Sonny’s blues are all about. The music is an expression of all the pain he has endured, and the people listening can relate to it. Music is Sonny's way of understanding human suffering, and it is also his way of helping other people understand.
The narrator buys Sonny a drink.

When does George drink the libations/whiskey in the story?

A libation is a drink poured out as an offering to a deity. It was a popular practice in Ancient Greece where people regularly poured libations to the gods as part of religious rituals.
In "Editha," George says that he got drunk after pouring too many "libations" of whiskey down his throat. He tells Editha that he was consecrating himself to her god of battles. This indicates that George is still not enthusiastic about the prospect of going to war and is only really doing it to please Editha. It is her god to which he offered libations, not his. Even so, Editha's not best pleased. She makes George promise that he won't touch a drop of the hard stuff ever again. She wants him to remain healthy and strong for his country. As always, she's thinking about the war, which she stubbornly insists on romanticizing.

How have the Finch children's childhood experiences shaped their view of the world by the end of the book?

The biggest understandings Scout and Jem gain from their childhood experiences in To Kill a Mockingbird involve empathy and racial injustice.
Scout and Jem learn empathy throughout the book. In chapter three, Scout learns from Atticus that she shouldn't judge others until she "walks around in their skin." This comes after a particularly frustrating first day of school. Later in the book, Jem (and to some extent, Scout, too) learns empathy from his encounters with Mrs. Dubose. The children originally view Mrs. Dubose as a horrible, irredeemably mean old lady. By the time they learn of her death, and after a discussion with Atticus about her illness and morphine addiction, Jem and Scout come to understand the unique strength and humanity she actually had. Finally, the experience of Tom Robinson's trial gives an ultimate lesson in sympathy, showing the children how to "walk around" in the "skin" of Tom Robinson, Mayella Ewell, and a number of other Maycomb residents.
Scout and Jem also learn of the deep racial injustice that poisons their community. The experiences of the trial (and its outcome), visiting Calpurnia's church, witnessing the jailhouse mob, and more show the children how deeply divided Maycomb is.

Based upon your knowledge of World War II, is the film “Flags of Our Fathers” accurate regarding its portrayal of conflict? Why or why not?

This is a good question to ask whenever thinking about a film with a historical setting. Most of these types of movies will take some liberties with historical accuracy in order to tell its story. With "Flags of Our Fathers," the filmmakers tried hard to stay true to the spirit of the times and events surrounding the story, while also telling a compelling narrative.
The shots of naval vessels and the chaos and carnage of the landings at Iwo Jima certainly resemble photos and videos from the actual event. The congestion and confusion of the Marines on the beach has received praise from veterans and historians for accurately capturing the events and feelings surrounding that event.
One criticism of historical accuracy is that images of rationing were not portrayed in scenes depicting the home-front. There seem to be plentiful sources of food and fuel, which was certainly not the case in the United States in 1945.

Why does the speaker compare Death to a human in "Death, be not proud"?

Death is personified in John Donne's "Death, Be Not Proud" to show that it is not to be feared and can be conquered. The speaker opens with the idea that many have considered Death "mighty and dreadful," and the speaker seeks to dispel the power inherent in these beliefs. By giving Death very human-like attributes, it seems much more possible that people can actually emerge victorious over Death's limited, human-like powers.
The speaker calls Death a "slave to fate, chance, kings, and desperate men." Therefore, Death is not in control of people's lives; Death itself must submit to the power of kings—of men who are desperate for other options—and even to the whims of fate itself.
The speaker concludes by stating that Death swells with pride in erroneous thought, for after a "short sleep," people awake into an eternal life. Death does not even exist any longer. By contrast, the people whom Death sought to harm in life hold ultimate victory over Death, as they can never again be touched by its realm. These images all work together to personify death as a temporal and weak entity which should not be feared by mankind: who is ultimately more powerful in the face of spiritual immortality.

How is Jonathan different from when he left?

At the end of the story Jonathan returns to his old flock, but he has changed greatly from the young gull he was when he left. He now is much freer and wiser than he ever was before. He enjoys the freedom that flying gives him and is not ashamed of it. He has become unlimited in his thoughts and feelings as a result of the teaching of Old Chiang. The last words of his old master were to keep working on love. He shows this to his old flock through his attitude and actions once he returns. Jonathan is pleased to teach the eager young gulls of the Breakfast Flock what he knows. He has now become a teacher of all the wisdom that he had learned during his time in exile. He is less self-absorbed than he was as a younger gull. Most importantly, he has learned to forgive the members of the flock for banishing him. He has learned to love all gulls, even the ones who treated him so poorly. In short, Jonathan is more enlightened than he was before.

How many scholarships does Erik have?

Erik's dad has lovingly compiled a list of all Erik's football scholarship offers, which he stores in a file on his computer. Erik is a football star in the making, and his dad is determined that he should fulfill this destiny. He keeps a meticulous record of all the schools that have made Erik scholarship offers so that when the time comes for him to make his final decision, he's as well-informed as he can be.
When Paul takes a sneaky peak into the folder he finds that most of the schools listed haven't actually expressed an interest in Erik. A few have, though: Rice, Baylor, and Houston have all sent letters to Erik. But Paul notices that the dates on all these letters are all from around the same time: right after Erik's junior season in Houston. He further notices that his dad hasn't replied to any of them. Paul doesn't know the reason why, but later on he'll discover that it's because his dad has realized that Erik won't be able to pursue a football career unless he deals with his many psychological issues.

In The Witch of Blackbird Pond, why does Kit end her relationship with William?

After Kit is arrested and tried for witchcraft and the charges against her are dropped, William comes to call at her home. He stayed away during Mercy's illness out of consideration for the family, he says. Kit is cool toward him because he did not support her during the trial; he didn't even act as a character witness for her. When Kit shows him out that evening, they have a private conversation. Although he says he missed her, he makes it clear that he expects her to put her unpredictable ways behind her.
Hearing William's remarks, Kit realizes their relationship will never work. Although she hadn't decided previously not to marry him, the time she spent in the shed when she was under arrest gave her plenty of time to think. Now it becomes clear to her that each of them will always be wishing the other were different. She knows she doesn't care about the things that are important to him—like his house—and he doesn't care about things that are important to her—like sacrificing to help people whom others reject or ignore.
William is "baffled and unhappy" at Kit's news that she no longer wants to see him. She knows that with one word or touch, she could revive their relationship, but she lets him go. William and Kit are not compatible because they don't share the same values. Kit breaks off her relationship with William without having any other prospects for marriage. If she hadn't made that brave and principled move, she would not have been free to find a better future with Nat, who does share her values.

The United States has played a paradoxical role in world order: . . . expanding across the continent in the name of Manifest Destiny while abjuring any imperial designs; [exerting] a decisive influence on momentous events while disclaiming any motivation of national interest; and [becoming] a superpower while disavowing any intention to conduct power politics. How do we explain this ambivalence, and what are its implications? Can we have it both ways? Does it depend?

The paradox of the United States role in the world order must be assessed from multiple standpoints. First and foremost, one must recognize the passage from old world to new world within European history. The colonist who left Europe to found America were very eclectic, largely religious, and had suffered persecution at home. These American settlers had intimate contact with other authoritarian monarchies, states dominated by religious rule and imperial republics amongst the other European powers such as; Britain, France, Germany and Spain. This intimacy with European imperialism created a dual desire for civil liberty and republican secularism.
The American Union was consolidated around conflicting interest mainly economic expansion away from Europe and greater civil liberty, versus religious freedom and republican government. Economic expansion civil liberties and religious freedom converge in manifest destiny, proving both as possible. I believe this is the beginning of America's just war doctrine. Exterminating the native population was viewed as a constituent project of expanding the frontier and protecting national interest.
As far as being a superpower yet rejecting imperialism, the constitutional republic resolves what appears to be a contradiction. Not purely an authoritarian monarchy yet administratively capable of engaging in militarism; America uses the ideal of democratic rule and popular sovereignty to hide its imperial ambitions behind a doctrine of just war and humanitarian intervention. Its easy to view this ethical dualism from the perspective of our modern war on terror; A christian democratic republic versus the Islamic terrorist threat.

The ambivalence regarding westward expansion and Manifest Destiny can be explained by sociological relationships between Native Americans and white settlers. Political officials of the era dismissed accusations of imperialism by denying personhood to Natives. In their minds, European imperialists oppressed fellow Europeans, or they physically invaded faraway nations. American settlers expanded West across the land on which they already lived. Perception explains this paradox.
However, the ambivalence regarding international politics cannot be explained by societal perception. If the United States was not driven by national interest, there would be no involvement in or influence over major events. Defense of other nations is driven purely by trade concerns and self-preservation.
In becoming a superpower, power politics are unavoidable. The United States has a long history of extending its political reach in order to increase its sphere of influence. Therefore, any claims of avoiding power politics are false. The United States cannot have it both ways. A nation cannot forcefully expand without imperialism. A nation would not influence international events were it not for national interests. A nation cannot be a superpower without conducting power politics.