What was life like in the New England colonies?

At first, life was rough in the New England colonies as settlers struggled to establish a foothold in a new land. There were very few of them, they didn't necessarily know how to farm or survive the terrain, and Native Americans posed a threat to their wellbeing. However, the colonies in that region, settled primarily for religious reasons, were also imbued with a sense of hope and animation, for the settlers no longer had to face imprisonment, fines, corporal punishment, and even death for violating British religious laws.
As time went on, the colonies became economically prosperous, especially the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and the per capita income was very high, as wealth was distributed more evenly than in Europe. At the same time, however, the religious atmosphere that had once animated such hope that the Massachusetts Bay Colony would be a beacon to the rest of the world came to be perceived by some as repressive and stifling. This led to dissent and to the founding of new colonies in New England such as Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New Hampshire.
The colonists very much wanted to replicate the life they knew in England, only without the religious persecution they had suffered. The Plymouth Colony pilgrims, for example, had left the Netherlands because they didn't want their children assimilating into Dutch culture. Therefore, even when it would have been more convenient to adopt Native American dress, housebuilding, or other customs, the colonists stubbornly insisted on keeping to their own way of life.
People largely lived in small villages and farmed as they had in England. They sent their children to school. For men of the correct religious faith, a somewhat flattened hierarchy gave them a voice in the political world.

Why does Mr. Morris throw the monkey’s paw into the fire?

After Mr. White asks Sergeant-Major Morris about the monkey's paw he attained in India, Morris is reluctant to speak about it, then proceeds to tell the White family that its first owner's last wish was for death. After mentioning that he is not sure whether he would want three more wishes, he suddenly throws the magic monkey's paw into the fire. Sergeant-Major Morris understands the malevolent powers of the monkey's paw and is aware that it can wreak havoc on the White family, which he is why he attempts to destroy it by throwing it into the fire. Morris is a friend of the White family and does not wish to see them hurt by the monkey's paw. By throwing the magic monkey's paw into the fire, Morris is being proactive and protecting the White family from the evil talisman. Tragically, Mr. White retrieves the monkey's paw from the fire before it can be destroyed and proceeds to make his first wish after Morris leaves.

Sergeant-Major Morris knows what the monkey's paw can do; he knows what strange powers it holds. He has direct personal experience of this, and doesn't want anyone else to have to go through what he did. He explicitly tells the Whites that an old fakir, or Indian holy-man, put a magic spell on the paw to show that fate ruled people's lives and that interfering with it would only lead to sorrow.
Despite Morris's warning, the Whites don't seem convinced; they treat the monkey's paw like it's nothing but a big joke, a harmless piece of mumbo-jumbo. As the paw has already caused so much mischief, and as the Whites clearly don't take its magic powers seriously, Morris throws it onto the fire. Foolishly, Mr. White immediately swoops down and snatches the monkey's paw from the flames. Morris advises him to throw it back on the fire, but White chooses to keep it instead, with tragic consequences.

Examine the various ways that the theme of happiness is developed in Ursula LeGuin's "The Ones Who Walk away from Omelas."

Certainly, the mood of the story begins quite happily. It is the Festival of Summer in the "bright-towered" Omelas. The boats "sparkled with flags" and the swallows "soar[ed]" among the "moss-grown gardens." People stroll outside, and "the procession was a dance" as children dodge "in and out." Everything, and everyone, seems beautiful. The narrator says, "Joyous! How is one to tell about joy? How describe the citizens of Omelas?" They are very happy, but they are not "simple folk" either. Their lives are complex and rich. Their city is not a fairy tale, though they lack technologies we enjoy. The narrator explains,

Happiness is based on a just discrimination of what is necessary, what is neither necessary nor destructive, and what is destructive. In the middle category, however--that of the unnecessary but undestructive, that of comfort, luxury, exuberance, etc.--they could perfectly well have central heating, subway trains, washing machines, and all kinds of marvelous devices not yet invented here, floating light-sources, fuelless power, a cure for the common cold. Or they could have none of that; it doesn't matter. As you like it.

They are not "goody-goody," she is also quick to point out. However, they are well aware of what is necessary to their lives and what is unnecessary, even destructive to their way of life. The narrator assumes that we will not believe in their existence as described, and so she tells us about the miserable and abused child in the closet on whom all their happiness relies.

They all know that it has to be there. Some of them understand why, and some do not, but they all understand that their happiness, the beauty of their city, the tenderness of their friendships, the health of their children, the wisdom of their scholars, the skill of their makers, even the abundance of their harvest and the kindly weathers of their skies, depend wholly on this child's abominable misery.

Happiness, then, as a mature individual is not possible without, at least, the knowledge of unhappiness. Pleasure is not recognizable without knowledge of pain. Joy cannot exist without misery. The child must suffer so that everyone else can realize happiness. It is sad and cruel, but LeGuin develops happiness as something that can only exist when one knows its opposite—when that opposite exists somewhere in the world.

What is the legacy of William Henry Harrison?

William Henry Harrison was the first President to die in office. He died thirty-one days into his term after becoming sick due to inclement weather. This death created a constitutional crisis due to the ambiguity of Article II. The succession clause provided that the Vice President would assume the duties and powers of the Presidency, but it was unclear whether the Vice President actually became the President or merely acted in the role during a temporary vacancy. John Tyler and Harrison's cabinet disagreed on this particular issue, with the cabinet believing that Tyler was just acting in the role during a vacancy while Tyler believed that was the President. The two sides consulted the Chief Justice at the time and they determined that Tyler would become President upon taking the oath of office, which he then did.

Select three key symbols in "Everyday Use." How do they differ in the way that Dee and her mother understand them?

The house that burned down when Dee and Maggie were children can be interpreted as a symbol of Dee's disdain, even hatred, for her family and their lives. Dee's sister, Maggie, nearly died in the fire, and her arms still carry the scars from the burns she got. Dee, however, was safe and sound, "standing off under the sweet gum tree she used to dig gum out of" with a look of concentration on her face as she watched the house go up in flames. "Why don't you do a dance around the ashes?" her mother had thought to ask her. "She had hated the house that much." Mama Johnson says that she used "to think [Dee] hated Maggie" as well. Dee even said, once, that she would never bring friends to visit their home, as she was, evidently, so embarrassed by it (and, it seems, her family). Mama sees their lives as contented and satisfying; Dee, however, does not.
Dee's original name is a symbol of her family heritage. When Dee arrives, she explains that she could not bear "being named after the people who oppress [her]," and so she has changed her name to something more African-sounding: Wangero. Her mother explains that Dee was actually named for her aunt, and her aunt was named for her own mother (Dee's grandmother), and she was named for her mother, and so on back. Dee does not truly understand or appreciate her family's heritage and significance (though her mother and Maggie, certainly, do).
The family's possessions also serve as symbols of Dee's lack of appreciation for her family's heritage and life. She marvels over the "rump prints" on the benches, as well as Grandma Dee's "butter dish" and the "churn top" for the family's butter churn. The thing is, her family uses these objects on a daily basis, and yet she wants to take them to do "something artistic" with them. She wants to display these items, while her family would continue to actually use them. Her mother and sister understand heritage as something that is put to everyday use, and the stories of family members and their items are passed down from person to person. Dee, however, only sees heritage as a thing to hang on her wall; she doesn't care about the actual stories or the people attached to the objects.

The short story "Everyday Use" by Alice Walker tells of a family of a mother and two daughters. It is narrated by Mama. She lives with her younger daughter, Maggie, a simple and shy girl whose skin is scarred from a house fire. Dee, the older daughter, is more intelligent and attractive. She comes to visit with a man who is either her boyfriend or husband. It's clear that Mama and Dee have very different worldviews, and there are numerous symbols in the story that support this. I'll list several, and then you can choose which three you think are most important.

The first symbol that is presented is the yard. Mama keeps it swept and clean and considers it an extension of the house, but Dee does not even notice it.

The TV show that Mama describes is a symbol of the way that she wishes that Dee would see her: as an ideal mother in a sort of fantasy reality. It is obvious, however, that Dee does not see her mother and sister like that, but instead she looks down on them and considers herself superior.

The house is another symbol. The way that Mama describes it is simple and basic, and yet she and Maggie are comfortable there and see it as home. Dee, however, regards it as an expression of their poverty, as Mama comments: "No doubt when Dee sees it she will want to tear it down."

Dee's dress, accessories, and hair style are symbolic. To Dee they represent her modernity, good fashion sense, cultural assimilation, and break from the poverty of her past. However, Mama and Maggie think these things are unnecessarily ostentatious and overly bright.

The hand-whittled churn top that Dee takes is symbolic. To Dee it is merely something she can use to decorate her tabletop, but to Mama it is an object of practical value.

Finally, the quilts that Dee tries to take are important symbols. Like the churn top, Dee doesn't want to use the quilts for what they were made for. She wants to hang them as works of art. She protests that if Mama gives them, as they are promised, to Maggie, she will probably use them as bedding and ruin them. In this case, Mama sides with Maggie, puts her foot down, and insists that Dee not take the quilts. Dee remarks that Mama doesn't understand her heritage, but Mama understands enough to know that Maggie will make better use of the quilts.

The quilts are one example of symbolism in "Everyday Use." Dee sees the quilts as art and intends to display them as such. However, in Mama's opinion, the importance of the quilts lies in their usefulness. She feels that Maggie will use the quilts as they are intended to be used.
Dee's clothing is another example of symbolism. When Dee arrives, she wears a long, brightly colored dress. The dress symbolizes Dee's identity and her appreciation of her African heritage. Mama sees the dress as being too long and unsuitable for the hot weather. Again, Mama sees value in what is useful and necessary, while Dee sees value in appearance.
A third example of symbolism can be seen in the differences between Mama's body and Dee's body. Mama shares that she has large, rough hands. Her hands and her large size allow her to do what needs to be done to provide for herself and her family. When Dee arrives, Mama immediately recognizes her by her feet. She describes Dee's feet "as if God himself had shaped them." Dee's delicate feet are in contrast with Mama's hands, again making clear the distinction between that which is useful and that which is to be admired.

Comment on the irony and satire of Jane Austen.

Austen is famous for her use of irony and satire. Irony comes in several forms: When people say the opposite of what they mean, this is verbal irony. When situations turn out to be the opposite of what is expected, this is situational irony.
Satire is poking fun at or mocking an individual's personal vices or the vices of a society.
It is too much to discuss the irony and satire in all of Austen's novels, so I will focus on Pride and Prejudice, her most famous. Situational irony occurs as the proud Mr. Darcy falls in love with Elizabeth Bennet, the woman he initially scorned and would not dance with. How ironic to fall in love with the one you despised! Ironies pile on ironies as the lowly Lizzie refuses the great Darcy's offer of marriage.
Elizabeth, too, has to come to terms with her own prejudices. Ironically, Charlotte's marriage to Mr. Collins, which Elizabeth thinks will be a disaster, works out because of Charlotte's careful management of her inept husband. Ironically, Elizabeth learns that it is Wickham, not Darcy, who is the villain.
As for verbal irony, the first sentence of the novel is often used as a classic example of irony. In it, the Bennets and their neighbors (through the narrator's voice) decide that a man with a fortune must be in want of a wife. In fact, this means the opposite: it is the villagers who want a wealthy husband for their daughters.
As for satire, Pride and Prejudice pokes fun at (and sharply criticizes) a marriage market that makes young women and their mothers desperate to grab husbands as their only way to economic security.

What are four examples of figurative language in Rumble Fish?

S.E. Hinton uses figurative language such as similes, metaphors, personification, repetition, and alliteration.

California is like a beautiful wild kid on heroin, high as a kite and thinking she's on top of the world, not knowing she's dying, not believing it even if you show her the marks.

In this quote, we see a simile comparing California to a kid on drugs. We also see personification, as the state of California is given human qualities and emotions in the comparison.
Hinton also uses simile when describing Steve:

He looked like a sincere rabbit about to take on a pack of wolves.

Similes and metaphors are both comparisons, but similes use "like" or "as." The comparison in the quote below is a metaphor:


Your mother is not crazy. Neither, contrary to popular belief, is your brother. He is merely miscast in a play. He would have made the perfect knight in a different century, or a very good pagan prince in a time of heroes. He was born in the wrong era, on the wrong side of the river, with the ability to do anything and finding nothing he wants to do.




This metaphor compares Motorcycle Boy to an actor being cast in a show. We also see alliteration in "merely miscast" and "pagan prince" with the repeating first letters. Repeating the word "wrong" emphasizes how out of place he is.
Repetition is also in the following quote:

I love fights. I love how I feel before a fight, kind of high, like I can do anything.

Hinton also uses the literary device of flashback throughout the whole story.

Explain the literary devices used in the poem "Bangle Sellers" by Sarojini Naidu, with examples.

There are lots of literary devices to choose from in this poem. For example, there is throughout the poem a semantic field of language connoting color, light, and vibrancy. In the first stanza, we have language like "shining loads" and "bright / Rainbow-tinted circles of light." In the third stanza, we have words like "sunlit," "flame," and "luminous." And in the fourth stanza, we have the colors "purple and gold." This semantic field emphasizes not only the color and vibrancy of the bangles but also the color and vibrancy of the busy scene.
In the second stanza, and in fact throughout much of the poem, another language technique used is the simile. The speaker describes some of the bangles as "Silver and blue as the mountain mist" and some as "flushed like the buds that dream." These similes associate the bangles with a natural beauty and wonder, implying that these bangles are more than cheap, disposable trinkets.
In the third stanza, the speaker uses listing to emphasize the positive characteristics of the bangles. She describes them as "Tinkling, luminous, tender, and clear." The listing here has a cumulative effect; the positive connotations of one word are added to and compound the positive connotations of the previous word. The connotation is that these bangles have a beauty which is endless.

What do you think is the moral of the ballad "The Demon Lover?"

The moral of the story—it's not actually a ballad—is that one can't escape from the past, no matter how hard one tries. That's the dire predicament that Kathleen, the story's protagonist, finds herself in. She had hoped to have moved on from her past life, to leave behind the love that had once existed between herself and a soldier killed in World War I. But she can't.
Clearly, that love was a very strong one; so strong in fact that it has risen, Dracula-like from the dead, after all these years to manifest itself in the creepiest and most uncomfortable way imaginable. Love never dies, as they say, and it certainly doesn't here, even though—Lord knows—Kathleen would dearly wish it were otherwise. Try as she might she cannot escape from her past, which with its intense passion and unfulfilled promise, holds her in the palm of its wizened claw in a vice-like grip.

It can be argued that the moral of the story is that war results in devastating consequences for humanity. The story demonstrates that war perpetrates suffering on both soldiers and civilians alike. The costs of war are thus physical, spiritual, economic, and social in nature. However, who can fully and adequately quantify the devastating effects of war?
In the story, Mrs. Drover's soldier lover returns to fulfill a twenty-five year old promise to her. However, the author does not reveal whom Mrs. Drover sees in the taxi. Instead, the author leaves us to decide how we will interpret Mrs. Drover's frantic screams. Many have argued that Mrs. Drover's "demon lover" is the actual taxi driver. However, others maintain that war has so traumatized Mrs. Drover that she has lost her grip on reality.
Today, many mental health experts contend that war has a devastating effect on women. More women are affected by mental disorders in the face of war than men. In Afghanistan (a war-torn country), a study documents that almost 70% of respondents showed symptoms of depression. Meanwhile, a similar percentage experienced daily feelings of acute anxiety. Women had higher rates of anxiety and depression than men in both cases. So, psychological and emotional scarring are definitely induced by horrific war experiences.

What types of imagery are used in A Streetcar Named Desire, and what do they mean?

One of the most important images of the play is the paper lantern that Blanche buys. Blanche "can't stand a naked light bulb" because she is so self-conscious about her aging beauty. She needs the lantern to cover the bulb and diminish the light, so that she looks, in the half-light, "soft and attractive." As she says to Stella, "You've got to be soft and attractive. And I - I'm fading now! I don't know how much longer I can turn the trick." On a deeper level, the image of the lantern over the light also represents more broadly Blanche's desire to hide her past. She wants to appear chaste and respectable, like a traditional Southern belle, but this is a fading facade which hides a more sordid reality of promiscuity and alcoholism. Towards the end of the play, Mitch tears the lantern from the bulb, declaring, "I've never had a real good look at you," and in so doing he exposes Blanche physically, but more importantly he also exposes (to the literal and metaphorical light) her past, and her true character.
Another key image, from the final scene, is the image of the "grotesque" shadows and "lurid reflections" that appear on the walls around Blanche, and that begin to "move sinuously as flames." These images of sinuous shadows and reflections accompany and visually represent Blanche's mental breakdown. They are the reflections and shadows from her past which haunt her. In this same scene, the walls of the stage become transparent, representing how, for Blanche, the barriers between reality and fiction, past and present, and madness and sanity, have all finally broken down.
A third key image, from the opening scene of the play, is the package of meat that Stanley "heaves" towards Stella. This is a significant image because it places Stanley as a primitive, caveman type of character. He is the alpha male, bringing the meat home for his woman. The primitive impression is compounded by Stanley's monosyllabic utterances of "Catch!" and "Meat!"

Flower imagery is common in A Streetcar Named Desire. The flowers represent both youth and decay. In scene 3, Stella calls Blanche "fresh as a daisy," to which Blanche responds she's a daisy that's been plucked a few days.
In scene 9, Blanche hears a woman in the street selling flowers for the dead. This reminds her of the family she has lost and hammers home her reminder of her own mortality. As a result, the woman's calls make her hysterical.
Light and darkness play a big role as well. Light represents reality, the very thing Blanche wants to avoid, while darkness represents fantasy and hiding from the truth. She covers bare bulbs in paper lanterns and tries to stay in the shadows to hide her age. She is terrified of the truth of her life: she is no longer a young, pure southern belle, but an alcoholic woman of thirty.

What does Saint Augustine say about free will?

St. Augustine believed that God gave human beings the gift of free will. But all too often, that gift was abused, with people making the wrong choices in life. Augustine was particularly scathing of those who attached too much importance to the things of this world—to money, fine clothes, social status, and expensive jewelry. He thought that by concentrating on worldly goods, people were abusing their free will and turning away from the God who'd graciously bestowed that gift upon them in the first place. Augustine argues that in order for the will to attain the good, it must align itself with God's will, from which all good things come. If it turns towards the self, however, the will chooses badly.
Augustine speaks from personal experience, as he lived in sin with a concubine for many years, fathering an illegitimate child with her. According to Augustine's theology he was abusing his free will, not so much in the deliberate pursuit of evil, but in the pursuit of a lesser good that took him further away from God. Preoccupied with his own selfish needs, he separated himself from the will of the Almighty.

What does Raleigh mean when he says, "I've got lots of uncles and—things like that"?

It's a casual, seemingly throwaway remark that reveals just how important Raleigh's family is. Earlier in the conversation Osborne had revealed that he once knew a master at Rugby, an elite English boarding school. That's when Lieutenant Raleigh says that he's "got lots of uncles and—and things like that." There are clearly quite a few members of Raleigh's large family holding down important jobs in establishment institutions.
Our initial impression is confirmed when Raleigh goes on to tell Osborne how, when he was stationed at the base, he approached his uncle General Raleigh to ask if he could get him into the battalion. General Raleigh was furious at his nephew's impertinent request and sent him packing with a flea in his ear, telling him in no uncertain terms that he was to be treated the exact same way as everyone else. Yet the very next day Raleigh found that he was going to be appointed to the battalion of his choice after all. It would seem that despite his splenetic outburst, General Raleigh pulled strings to get his nephew what he wanted. Such a blatant act of nepotism illustrates the benefits of coming from a socially prominent family with "lots of uncles."

What are the different parts of the plot in the story "The Beast in the Jungle"?

The first part of the plot, which occurs in Chapter I, is the meeting between John Marcher and May Bartram on an October afternoon. Though Marcher doesn't really remember it, they met ten years earlier in Italy, when he confided in her that something special was going to happen to him. She recalls the following:

You said you had had from your earliest time, as the deepest thing within you, the sense of being kept for something rare and strange, possibly prodigious and terrible, that was sooner or later to happen to you, that you had in your bones the foreboding and the conviction of, and that would perhaps overwhelm you.

In other words, he told her that he had a presentiment that he was going to meet with a great fate, but he didn't know what this fate would be. Over the years, she often thought of his confession. They agree to wait together for this fate, as she shares an interest in his strange obsession that a great event is going to befall him.
The second part of the plot involves their waiting for this mysterious fate to happen to Marcher as they pass the time rather innocently. May is able to purchase a house in London, and Marcher, while polite to her, remains aloof and distant in some ways. He believes that "something or other lay in wait for him, amid the twists and the turns of the months and the years, like a crouching Beast in the Jungle." In waiting for this mysterious beast, he becomes entirely self-obsessed. In their relationship, she is described as "his kind wise keeper, unremunerated but fairly amused." In truth, she gets very little from this strange relationship as the years go by and Marcher waits for the metaphorical Beast in the Jungle to spring at him.
In the third part of the story, they go on like this for some time, with her living only to make him seem more ordinary and passable to the outside world. May then learns that she has a disorder of the blood. She assures Marcher that his fate is still special, but that it is never too late to escape it. However, he doesn't understand her meaning, and she dies. He still wanders on in a senseless and uncomprehending manner that James describes in the following way:

What it presently came to in truth was that poor Marcher waded through his beaten grass, where no life stirred, where no breath sounded, where no evil eye seemed to gleam from a possible lair, very much as if vaguely looking for the Beast, and still more as if acutely missing it.

Marcher continues to look for the beast, but it evades him. As a result, Marcher has a dull and dry existence.
In the last part of the plot, Marcher travels around the world and then returns to see May's grave. As he is standing before it, he sees a mourner struck with grief before another grave. In looking at the stranger's face, he realizes that his Beast in the Jungle has been to live without passion. As James writes, "The fate he had been marked for he had met with a vengeance." In the end, Marcher realizes that he has met the fate he once feared, but he was too stupid to realize it earlier.

Give an annotation on this quote: "Thou wast not born for death, immortal Bird! No hungry generations tread thee down."

This is a quotation from the seventh stanza of John Keats's "Ode to a Nightingale." As the title indicates, this poem is addressed directly to the nightingale. The type of direct address we see in this line, "Thou wast not . . ." is a rhetorical device called apostrophe, wherein the speaker is addressing a person or thing who is not actively present or engaged. The nightingale (being, in reality, only a bird) cannot understand what the poet is saying to it, but the speaker has personified—indeed, deified—the bird, and therefore it makes sense for him to address the nightingale here in an accordingly respectful way.
Keats's use of language here is also connected to the way he portrays the bird as "immortal." Since he lived in the early 19th century, Keats would not have used constructions like "thou wast" in his everyday speech. He chooses deliberately archaic language, the sort of language we might associate with the King James Bible, which has the effect of emphasizing the sense that the bird is being addressed as if it were an immortal being. For "generations," the speaker suggests, the bird has existed without having suffered the "tread" of anything else: like a god, the nightingale is constant, unchanging and ageless.
In juxtaposing the words "born" and "death," Keats is also emphasizing the supposed immortality of the nightingale, which he suggests has existed for centuries and sung the same song the ancients heard. We are, of course, all "born for death," but in conjunction with the word "immortal," this line establishes a semantic field of immortality which seems to set the bird outside of the natural order of things. The nightingale, Keats is saying, was not born to live ephemerally and be trodden down by the "hungry," or needy, generations—he was not born to be consumed or destroyed. Instead, he is a changeless and constant being which seems to connect the speaker to those who heard the nightingale sing many centuries earlier.

Why couldn’t Harrison’s father, George, remember his son’s arrest?

In Kurt Vonnegut's popular short story, Harrison Bergeron is taken away by the government when he is 14 years old. The arrest of one's son should be an extremely traumatic and memorable event, right? One would think. However, that is just the problem. In the society in which the characters live, the goal is equality and intelligence is handicapped to ensure total fairness in all thoughts.
George Bergeron, Harrison's father, simply cannot remember his son's arrest. George is above average in his intelligence, so he has a radio implanted into his ear. The piercing sound of sirens, loud and boisterous crashes, and discordant booms litter his ear canal, hindering his thoughts.
So here is George. His thoughts are not consumed by the worry of his son's arrest. His thoughts are muffled and his physically abilities limited by the handicaps he is forced to wear. George is an apathetic character. The weights and sounds and limitations of his life have subjected him to a listless existence, one that is void of care or want and any desire other than a nice spot in front of the television.
George is submitted. George, well, George simply does not care. He has been beaten by the literal and figurative weight of his government. His son has been arrested, but the "why" does not even register.

What did Aunt Debbie do?

Aunt Debbie, the sister of Tara's mother Faye, plays an important part in supporting her nieces and nephews. This is despite the fact that Faye has pretty much been ignoring her ever since she married Gene. Debbie's home becomes a relative haven of peace and tranquility for Tyler during his first year at Brigham Young University. Here, without all the chaos and disruption of their usually itinerant lifestyle, Tyler can meet up with Tara and teach her trigonometry.
Later on, Debbie helps out Tara by swearing an affidavit confirming her identity so that she can get a passport to study at Cambridge. Without this help, it's unlikely that Tara would've been able to go abroad. Her parents certainly wouldn't have obliged. Estranged from her mom and dad and most of her siblings, Tara effectively has to create a new family from scratch, and Aunt Debbie comes to be a very important member of that family.

Analyze any essay concerning critical thinking from Bully for Brontosaurus.

One of the pieces included in Bully for Brontosaurus, a collection of essays by evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, is entitled "From a Jumbled Drawer." In this piece, Gould provides an example of the value of critical thinking in contrasting the views of two distinguished figures of the late nineteenth century: the naturalist Nathaniel Shaler and his friend William James, the philosopher and psychologist.
Shaler, Gould explains, had developed as a scholar under the powerful influence of biologist Louis Agassiz at Harvard University. And although Agassiz opened the first Museum of Comparative Zoology at the same time that Darwin's Origin of Species was published, he was a devout creationist. In fact, his entire career was based on the premise that "species are ideas in God's mind, made incarnate by His hand in a world of material objects."
Shaler was only following in the creationist footsteps of his master when, in one of his earliest articles, he misclassified brachiopods as mollusks due to what he perceived as a shared bilateral symmetry. Such symmetry, as a feature of animal taxonomy, he described as a "study of personified thought"—or, as it might be called by current anti-Darwinists, a feature of "intelligent design."
Implicit in this strain of anti-evolutionary thought was a belief that "human races are separate species, properly and necessarily kept apart both on public conveyances and in bedrooms." In keeping with the racism of patrician Boston, he also believed in Condorcet's notion of "using biology as an accomplice" in advocating a nativist social policy, which severely restricted immigration of non-white Americans.
Ultimately, Shaler's belief in the steady progress of the human race as the embodiment of a divine order was rooted in a simple, but false, claim about probability. He claimed that "The possibility of man's development has rested on the successive institution of species in linked order . . . if any one of the species had failed to give birth to its successor, the chance of the development of man would have been lost." But, as Gould points out, if one accepts the chance and contingency that are central to Darwin's theory, the appearance of the human race would then have have been impossible.
In fact, Shaler's faulty logic was noted by his friend William James at the time. Although James was also a devotee of Agassiz, he was far more critical of the anti-scientific tenor of his creationism. As James rightly concluded, the actual result of evolution is the only sample we have. He reasons thusly:

We never know what end may have been kept from realization, for the dead tell no tales. The surviving witness would in any case . . . draw the conclusion that the universe was planned to make him and the like of him succeed, for it actually did so. But your argument that it is millions to one that it didn't do so by chance doesn't apply. It would apply if the witness had preexisted in an independent form and framed his scheme, and then the world had realized it.

Gould wisely summarizes this debate as follows: "Old, bad arguments never die (they don't fade away either), particularly when they match our hopes."
http://www.sjgouldessays.com/content/nh_essay_summaries_content/05%20Bully%20for%20Brontosaurus.pdf

What is the difference between a psalm and a hymn?

There seems to be some confusion over the correct definitions of "psalm" and "hymn."

[It] is difficult to decide to what degree, if at all, a distinction ... is made by the ... terms, psalms, hymns ... (newadvent.org)

"Psalm" is usually defined as "a sacred song or hymn of worship or praise," while a "hymn" is usually defined as "a sacred song of praise." The one distinction gleaned from the usual definitions is that a hymn is a category of psalm, and this seems to be a correct though limited distinction.
According to "The Psalms of David" offered by International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, a "psalm" is style of poetry. An analysis of the poetic genre of psalm will show that "psalm" is incompletely defined as "a sacred song or hymn of worship or praise."
A psalm is a poetic genre having a distinct meter that is limited by words per line: there are only two to four words per line in a Hebrew psalm, and each word is accented. This limits the other features of meter—rhythm and feet—within strict bounds. The most common meter is trimeter—3 accents—for two couplet lines, 3 accents + 3 accents in two lines. Variations on the two-line couplet trimeter employ 3 accents and/or 2 accents for 3 + 2 and 2 + 2. A three-line trimeter triplet also exists: 3 accents + 3 accents + 3 accents in three lines.
Parallelism of repeated or contrasted thoughts is a further component of the structure of a psalm. Kinds of parallelism are:

antithetic for contrasted thoughts

synthetic for complemented, supplemented or completed thoughts

climactic or stair-like for repetition joined with addition (moves the thought ahead in steps) ("The Psalms of David")
A "hymn" is identified by BibleHub.com as any of a number of types of psalm (i.e., the style of poem). BibleHub identifies six types of hymn written as psalms. This illustrates that "hymn" is inadequately defined as "a sacred song of praise":
Hymns of praise
National hymns
Temple hymns, which are hymns for public worship
Hymns of trial or calamity
Messianic hymns
General religious hymns
SmithCreekMusic.com elaborates on the meaning of "hymn" by defining it pragmatically as a reverent, devotional song that expresses "God's purposes" in life or a worshiper's "attitude toward God":

[A hymn is] reverently and devotionally conceived, which is designed to be sung and which expresses the worshipper's attitude toward God, or God's purposes in human life. (smithcreekmusic.com)

Are Draco and Harry foils or parallels of each other?

You could make a convincing argument for both, but I believe they are parallels of each other. They are both very intelligent and charismatic kids, and even both end up playing Seeker on their respective Quidditch teams. They are also both the leader of a small band of three students that later expands to a large group of students.
What is more interesting, though, is how they both act as "Chosen Ones" to some extent. Draco is chosen by Voldemort to act out his plan to murder Dumbledore and is seen being mentored by Snape for that very purpose. Harry is obviously the chosen one to kill Voldemort and is mentored by Dumbledore himself to raise him up to do that.

Was William McKinley an imperialist?

McKinley may or may not have been an imperialist. This is a matter of some debate among historians.
McKinley helped give rise to the American Empire by expanding the nation's borders to Guam, Hawaii, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico. The Philippines was later granted independence. McKinley also presided over the Spanish American war and the military occupation of Cuba—though America never claimed actual ownership of the island.
The Spanish American War offers an insight into the debate about whether McKinley had imperial ambitions. McKinley entered into negotiations with Spain prior to the war in an attempt to gain independence for the Cuban people. This followed from reports of concentration camps in Cuba that had been implemented by the Spanish. America invaded Cuba after talks broke down between America and Spain. Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines were ceded to America during the peace negotiations.
If McKinley's stated goals were sincere, then his territorial expansion was done largely to remove Spanish control over island populations within the American sphere of influence, undermining the argument that he was an imperialist. However, Hawaii is a different story that appears more imperial.

Where in the book is Ralph shown being a good leader?

Because page numbers can vary according to the edition of Lord of the Flies a person is reading, here is an answer with chapter references.
In chapter one, "The Sound of the Shell," Ralph demonstrates that he can be diplomatic and inclusive when the boys vote to have him become the chief. Ralph recognizes that Jack feels rejected, so he quickly offers to appoint Jack to leadership over the choir, who will become the hunters.
In chapter two, "Fire on the Mountain," Ralph establishes some ground rules, beginning with the role of the conch in meetings. The person who holds the conch will be empowered to speak, and the others must quietly listen. The rule enables an organized method of communicating information and opening dialogues. In the same chapter, Ralph is able to raise morale by telling the boys that the island is mapped and that there will eventually be a ship passing that will rescue them. The narrator says that when the others heard Ralph's assurance, "they liked and now respected him."

Explain lines 11-12 in to "An Athlete Dying Young."

In these two lines, Housman is using both allusion and metaphor to describe the nature of early athleticism. In referring to the "laurel," he is alluding to the practice in the Classical world of decking athletes in laurel wreaths to indicate success. In stating that the laurel grows early, he is saying that athletic success often makes itself apparent very early in a person's life, and someone who achieves great victories in this field may be hailed as a hero when still very young. In the next line, however, he compares the laurel to the rose, a flower which is often described as short-lived and is associated with the bloom of youth. If we assume that the rose here represents the athlete's youth and good health, then, Housman is saying that the laurel—representative of athletic success and excellence—"withers" even more quickly than youth does in general, which means that it withers very quickly indeed. Even before an athlete's youth is over, his athletic success will have begun to wane, so while the laurel may grow more quickly and make itself known very soon, it will also die very quickly.

How does Stevenson forewarn the readers that Jim’s fantasies will turn tragic?

Stevenson forewarns the readers that Jim's fantasies will turn tragic by using foreshadowing. A device used in literature to give hints to the reader about events that will occur later in the story. In chapter 7, adult Jim tells the reader:

Sometimes the isle was thick with savages, with whom we fought; sometimes full of dangerous animals that hunted us; but in all my fancies nothing occurred to me so strange and tragic as our actual adventures.

This quotation literally states that nothing that Jim expected to happen was as "strange and tragic" as what actually happened. The reader now knows that the events will be tragic, but since they are also strange, the reader will have a hard time figuring out what events are going to lead to Jim's fantasies turning tragic. This line creates suspense for the reader who will try to predict the outcome.

What is a summary of "Hermes of the Ways" by H.D.?

The poem is narrated by someone standing on a shore, watching the waves break. This narrator views the waves and sea foam and thinks about Hermes. Hermes, the speaker says, faces three ways (perhaps referring to his triple roles as messenger between gods and humans, trickster, and guardian of travelers).
Hermes is described as "welcoming wayfarers" and being protected by the "sea-orchard." His role seems very uncertain to the speaker.
In the second part of the poem, the speaker seems to await someone. The poem conveys a sense of vulnerability or uncertainty. The apples of the trees near the shoreline are too small and hard, and the boughs of the trees are twisted. The trees seem small and are not able to offer much protection or nurturance. They cast shadows, but there is no shadow of a ship—this detail suggests that the speaker is looking for a ship on the horizon.
In the final stanza, the speaker addresses Hermes, while the sea is described in malevolent terms as "gnash[ing] its teeth." Hermes—messenger, trickster and possible protector—waits with the narrator, but what are they waiting for?
H.D., an imagist, stripped away the excessive description of Victorian poetry to write spare verse. While she offers us a series of images of sea and land and evokes the Greek god Hermes, she suggests, rather than clearly explicates, a story, leaving us to sink into her images as images and to construct our own interpretations of what is going on in terms of narrative. To my mind, the speaker is in front of the ocean awaiting a ship that she is very uncertain will arrive, addressing the god Hermes, who she is aware may or may not help the ship come safely to shore.

In this poem, the speaker stands on the ocean's shore, where the sand meets the water, where shore grass meets sea grass. She considers the way in which her position is like Hermes's, the Greek Olympian messenger god who could move between the mortal and divine worlds, because she, too, seems to stand between worlds in this place. Their positions are "Dubious": unsettled, uncertain, because they can "Fac[e] three ways" at once, seeing different worlds at the same time. In Part II, the speaker uses a great deal of visual imagery to describe the three worlds she can see: the first is that of a small stream that flows underground; another is the apple orchard; and the third is the rather rough and violent ocean. The final stanza captures both the tempestuous world of the sea as well as the somewhat more peaceful, but no more certain or predictable, shore.

Why did Othello weep?

Near the end of the play, the strong warrior and commander Othello breaks down and weeps. He has smothered Desdemona, believing her to be engaged in an adulterous love affair with Cassio.
As Emilia reveals the truth that Iago orchestrated a false scenario to manipulate Othello into murdering his beloved wife, Othello starts to realize the terrible mistake he has made in killing Desdemona. As he does so, he collapses weeping on the bed beside the corpse of Desdemona. As he weeps, he brings up the handkerchief, which he believes proves Desdemona's guilt. Emilia tells him that she stole the handkerchief at Iago's request and handed it over to him. Emilia also informs the distraught Othello that Desdemona was faithful to him and loved him. Othello weeps because he has killed an innocent woman he loves due to being deceived by an evil man. He weeps because he has wronged his wife and thrown away her life and all his happiness for no good reason.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of using social media for debate?

The main detriment of using social media as an arena for debate, is the anonymity of the users. People get mean, very quickly, when they aren't dealing with individuals face to face. Somehow being in the virtual world makes it easier to lose one's scruples, and sense of decorum. I've seen this happen again and again on Facebook, and other sites. What starts out as a wholesome and well balanced discussion can quickly deteriorate into a situation where labels and insults are being hurled in every direction.
The benefits of social media, as a tool for debate, are not always evident to me. It is accessible by most, and a social outlet for many. It also provides a way of engaging that takes less effort and energy than interactions that require being fully present, and in person do. It can sharpen wits, and open minds to unique manners of thinking.

Social media has changed the way most people live their lives on a day-to-day basis for either business purposes or personally. Platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, and many other social media outlets may serve a different meaning for people such as keeping up with family and friends, being a social media influencer/entrepreneur or merely learning how to make a new recipe. While visiting your favorite social networking sites, it is essential to keep in mind that social media has many advantages and disadvantages.
Advantages of Social Media
Social media can be helpful in many ways, and many instances can make you accessible in ways that weren’t always possible.
1). Business Opportunities
Social media provides business opportunities for corporations, entrepreneurs, and many types of professional organizations. Individuals can quickly sell their products and have direct access to customers around the world.
2). Real-time Updates
Social media is an excellent source to stay updated on the news as events happen. If you are interested in what is going on all you have to do is get online at any time of the day, and you can stay current with news, politics, sports, or any other topic that you may be interested in at the time.
3). Sharing Common Attributes
What’s great about social media is you can follow individuals or join groups who share similar interest as you or maybe even your dislikes. Commonality groups can be helpful in sharing ideas, tips, or supporting each other. Also, social networking sites can provide live feeds for church services, counseling sessions, and a plethora of additional interest.
Disadvantages of Social Media
Social media has risks that you should be aware of when visiting these websites.
1). Identity Theft
You must be aware that individuals scan social media for individuals posting their personal information. Thieves only need minimal information which could completely ruin your life. Bankrate stated that Millennials share so much of their lives online making then the fastest growing group of identity theft victims.
2). Distracting
If you’re not careful, you could waste hours by mindlessly browsing on social media. It is easy to get distracted by constant notifications which could cause you to procrastinate and neglect your daily responsibilities at home, school, or work.
3). Being Hacked
Many employers regularly check social media sites to ensure their employees aren’t posting inappropriate content. Social media accounts are hacked on a daily basis and hackers could post information that could cause a lot of problems in your life. So, it is integral that you safeguard your personal information and don’t click on random links that could be used to gain access to your computer taking control of your social media accounts.

These are just a few of the advantages and disadvantages of social media, so have fun but always be mindful of the information you post.

Further Reading:
https://www.lifewire.com/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-social-networking-3486020
https://www.techmaish.com/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-social-media-for-society/
https://socialnetworking.lovetoknow.com/Advantages_and_Disadvantages_of_Social_Networking

There are several advantages and disadvantages to using social media for debate. First, let's examine the advantages.
One of the main advantages to debating on social media platforms is that the debate can be held asynchronously, which means, "out of time." One person can create a point, and others can take as much time as necessary to research, compose their thoughts, and deliver a counterpoint. This can lead to more thoughtful debates.
Additionally, social media has a further reach than your immediate social circle. By using social media to debate, you may be exposed to opinions from people with vastly different perspectives and experiences than you.
Other advantages include a record of the debate that is easily searchable and the fact that the debate can easily be picked up again at a later date.
The main disadvantage of debating on social media is that many people may not take the debate seriously. People may approach the debate with different goals: some wanting simply to "win" while others want to honestly explore a question. Additionally, online debates are often sidetracked by unrelated points, which can get all participants off-topic. Finally, most people do not tend to cite source material in social media debates, which can make it difficult to find and evaluate the source of each point made.

The advantages and disadvantages of debating on social media are closely related. The main advantage is that social media is a very inclusive, open platform on which people can express their opinions. This makes for a more frank, honest debate among people who would otherwise never get the chance to debate with each other.
However, the downside to such openness is a lack of quality control. Not all debates are the same; some are more illuminating than others. All too often social media seems to encourage a form of discourse that is at times angry, offensive, and highly abusive. As people who debate on social media can hide behind a cloak of anonymity, this often encourages the spread of extreme opinions. Racism, misogyny, and support for various terrorist groups thrive on social media due to the anonymity that the various platforms have the capacity to provide. In turn, this means that social media has become a breeding ground for trolls, creating a profoundly hostile environment for far too many people.

What is affirmative action? Identify the reason that its supporters argue for it, and two reasons why opponents argue against it. What methods of affirmative action has the Supreme Court found to be unconstitutional, and which forms does it permit?

Within the context of the United States, affirmative action—in its broadest sense—is a series of laws and regulations intended to remedy historic discrimination against certain groups by extending special consideration to members of those groups, primarily in terms of educational and employment access. This has generally been accomplished by setting target goals for employment and admission of certain groups and creating outreach programs designed to recruit members of such groups.
Supporters of affirmative action contend that racism has become institutionalized in the United States and that, unless proactive steps are taken to address its consequences, members of some minority groups may be permanently and negatively impacted by discriminatory employment and educational policies.
Opponents believe that the target goals set by affirmative action are not significantly different from race-based quotas, which risk denying jobs to qualified persons not part of the target group in favor of lesser qualified persons who are members of the target group. They also contend that the legacy of racism in the United States has evolved since affirmative action was initially advanced, making affirmative action policies redundant and unnecessary.
According to the State University of New York, the Supreme Court has determined that affirmative action is illegal if

(1) an unqualified person receives benefits over a qualified one; (2) numerical goals are so strict that the plan lacks reasonable flexibility; (3) the numerical goals bear no relationship to the available pool of qualified candidates and could therefore become quotas; (4) the plan is not fixed in length; or (5) innocent bystanders are impermissibly harmed.

How do the characters' actions and the setting support the theme of the "American Dream" in Paul's Case?

The setting of "Paul's Case" is important to the theme of the American Dream. When the story was first published in the early twentieth-century, the Progressive movement was becoming increasingly prominent in the United States, challenging the damaging economic and social consequences of unrestrained industrial capitalism. In large cities such as Pittsburgh, where Paul lives, the poverty, exploitation, and greed of the Gilded Age were on display for all to see. It was in cities like these that Progressivism received its widest level of support.
Yet despite the growing criticism of capitalism, the American Dream still captured the public imagination, and Paul is as devoted to pursuing that dream as much as anyone. He feels completely at odds with his surroundings—his family, his school, and his social class. He yearns to escape from his humdrum middle-class existence and emulate the opulent lifestyles of the robber barons and captains of industry who display their wealth in patronizing the high arts.
As we often see in American literature, however, the headlong pursuit of the American Dream can all too easily lead people to do things they really shouldn't, and Paul is no exception. Instead of working or studying hard to gain a better life for himself, he succumbs to the temptation of easy money and steals from his employers. Paul is so trapped in this fantasy world he's built for himself that the only way he can live the dream is through theft. The robber barons of Pittsburgh whom Paul so deeply venerates earned their name for a reason. What they did on a massive scale, Paul does at a much lower level. But the abiding moral is the same: the obsessive pursuit of wealth can corrupt and destroy lives.

How does Odysseus display hubris?

Hubris is having too much pride and believing you can do no wrong. It is self-confidence run amok.
Odysseus has many reasons to be proud of himself, especially in the context of his warrior culture. He is strong, brave, wily, smart, and overall a good leader. But he brings disaster his way when he gets too cocky.
The most famous example of his hubris is when, having blinded the Cyclops and made his escape, he can't resist shouting out his identity to his injured foe. This allows the god Poseidon to punish him and his crew:

if any man on the face of the earth should ask who blinded you, shamed you so – say Odysseus, raider of cities, he gouged out your eye…

This is a extremely foolish thing to do. The smart move would have to been to get away unidentified, but Odysseus cannot stand the idea that the Cyclops wouldn't know who had bested him. Odysseus just has to have credit for what he did, as if there will be no consequences. It is like having to tell your enemy that you robbed his bank.
And then, still swaggering, Odysseus has the nerve—or hubris—to say to his men:

Did I not keep my nerve, use my wits, to find a way out for us.

Odysseus will learn to be less arrogant, but not yet.

An additional example of Odysseus's hubris comes in Book IX when he tears into his men, calling them "mutinous fools." They are indeed in a restless mood. After all, the men are starving, and so they don't take kindly to Odysseus telling them to put to sea after they've barely finished plundering Ismara— the land of the Cicones.
In recounting his tale, Odysseus puts the blame squarely on his crew's shoulders for the misfortunes that subsequently befall them, such as an attack by Ciconian reinforcements. In blaming his men for everything that's gone wrong, Odysseus is displaying great pride and arrogance, not to mention a distinct lack of leadership. He can't very well blame hungry, thirsty men for wanting to take the opportunity to fill their bellies. That he does so is a clear indication of hubris.

Another important Greek idea is hubris. In our modern usage of the word, it means excessive ego or pride. In ancient Greece, it meant specifically excessive pride toward the gods. Many tragedies occur because a human defies or insults a god. In The Odyssey, Odysseus’s hubris gets the better of him when he taunts Polyphemus. He is so confident and arrogant about his triumph over the Cyclops that he makes a terrible mistake. When he gives his real name to Polyphemus, he incites the anger of Polyphemus’s father, the sea god Poseidon.

What is difference between surrealism and absurdism?

This is a good question, as the line between surrealism and absurdism is not always a clear one. This is particularly the case because they both fly in the face of any rational expression of an idea or concept. However, they have different goals. You can think of surrealism as an introspective examination and absurdism as more outward-looking.
Think of surrealism as an attempt to express notions and ideas that normally reside in one's subconscious. Surrealism is a means to explore concrete ideas through an irrational lens. For instance, Salvador Dalí, perhaps the quintessential surrealist artist, explores the concept of time in his famous painting Persistence of Memory, but not in a way that is concrete or realistic. Surrealism distorts reality in favor of the twists and turns that happen in the subconscious parts of our minds.
Absurdism, on the other hand, is more concerned with pointing out the irrationality of the universe itself. It favors chaos over order. Unlike surrealism, absurdism is not so much interested with notions of human thinking and the inner working of the mind. Instead, it aims to point out the futility in applying order in an orderless existence. An absurdist would argue that it is pointless to try to make order out of the chaos of existence. Therefore, it aims to point out that institutions such as religion, politics, and even society are ultimately pointless.
https://m.theartstory.org/movement/surrealism/

https://philosophyterms.com/absurdism/

Do you believe that criminals are rational decision-makers, or are they motivated by uncontrollable psychological and emotional drives? Explain your stance.

To start, the question poses two extremes: deciding rationally to commit a crime, or committing a crime under the pressure of emotional disturbances. What we find in experience is a spectrum of emotional and psychological factors, some more influential than others, but generally we focus less on motivations (i.e., reasons why) and more on culpability of intention or knowledge of wrongdoing at the time of the crime. Therefore, the question itself poses a duality that limits our descriptions of criminal behavior.
For example, in American jurisprudence, there are generally four categories of mens rea, or "guilty mind": purposely, knowingly, recklessly, and negligently. Doing something purposely means that someone wants a result and acts specifically to obtain that result. Knowingly means someone does not act in furtherance of a particular result, but nevertheless knows that the result is likely to be realized. Purposely and knowingly are as such considered "intentional" crimes. Unintentional mens rea include recklessly and negligently. Recklessly means that someone understood a risk of causing harm, but disregarded the risk and acted anyway. Negligently means that the actor "should have known," or should have recognized the risk.
Using this framework of intentional and unintentional action (focusing on intention, knowledge, disregard, and lack of knowledge), evidence of rational decision making and evidence of emotional duress might appear in any case. Criminal defendants present a full spectrum of control, from precise planning to momentary lapse in judgment. To answer the question, the duality of one-or-the-other (i.e., full control versus uncontrolled) does not account for a variety of culpable states of mind.

Every crime is different, so it is difficult to answer this question. What we can say is that criminal law in most legal traditions distinguishes, to varying degrees, between crimes committed by calculating, rational actors and those directly resulting from a mental illness on the part of the accused. Most people who have even a passing familiarity with the legal system—even if only through television and movies—are familiar with the plea "not guilty by reason of insanity." There are multiple aspects to this, but all generally have the same characteristics: the accused is not guilty if he or she was not able to control themselves at the time of the crime or if they were not able to understand the consequences of their actions, provided that these conditions are proven to be the result of some mental illness. So-called "crimes of passion" may result in a lesser sentence or even a lesser charge if it can be shown that the accused was acting out of irrational rage rather than calculated malicious intent.
On the other hand, there are individuals who commit calculated crimes based on a rational (if amoral) calculation that they will benefit from the crime. Indeed, the majority of so-called "white collar crime" falls in this category because the convicted knew what they were doing and that it was wrong. Violent, calculated crimes receive harsher sentences than those committed out of passion. First degree murder, for example, is usually willful and calculated. So, to repeat, people commit crimes for an array of reasons, and legal systems, especially as our understanding of the human mind expands, reflect this recognition.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/crime_of_passion

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_degree_murder

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/so-sue-me/201411/how-plead-insanity

How did the Freedom Summer impact the civil rights movement of African Americans in US history?

The Freedom Summer project, which began as a voter registration campaign in Mississippi in 1964, impacted the broader movement for civil rights in a number of important ways.
First, the campaign helped build popular support for federal legislation to protect voting rights for African Americans. It illustrated the will of black Mississippians to vote—thousands participated in a mock vote held prior to Freedom Summer—and it also illustrated the violence with which white Mississippian leaders resisted black aspirations to political agency. The deaths of Michael Schwarmer, Andrew Goodman, and James Chaney outraged the nation.
These efforts helped build the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, a wing of the party from Mississippi that tried to gain seats at the 1964 Democratic National Convention. They were denied these seats, an action that illustrated a split in the Democratic Party over the issue of civil rights. Over time, many southern Democrats would bolt from the party.
The violence of Freedom Summer contributed to the growing militancy of the civil rights movement and of American youth as a whole. The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, or SNCC, was made up of many young men and women who became disillusioned with the conventional tactics that characterized the mainstream movement. Some of their leaders began to feel that these tactics were too slow and that they did not lead to the radical change they thought was necessary. SNCC would ultimately expel its white members, but many of the young college students, white and black, who came to the state for Freedom Summer returned to their campuses deeply disillusioned with the state of American democracy. Some—Mario Savio of the University of California at Berkeley, for example—formed the vanguard of the campus free speech movement of the late 1960s.
https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/freedom-summer

How would you describe the relationship between Aunt Jennifer and the tigers in "Aunt Jennifer's Tigers"?

Aunt Jennifer is the creator of a set of needlepoint tigers. And it's perfectly clear from the start that she's immensely proud of them. They're almost like surrogate children to her, a sad fact that reveals the emptiness that lies at the heart of her troubled marriage.
She imbues them with the characteristics and personal qualities that she herself patently lacks, such as strength and fearlessness. It is just these qualities that Aunt Jennifer admires so much about her tigers, qualities that she will never be able to develop within the restrictive confines of a traditional marriage in which she's expected to be demure and subservient. If only she, too, could fear no man.
Aunt Jennifer greatly admires her tigers. She knows that, long after she's departed from this world, they will never change. They'll still be there, prancing around, proud and unafraid.

How does Isobel’s actions/motivations affect the institution of slavery in general and where she lives?

Marlon James’ novel explores the insular world of a single plantation in late 18th-century British colonial Jamaica. The Wilson family owns the Montpelier plantation; after the death of Patrick Wilson, his son Humphrey assumes control. On a nearby plantation, Coulibre, Isobel is the daughter of the master, Roget. Of European heritage but born in the New World, she is classified as “creole.” Part of the plot concerns the growing romance between Humphrey and Isobel, of which his mother, who is British, disapproves.
The plantation owners overall are depicted as brutal in their treatment of the enslaved African heritage people, including beatings and even murder. Many of the black workers were born on the estates and their fathers are often European heritage owners and staff. On Montpelier, one of these biracial children is the teenage Lilith, who becomes a house slave. While serving a meal, she spills hot soup and burns a guest who is there to chaperone Isobel Roget. Infuriated, Isobel convinces Humphrey to have Lilith beaten across the back with a bullwhip—not once but numerous times over a period of weeks. The scars form a “quilt” on the girl’s back.
Isobel next takes Lilith to serve at Coulibre, which initiates a series of events that prove tragic for her family. Her father sexually abuses both male and female slaves. While taking a bath, he attacks Lilith, who retaliates by drowning him. When his wife enters the room, Lilith kills her as well, then sets fire to the house. Two young Roget children are killed. Lilith escapes detection by lying, but other slaves are killed in retribution. Isobel, who was not on the property that day, suffers a mental breakdown. After Humphrey breaks off their relationship, she descends into promiscuity and drug addiction in Kingston’s underworld. Lilith becomes the mistress of Montpelier’s Irish overseer, Quinn.
Isobel’s brutality can be seen as causing her relatives’ deaths because she acted so viciously toward Lilith. However, Lilith also had free will to commit or refrain from committing any of the violent acts. Isobel’s actions also caused the death of the slaves who were falsely accused, but again Lilith can be considered partly responsible because she lied to protect herself.
Britain abolished the slave trade in 1807, but slavery itself continued. The law passed in 1833 abolished slavery throughout the empire as of August 1834. On Jamaica, both the work of reformist abolition societies, often run by Quakers, and numerous slave rebellions are both considered major contributors to abolition. Individual behaviors, including violent acts, combined to have a cumulative effect, but because Jamaica was a colony, the binding decisions were made in London.

In "The Handsomest Drowned Man in the World" by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, a great change takes place in a remote village on a seaside cape after a beautiful drowned body washes to shore. How and why do the people in the village change after the appearance of this dead man?

The great size and beauty of the drowned stranger who washes up on their shores impresses and inspires the people of the village to become more than what they are or even imagined they could be before he arrived.
The dead man first appears covered in mud and scales. The women scrape him clean while the men go to the neighboring villages to find out if they are missing anyone. Even before he is scraped clean, however, the villagers are impressed with the drowned man's size and weight. When the women can actually see him, they are amazed with how handsome he is. They decide he is

the tallest, strongest, most virile, and best built man they had ever seen.

They call him Esteban. The name alludes to an Estevanico, a legendary man, considered by some to be the first African man to come to the American continent in the 1500s. Estevanico was understood to be a sort of superman who knew many languages, was a healer, and might even have been a god.
The women now want him to be buried properly, so they use wedding cloth and a large sail to make him clothes. When the tired men arrive back, however, they at first grumble at the women for their adoration of this man, but when one woman reveals his face by removing the handkerchief covering it, we learn that "the men were left breathless too." They also accept him as Esteban. We learn that even the least trusting men "shuddered in the marrow of their bones at Esteban's sincerity."
The villagers are changed for the better because of Esteban's magnificence. Their lives, formerly without flowers, now literally blossom as they festoon the corpse with blooms. As the story says, they

knew that everything would be different from then on, that their houses would have wider doors, higher ceilings, and stronger floors so that Esteban's memory could go everywhere.

They dream of planting flowers:

They were going to break their backs digging for springs among the stones and planting flowers on the cliffs so that in future years at dawn the passengers on great liners would awaken . . .

The flowers symbolize the villagers' transformation to new life. Esteban himself symbolizes how something new and different arriving in our everyday world can bring significant change. He becomes a role model for them and a blank slate onto which they can project their desires. Esteban therefore also symbolizes the power of the imagination. It is as if the villagers seize on this dead man and make him into their leader, kinsmen, and inspiration because they need such a figure to breathe new life into them. After all, we learn that the children had been "playing with him all afternoon, burying him in the sand and digging him up again." If they could bury and dig him up so easily, it is possible he was not as great as the adults make him out to be. This suggests that the adults want to exaggerate and idolize him. Esteban becomes the needed symbol of all their desires and their focal point for gaining the will to pursue their dreams.

Why does Magwitch die in Great Expectations?

Even though Abel Magwitch is condemned to death by the court for violating his exile, his illness and injuries ultimately spare him from the hangman's gallows. During his attempted escape down the Thames River, Magwitch gets into a fight with Compeyson (ch. 54). During this struggle, he falls into the cold river and receives two broken ribs and a punctured lung. He never recovers from these injuries.
During the trial (ch. 55) and after the death sentence is handed down, Pip makes daily visits to Magwitch in the infirmary. Magwitch is in a really bad state and getting worse by the day. Finally, right before Magwitch succumbs to his injuries (ch. 56), Pip tells him that his daughter is alive and a beautiful young woman. Hearing this, the old convict dies with a final pleasant thought in his mind.

What were the causes and effects of the War of 1812?

The short answer is that the primary cause of the War of 1812 was the British putting in place extraordinary maritime measures to prevent the American business interests from trading with other European countries, specifically France. The Americans saw the expansion of trade critical to the economic success of the country. The British were engaged in a long-term war with France, which began around 1795. The French countered the moves by the British and attempted to limit American trade with the British. America was caught between two foreign powers both, which they desired to keep friendly economic relations. What was primarily a European dispute erupted into a war jeopardizing American interests overseas and in mostly French-held lands west of the Mississippi River.
Both the French and British attempted to solicit help from Native Americans, who were suspicious of western expansion from territories east of the Ohio River Valley and Mississippi River. Eventually, the bulk of Native American tribes either sided with the French or moved further west, attempting to remain neutral. In November of 1811, after years of trying to find a negotiated settlement with Great Britain and France, President Madison called a special session of Congress.
In a close split vote in the House and Senate, in June of 1812, a declaration of war was introduced and passed. The vote split the Northern from the Southern Congressman and Senators, as the north (where the important ports were located) favored negotiated settlement with the British and a return to expanding trade. The south and west were in favor of going to war, as their interests were far more local than international.
Some historians claim the desire to fight Great Britain by southern and westerners was a belief that the British maritime infractions were an insult to the international reputation of America, and war was the only recourse to restore America in the eyes of the international community. At any rate, historians generally agree the British were caught off-guard by the declaration of war and were much concerned they would be fighting a war on two continents.
The immediate effect of the War of 1812 was economic. The entire American continent suffered from not being able to trade internationally. Some economists believe the war led to the earliest recorded depression in United States history, which Jefferson warned the nation about in 1814 and officially started in 1819.
The War of 1812 hurt the fledging economy of Great Britain as well. Over-expansion into colonies and rising costs of the war crushed British economic fortunes. The result was that over time, the British were unable to sustain their position as the economic leader in the world and premier naval power. The decline of British power was remarkably swift in the eyes of some historians.
The United States had purchased from the French the lands west of the Mississippi River in 1803, doubling the size of the United States territory. Until the War of 1812 ended, settling and controlling the area was made difficult by French and British fighting—additionally, both nations incited Native Americans to fight settlers moving west. The most detrimental effect of the War of 1812 is the exacerbation of American regional hostilities between northern and southern interests. The close votes in Congress and the subsequent political arguments were the first signs of a potential threat to a unified federal system of states.
Eventually, these arguments were the precursors to the battles over slavery and, in the end, civil war. Finally, the United States established itself as a potential filler to the vacuum of power left by European interests embroiled in political battles on European soil and beset by severe economic problems that restricted their ability to expand. The United States was no longer hindered to grow west on the American continent and had proved itself internationally as a military power capable of defending its interests abroad.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1801-1829/war-of-1812

https://www.fpri.org/article/2017/03/causes-war-1812/

https://www.theglobalist.com/panic-of-1819-the-first-major-u-s-depression/

Please write a short commentary on William Shakespeare's "Sonnet 14."

In Shakespeare's "Sonnet 14," the speaker begins by saying that he cannot "pluck" judgement, or knowledge, from the stars, even though he understands astrology. He says he is unable to predict or "tell of good or evil luck, /Of plagues, or dearths." Neither can he read the heavens for knowledge of each man's fortune, be it, metaphorically, "thunder, rain . . . [or] wind." In the seventeenth century, many people believed that the fortunes of people and societies could be determined by the movements of the stars.
In the second half of the sonnet, the speaker says that it is only from "thine eyes" (the eyes of the person he is addressing) that he can "derive" his "knowledge." He says that this person's eyes are his "constant stars." This is likely a reference to the North Star, which always appears to be in the same place in the night sky—sailors use it to navigate their courses through the oceans. The speaker also says that in this person's eyes, "truth and beauty . . . together thrive."
At the end of the poem, the speaker entreats the addressee to turn his attention "to store," meaning that he should think about procreating, so that the beauty and truth in his eyes can live on. Otherwise, the speaker says, the day of his death will also be the day that truth and beauty dies, or, as the speaker puts it, "truth and beauty's doom and date." This is a love poem. The speaker is declaring his love for this person because he finds, in his eyes, a knowledge and a beauty that he can't find anywhere else.

What do the boys want to do when Ralph says that they have to keep searching?

In chapter 6 of Lord of the Flies, Samneric have had a right old scare. They've seen the parachutist's dead body dangling down from the trees and mistake it for the Beast they think has been stalking the island. The two petrified little boys run back to camp, where they tell the others what's happened. Ralph and Jack put an expedition together to go look for the Beast, with only Piggy and the littluns left behind at camp.
The expedition reaches a steep hill pockmarked with little caves. Though initially rather frightened and hesitant, Ralph soon plucks up the courage to venture into the caves in search of the mythical creature. As is often the case, however, the other boys in the group are less than helpful. Instead of exploring the caves with Ralph, they prefer to mess around, playing games and throwing rocks into the sea. They're treating the whole expedition as if it were nothing more than a giant lark.

Why does Pahom want to buy land from the Bashkirs?

Pahom wants to acquire as much land as possible because of his greed. In the story, Pahom's sole goal in life is to acquire as much land as he can get his hands on so that he can attain wealth through it. It is a telling example of colonialism and the relentless pursuit of wealth.
The Bashkirs promise to sell him as much land as he can traverse in a single day, which, to Pahom, seems like the deal of a lifetime. What he doesn't realize is how devastating his greed will be. The Bashkirs seem to understand that his greed has already completely consumed him, and he will be unable to resist the temptation to take as much as he can. When he tries to, it leads to Pahom's demise, revealing that, no matter how much land he tried to acquire, he only needed about six feet—for his coffin.

The simple answer is that he's very greedy. Pahom just loves buying land. In fact, he can't get enough of it. His reputation for acquisitiveness has made him an object of hatred among the other peasants, but Pahom doesn't care. His sole ambition in life is to buy as much land as possible and become a wealthy landlord.
So, when he comes across the Bashkirs, he thinks he's hit pay dirt. The Bashkirs make Pahom what appears to be the deal of the century: they will sell him as much land as he can traverse on foot in a single day. Pahom's so blinded by greed that he doesn't see the inherent dangers in what appears to be such an unbeatable bargain. In the course of trying to walk around as much land as he can, Pahom ends up dropping down dead from exhaustion. Pahom's insatiable greed for land has killed him. He failed to realize that the only answer to the question "How much land does a man need?" is "Enough to bury his coffin."

What does Luella Bates do for the boy once they arrive at her house?

Roger's failed attempt to steal the purse of Mrs. Luella Bates Washington Jones lands him at her house. After dragging Roger down the street, Mrs. Jones' first direction to him upon entering her home is to tell him to wash his face. Roger notices the door is open. Instead of running, he does as he is told and washes his face. Roger informs Mrs. Jones that no one is at his house. This leads her to believe that perhaps he tried to steal her purse because he was hungry. However, Roger shares with her that he wanted the money for a pair of shoes. While Mrs. Jones prepares dinner, Roger has another opportunity to run. Again, he chooses to stay. Over dinner, Mrs. Jones tells Roger about her job. Once Roger is well-fed, she hands him ten dollars, tells him to behave, and wishes him a good night.

Instead of reporting Roger to the police for attempting to snatch her pocketbook, Mrs. Luella Bates Washington Jones takes pity on the boy and takes him home with her. Once there, Mrs. Jones determines that the boy must be hungry—that's why he tried to steal her pocketbook, she figures. Roger says that he actually wanted to buy a pair of blue suede shoes, but he also mentions that there's no one home at his house. This further conveys the impression that Roger's a poor, neglected child who looks like he could do with something to eat. So Luella fixes them both a modest little meal. She makes some cocoa out of canned milk, heats up some lima beans and ham she'd been keeping in the ice-box, and cuts Roger a slice of her ten-cent cake.

What does Locke say is his purpose?

To find your answer to this question, I would refer you to Book I, Chapter I, which provides an introduction to the treatise that follows. Here, Locke lies down his methodology, if you will, and the themes which he will focus on in the work which will follow.
I'd point you towards the second point in the introduction, where Locke writes:

"This, therefore, being my purpose—to inquire into the original, certainty, and extent of human knowledge, together with the grounds and degrees of belief, opinion and assent"

He proceeds, in section 3, to lay out his methodology, by which he will pursue this course of study. He will start by trying to discern just where our ideas come from, "and the ways whereby the understanding comes to be furnished with them." From here, his next task is "to show what knowledge the understanding hath by those ideas" and, thirdly, he would intend to study how people come to form various opinions and beliefs about the world around them (in his own words, he is referring to "that assent which we give to any proposition as true, of whose truth yet we have no certain knowledge.")
Finally, in Section 4, he defines his terms. A lot of his analysis hinges on his use of the word, idea, which here he defines in an unconventional matter (he writes that it is "whatsoever is the object of the understanding when a man thinks").
In short, this essay is an epistemological essay, detailing how humans come to form awareness of the world around them, from the root kernels of human cognition to the more complicated and nuanced themes which arise from them. It's an analysis of the workings and functions of human mental activity.

What does “To have squeezed the universe into a ball / To roll it toward some overwhelming question” mean? Kindly enlighten me in detail.

This is one of those all too brief moments in the poem when Prufrock seems on the brink of seizing the day and abandoning himself to his carnal desires. In the quoted line above, Eliot alludes to a similar line in Marvell's "To his Coy Mistress," where the speaker urges his beloved to roll up all their combined strength and sweetness into a ball. What Marvell is referring to here is the union of himself and his mistress in the act of love-making.
Prufrock desperately wants to make a similar move and succumb to the temptations of the flesh; but try as he might, he cannot. He remains utterly terrified of committing himself in this way, body and soul. And so he asks himself whether it would've been worth it "to have squeezed the universe into a ball / To roll it towards some overwhelming question." This is his way of trying to console himself, to convince himself that perhaps it might not have been such a good idea to face his fears and have sex with a woman after all.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/poems/44212/the-love-song-of-j-alfred-prufrock

How do prominent authors/philosophers feel about music?

Though your question seems rather broad, I assume you're asking primarily about the views expressed by writers and philosophers about music. We have to restrict ourselves to a relatively small selection of opinions, so I will choose three writers of the nineteenth century whose views have been considered distinct from those of others and who have been seen as of particular importance in the literary world and the world of ideas.
E. T. A. Hoffmann (1776–1824) was a German writer best known for his Gothic fiction in short stories such as "Mademoiselle Scudery," "The Sandman," and "Ritter Gluck." But Hoffmann's work as a music critic, and his inclusion of subject-matter focusing on music in his Romantic tales, are just as important as his Dark Romantic tendencies. In the short story "Don Juan," Hoffmann creates a philosophical interpretation of the plot of Mozart's opera ("Don Giovanni" in Italian) embodying the Romantic idea of man vs. the conventions of society. The most significant point, however, is that Hoffmann identifies Mozart's music as the element that expresses this view independently of the libretto or the bare storyline of the opera. Mozart, in Hoffmann's view, creates his own world of ideas which possess a "higher" reality than that of words, and Hoffman transforms the Don Juan story into a kind of proto-existential parable of man asserting himself in an otherwise meaningless cosmos.
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860), in his book The World as Will and Idea, similarly sees music as the highest art form. Schopenhauer's view, so far as I understand it, is that while other arts such as literature and painting, which are directly "representational," are an expression of what he identifies as "the will," music is the will. A famous quote from Schopenhauer is that "music is the melody whose text is the world." In other words (and to oversimplify), music is a more direct expression of reality—or rather, it is reality in an unmediated way, unlike literature and painting, which are copies of reality. Both this view and Hoffmann's view are typical of Romanticism, especially German Romanticism, with its focus on the irrational and emotional basis of the world and of human emotion. It is not a coincidence that during this period, the early nineteenth century, purely instrumental music—symphonies, sonatas, and chamber and piano music, with Beethoven as the leading—began increasingly to be considered more important and more fully expressive than the vocal-instrumental forms such as opera and religious music.
The last writer we'll examine is Leo Tolstoy (1828–1910), whose ideas were quite different from, if not actually the opposite of, those of Hoffmann and Schopenhauer. Though Tolstoy was familiar with classical music in the way any upper-class European of his period was expected to be, he had little feel for it. In his novella The Kreutzer Sonata (named after a piece by Beethoven), he expresses the view that music is a dangerous art form because it stirs up the emotions in an uncontrolled manner and because it creates thoughts that are not fully comprehensible or identifiable. Various other writers and intellectuals through time have been resistant to the value of music for the same reason, in effect, that Hoffmann and Schopenhauer praised it—that it represents a form of expression not rational and not able to be analyzed and given definite meaning like that of literature.
The above are merely a sampling of views in answer to a very broad question, but they are a starting point for one wishing to understand the diversity of opinion about music and its function in the world of the arts and ideas.

How does the narrator feel immediately after he commits the murder in The Tell-Tale Heart? Do his feelings change? If so, how and why?

After planing the seemingly-perfect murder, the author executes his plan, murders the old man, and disposes of the body. We realize that he had no particular feelings of any kind toward the victim; he didn't hate the old man, nor did he like him. He is completely neutral and killed him with no particular reason.
After that, however, instead of feeling some sort of twisted, morbid fulfillment, he feels immense guilt and regret. He tries to calm down, but he fails, and he begins to hear a faint thumping sound in the distance. Confused and a bit paranoid, the murderer begins to think that the faint rhythmic sound he hears is, in fact, the old man's heartbeat. He panics and confesses to his crimes.

FDR asks a lot of people to make a sacrifice in his speech "The Four Freedoms". Does he make this request adequately?

This question is in reference to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's State of the Union address of 1941, in which he delineated four freedoms that people everywhere in the world ought to have. To be able to give an answer, it's necessary to put the speech into historical context.
When FDR gave this speech, Hitler was already oppressing nations in Europe, and World War II had already begun, although the United States had not yet become involved. It was 11 months before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. FDR realized that it was inevitable that the United States would eventually enter the conflict, and he was attempting to convince the lawmakers and the public to pull away from their long-held stance of neutrality.
FDR outlined four basic freedoms that were essential. First was the freedom of speech and expression. Second was the freedom for people to worship God in their own way. Third was freedom from want, which Roosevelt saw as "economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants." The fourth was freedom from fear, which involved "a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor."
At the time, the Four Freedoms speech was very popular, but many anti-war activists continued to criticize any efforts by the United States to become involved in the conflicts taking place elsewhere. Roosevelt was not able to resolve the impasse and get the United States into the war until after the direct attack on Pearl Harbor.
As for the last part of this question, whether Roosevelt adequately expressed the need for people to make sacrifices in the cause for freedom, this is a subjective decision. Read the speech over carefully and decide for yourself if FDR's eloquence was up to the task.
https://rooseveltinstitute.org/four-freedoms/

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/franklin-d-roosevelt-speaks-of-four-freedoms

https://www.roosevelt.nl/fdr-four-freedoms-speech-1941

What are the positive values and behavior from the character David from the book "I Am David" by Anne Holm?

As well as a great first name, David has a number of admirable qualities, which he displays at various points throughout the book. For one thing, he's incredibly brave. Escaping from a concentration camp and heading across Europe to find safety would be hard enough for an adult, let alone a twelve-year-old boy. But then David's no ordinary twelve-year-old. His terrible experiences of life in a concentration camp have made him mature beyond his years.
After the death of his friend and teacher Johannes, he completely cuts himself off from those around him, never permitting himself to develop any affection for another living soul. Now this may not seem a particularly admirable attitude to hold, but in the context of life in a concentration camp, it's crucial that David cultivates such a detached mindset. He knows that if he develops any kind of emotional attachment to anyone, then it can easily be broken as he and his fellow inmates are vulnerable to death at any moment.
So David figures that the best thing to do—indeed the only thing he can really do under the circumstances—is to concentrate purely on survival. Not only does this attitude help him endure the daily privations of the camp, it also gives him the requisite courage to embark upon his long, dangerous trek across the European continent.
As he proceeds on his journey, David continues to maintain his high moral standards, refusing for example to accept payment for a stranger for services rendered. The very fact that David has chosen to undertake this journey alone is a further indication of his strict value-system. He doesn't want to be responsible for getting anyone into trouble; this is his journey, and he will make it alone.
Despite the rigidity of his personal moral code, David shows that he has the capacity to change. And this is a further sign of positive behavior on his part. In due course he comes to realize that he can't do everything by himself; that he will need the assistance of others in achieving his goals. In doing so, he doesn't just learn to avoid death, but crucially to live life as well, to enjoy the simple things of life once more, such as good food and the joyous sound of laughter free from cruelty.

What does Zits mean by saying that "Flight is supposed to be beautiful. It's supposed to be pure."

Zits is the main character of the novel. He is convicted of shooting people in the lobby of a bank. While in holding he undergoes several transformations and ends up in the body of Jimmy. Jimmy is a pilot whose best friend was named Abbad. He taught his friend how to fly and is proud to be able to share such a beautiful skill. However, he is devastated when his friend turns out to be a terrorist. Abbad crashes his plane into downtown Chicago. Jimmy feels a sense of guilt for having been the one who taught Abbad how to fly. He also experiences a great sadness in the disappointment that his friend hurt so many.
In this quote Zits is reflecting on how beautiful moments and actions can be made evil in the wrong hands. Flight is a beautiful thing, however, Abbad used it for evil. Similarly, his friendship with Justice gave him confidence and trust. However, Justice manipulated him into committing an act of violence.

How could I compare and contrast the Southern and Middle Colonies?

You could discuss geography and how it affected colonial populations and land use; the Middle colonies contained a more extensive system of rivers, which made trade more efficient. As such, there were larger enterprises there, including timber and mining. The Southern colonies were comparatively less urban, with scattered farms that grew more cash crops. As plantations were established, there were more slaves and indentured servants concentrated in the Southern Colonies, particularly South Carolina and Virginia.
Literacy rates were comparably higher in Middle colonies's urban areas, in which wealthy individuals could afford tutoring in reading and writing. The population demographics also differed. The middle colonies were founded by a more diverse group of Europeans, including the Dutch, Germans, Irish, and Swedish, furthered by policies of tolerance. The Anglican Church of England was established throughout the Southern Colonies, and Anglicans made up a majority of population.

In Farewell to Manzanar, how did Japanese Americans improve their living situations in Manzanar?

In Farewell to Manzanar, Jeanne Wakatsuki recounts her experience being sent to an internment camp with other Japanese Americans during world war two. The first part of the memoir recounts the feelings of anxiety that sprang from the evacuation and relocation of her family and neighbors. Once in the internment camp, the people there find their living conditions barely passable—the walls let in dust, and the camp is not finished.
One of the first things the Japenese people do is accept the problems they face. In chapter four of the memoir, the phrase shikata ga nai appears as a constant refrain. The phrase means “this cannot be helped,” and the Japanese people use it as a means of coping with the issues they are facing in the camp. Anytime something happens that is undesirable but ultimately out of their hands, they allow themselves to let it go by using the phrase. For example, mama dislikes using public restrooms, but she stomachs it because she must, and she uses the phrase to overcome the struggle:

Like so many of the women there, Mama never did get used to the latrines. It was a humiliation she just learned to endure: shikata ga nai, this cannot be helped. (Chapter 4)

Along with simply accepting conditions they cannot change, the Japanese Americans move to fix things they can change. One way some of the Japanese Americans tried to improve their living conditions was by demonstrating, protesting, and eventually rioting. The riots had a mixed effect, and some Japanese rioters were killed, but conditions did improve afterward. The story tells us,

In the months before the riot the bells rang often at our mess halls, sending out the calls for public meetings. They rang for higher wages, they rang for better food, they rang for open revolt, for patriotism, for common sense, and for a wholesale return to Japan. (Chapter 9)

The bells ringing were a sign of community cooperation for action. The entire community came together to bring change for themselves. It was a spectacular vision of the unity towards their demands, and eventually, some change began to happen in the way the government treated them.
They also changed their lives by tending to the land and the existence they were forced to live. The tended the land by planting gardens, trees, and other foliage that allowed them fresh food and something to do during the day. They also created social programs like music, art, dance, religious classes, and cultural ceremony lessons - these allowed the Japanese Americans to master things that would enable them to escape the camp through the art, but also helped them see themselves as American—something they were denied by American society beyond the camp.